#when will i learn that if i view this as anything less than superficial fun it will leave me hurt

[quietblissxx]

.

[lutethebodies]

✨Let's talk about OCs!✨How would you describe your OC's personality/aesthetic? What's your favourite thing about them? Tell us a fun fact(s) about your OC or their creation

❤️Send this to at least 3 people to spread some OC appreciation!❤️

OC Personality/Aesthetic: Cannor Coth

Just wildly stoked that I've been asked to do this. I can and have waxed excessive about all of my Elite Eight Tavs, but since my asker @trappedinafantasy37 (whose character post is here) once described him as "the only bard I like," I'm gonna dance with the human that brung me—the bard who I played when getting back into the roleplaying hobby after three decades, the one I loved enough to write and record (in lieu of fic) seven songs from his point of view—the infamous yet underwhelming Lost Singer, Cannor Coth.

My goal with Cannor was if he were to get attention at all (in- or out-of-universe), it would be of the "he doesn't look/act/seem like a bard" variety. I'll try to keep this unique from everything else in his tag or his Tav Tuesday double-whammy or his Minthara relationship tag, but longtime readers may notice some overlap. I'll also try to keep this as short as possible (he says, preposterously), because it mostly boils down to the protesteth-too-much idea of "my elf bard is different!" so I'll offer a courtesy cut, with the rest below it:

PERSONALITY

Because, well, Cannor is different, superficially at least, from other more famous bards—both in his own universe and ours. His defining feature is his utter ordinariness; he's very much a performer who's not that performative. He's not a creepy lecher or a useless fop or any of those other clichés. He can pretend to be all that Volo-Marillion-Jaskier shit but finds it exhausting over time. Whatever time he spends out in public—whether in lordly courts or tumbledown taverns—must be balanced by relative isolation, both to decompress and analyze as needed. He certainly thinks too much; he leans into the idea of "lore" bard in terms of amassing tons of general knowledge and trivia.

He's had to learn that for his day job: a nebulous combination of envoy, entertainer, spy, saboteur, and other rogueish traits. He's not an official diplomat; he's the guy that diplomat hires to find out what people are really saying or thinking in places like shops, inns, winesinks, or street corners. He listens more and talks less—but when he talks, he knows exactly what to say in any given situation. In his line of work he can't afford to be overtly obnoxious, so Cannor's m.o. is more observation over outrage, more analysis over annoyance. A gig is a gig, and any job worth doing is worth doing competently—but a little flair or flourish here and there for emphasis won't hurt. Indeed its absence makes its deployment arguably more effective.

Did I realize, five years ago, that this was a trope so common that the D&D movie would adopt it for their main guy Edgin? I did not. Ah well; Ed can't wield a whip like Cannor (another cliché!). But what matters is that Cannor is first and foremost a professional. He makes a point to be good at whatever he does, but that doesn't make him good. He can be self-centered to a fault, and his overall cool control can't always keep him out of trouble; a backstory (which he's so ambivalent about that one of his few close friends had to write it) of poor parenting, malicious mentoring, and laissez-faire love has definitely left its mark. So, for all intents and purposes a rogue, but who tips into bard-dom because what he makes is more important than anything he takes; he values creativity over all else. He follows the muse.

AESTHETIC

Cannor is aesthetically well past whatever prime years anyone would expect of a bard-as-entertainer. He's a little bitter and jaded, a little slower and out of shape, a little wrinklier and grayer than the hot young kids tearing up stages and masquerades these days. For an admittedly pretentious guy he doesn't really dress like one; he wears nondescript darker outfits of mostly green, brown, or black (and favors padded or leather armor when required to wear any). He plays a big, long-necked lute tuned lower, and he plays it simply and succinctly—no dazzling virtuosic instrumental flourishes—as rhythmic accompaniment for what he sings. And even that can't really be called "singing" when it's more like a sneering, drawling, mumbling vehicle for his wordplay.

"FUN" FACTS

Infertility. Cannor is unable to father children, the inadvertent result of his captors' abuse during an extended incarceration in a foreign dungeon. Does Minthara know this? Yes, and I'm told she's fine with that. It would actually be the least of their problems if they stay together for very long after the events of BG3.

The Whip. I needed a finessy, less-violent way for Cannor to survive in my brother's combat-heavy 5e campaign, so mechanically a "swords bard wielding a whip" combined with his spell list worked out pretty well. Lore-wise, he had to be trained by one of his savvier, more violent friends—a fellow prisoner who broke him out. Sadly, in BG3 his best option for this is to spell-snipe Thorn Whip.

Ignominy. For Year Zero of my own homebrew game (but also other stuff like my brother's campaign and the BG3 Prologue), Cannor is at rock bottom: exiled to the sticks and boonies of nowheresville, with no prospects and no way home. Nobody knows him well or takes him seriously anymore. The only way left to go is up. In BG3, that monkey's paw curled via the nautiloid.

DEVELOPMENT

As a graphic designer but maybe not a "real" visual artist (though I do have my moments), I've tried to represent my guy's appearance in several ways, many of which have involved extensive and substantial work in Photoshop (for better or worse, my weapon of choice). I've also built him using HeroForge and Lego.

Is Cannor a self-insert? Yes and no. He's a wildly exaggerated version of some of me—a cartoon of some of my best and worst aspects. And that is no sin; as he (and I) say: "Doesn't everybody sweeten life with lies? Doesn't everybody self-mythologize?" You can reply "no" but I won't believe you.

As a muse, he's a great face to stand behind when I do creative things like self-publish fantasy atlases and self-release recording projects. Those two projects are two of the best things I've done and I'll never be too shy to say that. For better and worse, when I make something good I want my name on it, even if his name is also on it.

Thanks again to my asker. I love this guy and I guess I lied about keeping it short. If you made it all the way down here, thanks for the indulgence.

[moo-nstone]

the sun through the houses 

sun in the 1st house: you irradiate confidence and self-assurance, as if you know exactly who the fuck you are and what you're here to do and people are very drawn to that kind of energy in you, to the way you're so full of life, spontaneous, ready to face anything that life throws at you and your ambitious nature. you thrive when you're uplifting others to feel as good as you do because you don't want to shine alone, and because on the inside, you might be much more insecure than people are aware of - you understand what it's like to be at rock bottom, but you're good at hiding this part of yourself. can be very controlling and competitive, and if you were raised in an environment where your parents used to fight a lot, you might chase conflict wherever you go. be careful with being arrogant and proud, and be aware that your strong energy might overwhelm a lot of people. whatever you do, you follow your heart. you need appreciation and recognition from others. you keep your cool in the most stressful situations. 

sun in the 2nd house: you crave to achieve financial success; here, the planet of the ego is tied to the house that rules material possessions and our self-worth, so you want to achieve power by getting rich because that's how you feel safe. you're very talented when it comes to business and making good investments that'll allow you to get to the next step. when it comes to your ambitions, if you want something, you'll work hard for it and only stop when you get it. you're very witty, with your dry humor and sarcastic personalities, you truly have the best comebacks lmao and above all, you always keep your word. you take pleasure in everything lavish that life has to offer; you have great taste and know when something is of value almost instinctively. you need to make sure you're appreciating the people in your life instead of only what you own and your ambitions because you're at your best when you're expressing your kind and generous side. you might be into retail therapy when you feel sad or empty, but afterward, you might feel terrible because the fulfillment shopping gives you is only temporary. careful with being controlling or possessive. 

sun in the 3rd house: you use your mind like a weapon. you truly have a way with words and you're able to express yourself in a way that leaves everyone wanting to know more about you; but most of all, you crave to keep on learning more and more and to expand your knowledge, because that's what feeds your soul. spontaneous personality; bold but unpredictable and you feel a sense of pride whenever you think about your friends, they're very important to you. you have the capability to bring stories to life, this placement is amazing for aspiring writers, and you like analyzing your surroundings which, in turn, makes you a very adaptable person. constant change in your way of thinking because you're always viewing things from different perspectives. you can become easily bored when you aren't feeling mentally stimulated, which is why you're always seeking new experiences, communicating with others and why you live so much in the present. persuasive. people who don't seek to expand their minds terrify you. you refuse to live in the shadows of your siblings, you have a need to stand as your own person. 

sun in the 4th house: when the planet of the ego is in the house of our family life, our inner experiences and our childhood trauma, you are blessed with a rich inner experience that leads you to want to delve deep into what you went through and how those experiences shaped you into the person you are today – and that means the trauma you went through, too. if you had bad experiences in your child, your journey is longer and harder because you find it harder to understand life, and you might've compared your home life to the "outside world" a lot, feeling like they were two different entities (think sinclair from demian). you're very caring and nurturing and very attached to your family, either the one you were brought under or the one you want to establish. having a home that feels cozy and safe is what brings you security, and you want to bring happiness to the ones you love the most. be careful with being too pessimistic and feeling paranoid that something bad will suddenly happen, and also with being too controlling and domineering. you need a lot of reassurance, but be careful with coming off as if you don't trust your loved ones. very strategic, you play the long game. 

sun in the 5th house: you literally irradiate artistic talent and creativity! you thrive when you express yourself and your originality and get recognized for it, and appreciation for your efforts is very important to you. intelligent, you can be very cunning and strategic, at the same time that your optimism and spontaneous nature naturally commands attention from others. very dramatic, you shine in the eyes of others. but although you have a happy aura to you, you can be very hard on yourself, thinking you're not good enough whenever you're not being appreciated. at your worst, you can have an exaggerated sense of pride, dominating energy, manipulative tendencies or feeling less than others. you may fluctuate between focusing a lot on yourself and being overly generous with everyone in your life. bold, you do a lot just to feel alive. you're very loyal and love deeply, passionate and nurturing, but be careful with involving yourself with people who take advantage of that. you should realize that appreciation should come from yourself and not others. if you add discipline to your originality, you can become very successful. 

sun in the 6th house: one of your driving forces is your attachment to your work and your need to be of service for others and to be recognized for your efforts. health, dieting, exercise and keeping a structured routine are very important to you. you have a constant need to be perfect and that can be your own worst enemy, because when you or others aren't meeting your high standards, you might feel like you're weak and have your insecurities taking over you. you can't stand being told what to do. very self-aware. a tendency to be a workaholic because it's what makes you feel proud of yourself; you need to feel like you're making the world a better place. stress can easily physically affect you, you should understand that validation needs to come from yourself and not from others, and accept that having imperfections is human, it doesn't make you weak! careful with having a routine too restrictive that doesn't allow you to have fun, work can become an obsession for you. you truly always want more and need to keep busy and productive to feel safe. don't let your insecurities stop you from pursuing your ambitions. 

sun in the 7th house: you have a very strong sense of justice because of your capability of analyzing a problem from all different perspectives. you need to bring peace everywhere you go and to help others in any way you can. you have a special charm that others feel drawn to, and many admire you for your caring nature and talent at giving advice, making you often the center of attention in the middle of groups. sociable and good with words, you're very persuasive; although you might tend to identify yourself too much with what others think of you – you should understand that others' opinions aren't that important and it's how you view yourself that matters. you crave affection and are very sensitive when it comes to your relationships, you would do anything for your loved ones and you're very in tune with their needs. you can have people-pleasing tendencies because you're terrified of rejection. you're determined to succeed and to build an amazing self-image because you have a gift when it comes to social intelligence. can have some open enemies.

sun in the 8th house: can attract a chaotic life that pushes you into achieving transformations because that's how you grow and evolve, through the process of death and rebirth. you can't deal with superficiality and you crave deep connections with people, intimacy and to evolve with the person you love. creative. you may feel like the universe sends you messages so that you'll reach an awareness of some kind. you love experiencing new things and especially with yourself, you constantly look forward to changing your appearance and your spiritual or emotional views on the world. you feel a need for self-improvement. very secretive, you value privacy more than anything and you don't allow almost anyone to figure you out. you might be terrified of not finding people who want to connect with you as deeply as you want with them. tendency to isolate yourself emotionally, as in you might open up to others about superficial matters but when it comes to emotions, you're terrified of showing that part of yourself. you want to help others through their darkest times. 

sun in the 9th house: you love learning and dream of exploring the world, it's like you can absorb any information that you get your hands on. very idealistic and dreamy, it's hard for you to keep grounded on reality and material things when you're so concerned with the metaphysical, to understanding the secrets of the universe and all that is spiritual, philosophical, religious and transcendental. so enthusiastic and curious, it's like you can't stay still for a minute and long to go on adventures. you can see the best in people, but be careful with only seeing their good parts – you need to understand that nothing is black or white and people are morally grey and complex, not all bad nor all good. might be very pessimistic if you've gone through something traumatic that completely shattered your perceptions of the good in the world; you might feel like things are never going to get better (i promise they are). very proud of your knowledge. high ideals and honesty. loyal to your beliefs always. careful with being too authoritative. 

sun in the 10th house: when the planet of the ego falls in the house of social status, you seek power above all. you want fame, notoriety and to lead, and when not achieving what you want, you might become insecure. you can't help that ambition runs in your blood, but you should make sure you're doing things because you love doing them and not just to get recognized. it's like you need to achieve so that you can feel proud of yourself because you never felt that kind of support when you were younger, and achieving success feels like a life or death matter to you. you ooze charisma and you naturally draw attention to yourself, wanting to be recognized for your talents. very aware of how others perceive you. but even if you're a great leader, you hate following orders which can make you have problems with those in charge – be careful with making enemies and with stepping on others to get what you want, it’s very important that you keep a strong sense of morals or else you can grow to be arrogant and tyrannical. at your worst you can start abusing your power; at your best, you can use it to better the lives of all those around you like a true leader.

sun in the 11th house: here, the planet of ego is in the house of friendships, hopes, inventions and the collective, making you shine when you're able to help others. your friends are the most important thing for you, but be careful with identifying too much with them. you carry yourself with so much confidence, you're so full of life and with a love for learning and giving to others. eccentric personality and big dreams. you want to stand for a cause that matters to you alongside others who you love. others gravitate towards your magnetism, individuality and friendly nature, naturally looking up to you as a leader. if you happen to have been betrayed in the past, you might shut yourself completely from friendships due to a fear of trusting the wrong person again, but please don't deny yourself your need to socialize and to express your revolutionary ideas to others because you truly shine when you're around those who you trust and help you grow. 

sun in the 12th house: you might have a very hard time understanding who you are and your identity, and because of this sense of unclarity about yourself + your intuitive and empathetic nature where you absorb others' energies like a sponge and need a lot of solitude to recharge yourself, you might feel like you need to keep a mask in public, to play a character to feel safe interacting with others. plus, it doesn't help that you have perfectionist tendencies and hate failing and making mistakes. there's a tendency to feel very insecure and misunderstood, and to feel melancholic and with turbulent emotions, so you should be gentler with yourself and allow yourself to express your sensitivities, the way you're so compassionate and giving. because even if you need time to recharge for introspection, you shine when you can help others. be careful with developing self-destructive behaviors. artistic tendencies because of the depth of your emotions and inner world. you can be truly wise and others might see you as an "old soul" because of that. you might be a night owl. psychic potential. 

[immaturityofthomasastruc]

Remember Eggman? You know the fat guy with a mustache? He’s taken has a threat while being a goofy character,like screeching he’s butt while watching the news or the way he was animated like he was constantly drunk while walking but that’s just superficial traits because Eggman is and was treated like a threat when he did things like

Awaken a god of chaos

Blow up a prison island

Blow up half of the moon to make a statement

Hold Amy hostage with a gun on her head while threatening to blow her head

Commit genocide

Slave entire especies

Rip the planet apart

And kill sonic the fastest thing alive and almost succeeds

Yes he had a downgrade with time becoming a joke villain but that was because of the flanderization but at least in the comics and the movies give him justice making him a goofy yet serious threat

But the problem is the point of hawkmoth is being this stylish,threatening,tragic and serious menace which doesn’t leave much for comedy

I have more fun laughing how the adult Akumas get the patience of hawkmoth to the limit than the akumatized kids because is funny how adults acting like kids and hawkmoth being the straight man

And the mister pigeon thing isn’t funny but degradatin because it makes hawkmoth a laughingstock

Comedy with serious characters is hard but if that implies your serious villain has to be Cosme a joke then is not worthy because it ruins the sole purpose and idea of hawkmoth

Every character has a base which the character is build upon

Plankton:fails at he’s plans and takes himself serious yet is a laughing stock for how pathetic he truly is

Eggman:is goofy but he’s a despicable and sadistic war lord which never thinks he’s plan twice which constantly almost destroys the planet and he couldn’t care less because he went to insane to destroy a hedgehog

Bowser:a simple,repetitive and threatening villain but at the core he’s just a light hearted villain which constantly is taken more serious than needed and he’s love for he’s family and peach usually show this more goofy side

Aku:he’s personality is the thing that makes him so funny but without that personality he kinda commited genocide and everyone was terrified of him even a father saw he’s son die for disrespecting aku and did nothing because he couldn’t do anything, everyone but aku took the situation seriously making the point of him being a big deal above everything which evolved with time and couldn’t care for anyone for himself and laughing at others

Team rocket:a repetitive laughing stock with charisma but they’re just goons supposed to be funny while Giovanni or the main villain is the serious threat

Kind dedede:is not the main villain or a villain at all and even he gets more respect from me than hawkmoth

Hawkmoth is like the character is made for 1 thing but the writers tried to do something the character isn’t made for which completely destroys it

Another thing about all the villains you mentioned were from franchises with pretty light-hearted stories, and don’t try to go too dark with their motivations. You never see Plankton wanting to make enough money so he can afford the life-saving surgery his niece desperately needs, or Eggman trying to use the Chaos Emeralds to power his machine designed to repair the ozone layer. They’re simple villains with simple motivations.

With Gabriel, after learning his plan in Season 2, it makes it hard to take him seriously as a goofy supervillain because of how seriously his scenes with Emilie are taken. If he views being Hawkmoth as a necessary evil, why is he still giving evil monologues and laughing like a stereotypical supervillain? I’m not saying he has to be serious all the time, but it’s like one second, he’s relishing in the suffering of innocent civilians, and the next, he’s like “I am going to rewrite all of reality for the sake of my comatose wife, which is a very sympathetic motivation for almost starting World War III”.

There’s just no consistency, and at times, it feels like Hawkmoth was made to be two characters with how much the writers change his personality. I remember that when we first learned about Mayura, the showrunners say that she would supposedly outdo Hawkmoth in terms of evilness, and what did we get instead? An occasional field agent for Hawkmoth who occasionally creates a Sentimonster ally for an Akuma before getting benched at the end of the season because she used a broken Miraculous that made her sick for reasons that still haven’t been explained.

I mean, if you’re going to make Hawkmoth the more sympathetic villain, why not make Mayura the true megalomaniac with world domination for a goal to contrast him. That way, you get an irredeemable (and possibly wisecracking) villain and a more sympathetic villain at the same time, giving you the best of both worlds

[gendercensus]

Supplementary survey: they/them reflexives, The Sir/Ma’am Issue, and Spivak vs. Elverson

This short, clarifying survey ran from 4th until 24th April 2021. There were 2,998 usable responses. Unlike the annual Gender Census survey, this one was open to anyone of any gender, provided they lived in an English-speaking country.

It asked about two things:

They/them verbs and reflexives - basically whether people who prefer they/them pronouns prefer the reflexive to be themself or themselves, and which people feel is more “correct”.

Sir/ma’am/? - investigating why people use sir/ma’am in areas where it’s polite and common to do so, and whether there are any viable nonbinary or gender-neutral alternatives.

This blog post will also investigate the Spivak vs. Elverson issue, which was actually a separate poll that took place on two social networks.

~

THEY/THEM VERBS AND REFLEXIVES

Someone asked about themself vs. themselves, and it reminded me of some of the they/them issues that people ask about in feedback boxes and various confusions surrounding them.

Singular they - what is it, and when and how do people use it?

Plural they - what is it, and when and how do people use it?

What is the “correct” reflexive for each of these?

You can see the statistics in more detail here, but here’s the graph as an overview:

Participants were asked a series of questions about singular they pronouns. Everyone was asked a “which is correct” question, and participants who sometimes or always like to be called ”they” were also asked about their personal preferences.

The graph is a view of only participants who sometimes or always like to be called “they”.

Verbs. As you can see, participants overwhelmingly (94.3%) wanted people to use plural verbs (”they are reading a book”) when talking about them in the third person - even though the percentage of people who thought that was the most “correct” form was a little lower (81.8%). This was lower because 11.4% of participants who preferred “they” answered “both are correct”.

Reflexives. People were much more likely to say that both themself and themselves were correct (28.3%), and more likely to have no preference between the two (17.4%). However, themself was still more popular overall at 59.3%, and 47.3% thought themself was grammatically correct.

You as a control. I also asked all participants whether yourself or yourselves was more correct when addressing one person as a kind of control question, because they is almost grammatically identical to you - it can refer to one person or multiple people, it takes plural verbs even when referring to/addressing one person, and in that situation only the reflexive changes. Many people who say that singular they is grammatically incorrect have no issues with singular you, so it seemed like something that might be interesting to compare. In the graph above you can see that 93.6% of people thought yourself was more correct; only 4.2% of they-accepting participants felt that both yourself and yourselves were equally correct when addressing one person.

There were a couple of things that came up several times in the comments:

“They is” is common in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), and probably in other dialects too. As I don’t live in the US I’m pretty unfamiliar with this dialect, but either way that seems fine to me. It’s part of why I also asked for participants’ locations, because I wanted others to be able to download the results and see if some regions were more likely to use some words/constructions than others.

There were some alternatives to themself and themselves presented, such as theirself and theirsen. Both of these points lead nicely to the third...

The idea that any language choice is more “correct” than another is quite prescriptive. What feels correct or natural varies depending on a lot of factors, such as where in the world you learned English, and there is no such thing as objective correctness when it comes to such a broad and variable language as English.

I am aware of and agree with that third bullet point, so my asking which phrases were more “correct” was a bit of a trick question. It was a good way to get a feel for people’s linguistic instincts.

I also thought it was interesting that participants who never wanted to be called they were slightly more likely to side with the most popular view on what is “correct” across the board, and less likely to say “both are correct”.

~

PLURAL VS. SINGULAR THEY

I actually ran another version of this survey first and then scrapped the responses, because it was clear that my survey design was leading to some pretty confused and unhelpful data! Among other things, it asked participants whether they preferred singular or plural they for themselves and then directed them to particular questions based on their answer, and the comments suggested that people either didn’t really understand the distinction or meant different things by those terms, even though I had added help text.

This is my understanding:

Singular they is they/them pronouns when used to refer to one person. Verbs are usually plural (i.e. “they are” rather than “they is”), and themself and themselves are both common. Example usage: They are getting themself a cup of coffee. They bought themselves a nice new hat.

Plural they is they/them pronouns when used to refer to two or more people. Verbs are usually plural (i.e. “they are” rather than “they is”), and themselves is almost universal (with the exception of regional variations such as theirselves). Example usage: They are getting themselves some coffee together. They all bought hats for themselves.

Some plural/multiple people refer to themselves as “we” and prefer to be addressed as “they/themselves” (which they call plural they) because they are a group of individuals sharing one body.

The reason I initially asked directly about singular vs. plural they is because I was concerned that plural/multiple systems would cause some statistical confusion. Many plural people have asked me to add plural they to the checkbox list of pronouns in the annual survey, but since it has never been entered by over 1% of participants I have never had reason to do so. As far as I knew, the only difference between singular and plural they is the reflexive (themself for singular and themselves for plural), so I wanted to be able to investigate non-plural people in isolation, and I was curious to know about any trends or differences. I wanted to find out if I should be doing anything differently to ensure that Gender Census statistics are helpful.

So, I swapped out the badly-designed question for a straight-up checkbox, a “check this box if you’re plural/multiple” type of thing, with a note that participants should fill in the survey once per body wherever possible, and then I made some graphs.

Here you can see that plural systems were still more likely to prefer people to use themself to refer to them rather than themselves, though the margin is narrower:

Plural participants were also more likely to say that they sometimes or never want people to refer to them as they, whereas non-plural people were more likely to want people to always refer to them as they (or they just feel fine about it):

There’s not a lot in it, though. It’s all relatively evenly distributed, with no strong leader in either category there.

For the curious: 8.2% of participants checked the plural/multiple box.

In conclusion: plural and non-plural people alike all prefer people to use themself when referring to them in the third person using they/them pronouns, and I feel that there is probably no need to ask about plurality or separate out data from plural people in future. (Asking about this and seeing the responses did in part prompt me to start an anonymous feedback form for plural participants of the Gender Census, though.)

~

THE SIR/MA’AM ISSUE

For several years participants have been asking me in the feedback box of the annual Gender Census survey to also ask about gender-inclusive or nonbinary-specific alternatives to sir and ma’am. I’ve largely not done anything about it, because when informally asking around I’ve generally had the response “just don’t say sir or ma’am, just leave it out altogether.” I live in the UK, where if someone calls you sir/ma’am you’re either looking at home in a fancy restaurant for billionnaires or you’re being made fun of - or sometimes both.

However, during this year’s annual survey while talking about it in a little more depth I learned that there are places in the world where sir/ma’am is very common, required for politeness, and basically inescapable. Nonbinary people in those areas are really struggling, because they do actually need a nonbinary-friendly stand-in for those terms - omitting the sir/ma’am isn’t an option.

Again, the location question was asked so that anyone else downloading the spreadsheet of responses can analyse by region to find out whether sir/ma’am is ubiquitous in particular regions and in which contexts it is used, and can even check whether there is a region-specific alternative to sir/ma’am emerging. I asked several questions about sir/ma’am, including about reasons/contexts and personal preferences, and some superficial analysis is included on the spreadsheet of responses.

But the juicy bit is the nonbinary-specific and gender-inclusive alternative words, right?

[The counting formula is case-sensitive so I made everything lowercase to make the count a little more accurate.]

Suggested gender-inclusive alternatives to sir/ma’am

mx - 4.1% (151)

friend - 2.2%

comrade - 1.2%

captain - 0.7%

ser - 0.5%

mate - 0.4%

m - 0.3%

per - 0.3%

boss - 0.3%

folks - 0.3% (9)

Suggested nonbinary-specific alternatives to sir/ma’am

mx - 8.3% (250)

mix - 0.7%

tiz - 0.5%

friend - 0.4%

ser - 0.4%

comrade - 0.3%

mixter - 0.3%

captain - 0.2%

ind - 0.2%

mir - 0.2% (6)

So it looks like Mx (pronounced “mix” or with a toneless vowel that sounds a bit like “mux”) is the clear winner in both categories. If you want to try to introduce a gender-neutral version of sir/ma’am in your area this one is probably your best bet.

~

SPIVAK VS. ELVERSON

This wasn’t part of the same survey! It was a Twitter poll and a Mastodon poll that ran for one week and ended today, and I’m putting it here because it has to go somewhere.

Sometimes people refer to the ey/em and e/em “versions” of the Spivak pronoun set, which makes my eyebrows do things, because they’re not both Spivak. They are distinct established pronoun sets with their own names.

Spivak - e/em/eir/eirs/emself - written about by Michael Spivak in the 1990s. [source: Nonbinary Wiki]

Elverson - ey/em/eir/eirs/emself - created by Christine M Elverson in the 1970s. [source: Nonbinary Wiki]

The Elverson set is older, but it’s less well-known for some reason, so they’re assumed to be variants of Spivak due to the similarity in spelling.

I was recently asked how we can know which is more popular, given the “oh this checkbox option is close enough, I’ll just choose that instead of typing in my very slightly different set” effect and the “hmm this checkbox option is very close to my set, I’m probably meant to choose this one” effect, plus the boost that checkbox options get with the “oh I hadn’t thought of that one but yeah, why not” effect. Spivak (e/em) is on the checkbox list of pronouns in the annual survey, so it appears to be much more popular than Elverson (ey/em)... but is it really?

I ran a poll on both Twitter and Mastodon, and then used a spreadsheet to extract the useful numbers. There were 141 relevant votes after one week. I wouldn’t usually make annual-survey-altering decisions based on a sample that small, but in this case the results are extremely decisive:

It seems that the highest proportion of people who like at least one of the sets are happy for both to be used, at 48%. 45% prefer ey/em (Elverson) and 7% prefer e/em (Spivak). This is pretty stunning! I’ve been presenting e/em (Spivak) as a checkbox option on the Gender Census annual survey for years, possibly since the first survey in 2013, and because it’s a checkbox option it seems to be consistently a lot more popular than ey/em (Elverson). That’s 4.3% and 0.6% respectively in the 2021 survey. But this poll suggests that actually ey/em (Elverson) is much more popular when the two pronoun sets are viewed on a level playing field.

When you remove all “I don’t mind” votes, you get this:

Over 6 times as many people prefered Elverson!

I will definitely be adding Elverson to the Gender Census next year, just so that we can split the e/em and ey/em votes and really get to the bottom of this.

Anyway, while we’re on the topic, ey/em takes singular verbs most of the time.

[allaboutve]

FAVORITE MOVIE REVIEWS: #9 THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, John McTiernan

My ninth favorite movie is perhaps my most embarrassing.  The Thomas Crown Affair is fundamentally a date movie that happens to be about a heist.  And call me a liberal fruit bat, but the film articulates some very problematic values.

However, The Thomas Crown Affair benefits from being one of my favorite movies from my adolescence and does a lot of things right.  One of these is its representation of New York City, which is not accurate in detail as much as in spirit.

As an adult I appreciate the relationship between Thomas Crown, played by Pierce Brosnan, and Catherine Banning, played by Rene Russo.  There are no easy answers in the movie or in their fun yet troubled romance.  

Although The Thomas Crown Affair is shamelessly materialistic its moral strength is its honest amorality.  It never mistakes its main characters’ drives with a higher sense of right and wrong, which is sadly becoming the norm in today’s media.

Thomas Crown is a Wall Street Mergers and Acquisitions giant with a fondness for one particular painting--Noon - Rest from Work by Vincent Van Gogh. He affectionately calls it “Haystacks.”  

Late for work and stuck in traffic, he leaves his personal chauffeur in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to view the painting from a bench the impressionist wing.  It should be mentioned that Crown brings a briefcase containing his lunch, which he eats in the museum.  

He shows up later in the day at the Wall Street headquarters of his company Crown Acquisitions, having accidentally left his briefcase in the museum.  Crown spends the rest of a busy day looking at his watch, waiting for the day to finally end.  Crown finally leaves the office with another briefcase and returns to the Met.  

I should mention that over the course of the day, a foursome of Eastern European thieves smuggle themselves into the museum hidden inside a Greco-Roman Horse (“Trojan Horse”) preparing to heist the very same wing Crown frequents.  Their heist is unrealistically complex--involving crawling through air ducts, sabotaging the air conditioning and an airlift via helicopter.

When Crown arrives, he discovers the nefarious goings on and draws museum security to it.  Security thwarts the art thieves before anything is stolen.  But not quite.

1999 audiences knew from the trailer that Thomas Crown would steal one of the paintings.  But in fact, the entire heist was orchestrated by Crown.  While the impressionist wing is sealed and the thieves apprehended, Crown slides under the closing gate, steals one painting off the wall and stashes it in a briefcase hidden under a museum bench.  He left the briefcase in the Museum intentionally!

And Crown is only able to make his escape because one of the gates is wedged open by the second briefcase he brought work.  We later learn the briefcase was loaded with titanium.  

Crown does not steal his “Haystacks.”  Instead, he steals a painting by Claude Monet San Giorgio Maggiore at Dusk.  The movie sets up the painting early on as the watershed painting by Claude Monet that founded the Impressionist movement, worth $100 Million.

(It should be mentioned that this backstory is made up for the movie.  The Claude Monet painting that founded the Impressionist movement is named Impression, Sunrise.  It is actually housed in Paris and its subject matter is superficially similar to San Giorgio Maggiore at Dusk, though less dramatic.)

This is our first insight into Crown’s personality.  Crown spends the early part of the movie fantasizing of an easier life, like the man enjoying a siesta in Noon - Rest from Work.  But it is a facade.  Crown is after the drama, dynamism and richness embodied in San Giorgio Maggiore at Dusk.

The above synopsis is only approximately the first twenty minutes of the film.  The rest of the movie focuses on the investigation of the robbery.  On the case are two NYPD detectives (“Michael”) McCann and Paretti--played by Denis Leary and Frankie Faison.  

Having four thieves in custody, they want to treat the case textbook and overlook some of the unusual details.  But they are joined within the first hour of their investigation by a Private Investigator named Catherine Banning, played by Rene Russo.  

Her job “is the painting.”  Already a nuisance to the detectives, she sits in on the Witness ID of the thieves, in which Thomas Crown is the witness.  Banning gives Crown several suspicious glances, the gears in her mind turning.

After doing some research Banning discovers Crown has a habit of bidding on paintings by Claude Monet at auctions.  She becomes certain that he stole the missing Monet, and after she resolves other details of the robbery McCann and Paretti believe her.

The rest of The Thomas Crown Affair involves Banning’s attempt to retrieve the missing Monet by seducing Crown--who also appears to be seducing her.  While the plot develops it becomes unclear to both whether Banning is after the painting or Crown.

Whether or not The Thomas Crown Affair lands depends on its execution of the romance between Thomas Crown and Catherine Banning.  More than half of the movie conforms to the plot structure of any modern romantic film.  However, The Thomas Crown Affair deviates from romance tropes in several ways that give the film life where another film’s story and characters would drag.  

(SPOILERS BELOW)

This is not to say that there are not several romance tropes littered throughout the movie.  For instance, two love triangles are forced throughout the movie--involving Detective McCann and a young woman seen dancing early in the film with Crown.  One of these love triangles even leads to a misunderstanding that makes Banning betray Crown to the police in the film’s climax.

Banning is also led astray by Crown’s wealth and privilege--a tropey characteristic of female romantic leads all the way into the 21st Century.  This would not be distracting except that it occurs during a sequence in the Caribbean island Martinique where the film’s pace otherwise grinds to a halt.

For reasons to be discussed, these appear to be problems with the script from its most early drafts.  But The Thomas Crown Affair starts to circumvent romance tropes with its first shot.  If there is a theme in The Thomas Crown Affair I have come to respect, it is the couple’s incongruent needs.  Thomas Crown is attracted to Catherine Banning because of personal insecurity.  On the other hand, Banning is attracted to Crown because he is handsome, receptive and fun to be with.

Crown’s insecurities regarding his love life are first stirred up in his first scene when his therapist questions in session whether a woman could ever trust him.  In Crown’s relationship with Catherine Banning, he tries to prove that he trusts her as opposed to earning her trust.  

From this context, Crown cannot resolve by himself his insecurity about whether a woman can trust.  He is going about it wrong.  What’s more, trust issues are only Crown’s hangup, not necessarily Banning’s.

Crown’s insecurity is not resolved at the end of the film.  At a height of tension in their relationship, Crown promises Banning he will return the stolen Monet to prove that he trusts her.  Instead she passes the information to the police.

This turn of events is perhaps the strength of The Thomas Crown Affair as a romance film.  It is true that Banning sides with the police in part because of a misunderstanding about Crown’s relationship with another woman.  This sort of misunderstanding is typical of Hollywood romance films.  

On the other hand, the film avoids a more problematic romance trope by not stating whether Banning should choose Crown or the police.  Romance films are typically coded so that a couple, especially the female-gendered half, should choose their romantic interest over their other values or responsibilities.  But The Thomas Crown Affair does not even make the case that Banning should side with Crown over the police. 

A climactic chase follows between Crown and the police inside the Met.  Crown not only returns the painting while evading the police, he steals another--The Banks of the Seine at Argenteuil by Édouard Manet.  The painting by Manet is what Banning points to on their first date, saying she would steal that one if given the choice.

Banning goes to the Wall Street Heliport where Crown asks her to meet him.  But he has already left and his associate gives her the painting instead.  A generous gesture, but Banning does not keep the painting.  She returns it to the police instead.  

In that entire sequence, Crown shows that he did not fully trust her.  And Banning does not reciprocate Crown’s further doting on her. 

Catherine Banning’s attraction to Crown is based less on her emotional needs than for the thrill.  As Crown says on their first date, “You like the chase.”  This aspect is consistent with Banning’s counterpart in the 1968 film, Vicki Anderson as played by Faye Dunaway.

However, one of the major deviations between the 1999 movie and the original 1968 The Thomas Crown Affair is the remake’s “happy” ending.  Crown arranges to sit behind Banning on her flight back to Europe and draws her attention by speaking in a Scottish accent.

The scene is ambiguous as to the couple’s future.  The fact that Crown speaks in a Scottish brogue for his last line is a callback to the couple’s first date, when he says the hardest part of attending Oxford University was “learning to talk.”  Crown finally feels free of the pretensions of English and American culture.

At the same time, Crown and Banning’s needs in the relationship are so different that it is foreseeable they are not a long term match.  

As a film romance, The Thomas Crown Affair is refreshing because its romantic leads are not necessarily perfect for each other.  They have their own motivations that are never completely reconciled or resolved.  And that is more true to life than most Hollywood romances.

The Thomas Crown Affair’s script is written with a curious indifference to materialism.  In today’s world, its tone may come off as dissonant.  But understanding its perspective requires consideration of not only the era when it was written but the people involved in making the film.

The Thomas Crown Affair was one of the first films produced by Irish DreamTime, a production company founded by Pierce Brosnan and Producer Beau Sinclair.  By the time a Director was signed, at least one version of the script was already being drafted.  The best explanation why the film conforms to romantic comedy schlock is that its first draft was written to do so.

The early version of the script appears to have remained intact, since writing credits were still retained by Leslie Dixon and Kurt Wimmer.  And since Pierce Brosnan was a producer, this means that The Thomas Crown Affair was intended as a vehicle for Brosnan.  This is made apparent in the Martinique sequence, which is also where the film’s perspective on materialism is its most loud.

In the exact middle of the film, Crown takes a holiday with Catherine Banning in his island estate.  As intimate and seductive as the setting is, Crown also advertises his lavish lifestyle to Banning.  His seduction of Banning becomes more obvious when he offers her even more money than her commission to run away with him.

This sequence was likely included at the behest of Actor-Producer Brosnan himself.  The actor has a well known attraction to tropical locales and even maintains a home in the Hawaiian Islands today.  The ambiguities regarding Crown’s criminality or immorality would then be the product of indifference by the Writers and production staff.

This part of the film stands out in the 21st Century because of several scandalous stories involving Caribbean criminal havens, including the Paradise Papers and Jeffrey Epstein’s estate on Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands.  

Obviously these scandals were not in the mind of the Producers when the movie was shot in the late 1990s.  

But Thomas Crown is also represented ambiguously throughout the film.  He is a remorseless criminal who has his hands dirtied by other schemes--bribery and offshore banking.  This is consistent with the original 1968 film where Crown was more a villain than antihero.  But more than the 1968 film, Thomas Crown is humanized as a protagonist and romantic lead.  By association his values are also normalized.

Director John McTiernan’s similarities to Thomas Crown make the film’s perspective on materialism and white collar crime suspicious.  McTiernan did more than direct.  He also (uncredited) rewrote the script and used his own property and vehicles in the film.

McTiernan’s biography is also suspect.  In 2000 McTiernan wiretapped a film Producer and later lied to Federal Investigators twice.  Prosecution would drag until 2013 when McTiernan was finally sentenced to twelve months in prison.  

During McTiernan’s first sentencing in 2006, the presiding judge publicly stated John McTiernan thought he was “above the law,” and “lived a privileged life and simply wanted to continue.”

There is reason to believe that McTiernan based Thomas Crown on himself during his rewrite.  Thomas Crown is shown not to be attracted to fame or a cushy lifestyle.  Instead, he is a thrill-seeker with a death wish.

But Crown’s motives are never stated explicitly in The Thomas Crown Affair.  Furthermore, they are muddied by the existence of a forged Monet in Crown’s possession.  The forged painting is eventually discovered by Catherine Banning.  Although Crown needed the real Monet to commission the forged Monet, we learn by the end that Crown no longer had the stolen painting when he first met Banning. 

Although the forged Monet tricks Banning, this could not have been Crown’s intent when he commissioned it.  The best explanation is that Crown intended to trick the police.  

More than that, it means Crown committed his theft intent on being found out.  This is curiously similar to the judge’s description of Director John McTiernan--that he thought he was “above the law.”  McTiernan’s detachment from the consequences of lying to Federal Investigators twice also echoes Crown’s arrogant disrespect for the police.

There are also sociological reasons The Thomas Crown Affair is ambivalent about wealth and materialism.  Public opinion about Wall Street and the U.S. financial industry was not as negative in 1999 as it is in 2021.  This is partly a result of politics changing in response to current events.  

At the same time, the Wall Street boom of the 1980s and how it changed New York City were still fresh in the public consciousness of 1999.  Especially in 1999, where big business was not yet politically divisive prior to the Dot-Com Bust.

The indifference the public had for big business is embodied by Detective McCann.  By the end of the movie, although Thomas Crown has outsmarted the police and museum security, McCann admits to Catherine Banning that he does not really care about catching Crown.  

McCann implies that compared to cases of domestic violence and human exploitation he usually investigates, the art heist by Crown is a victimless crime.  The stolen paintings only matter to “very silly rich people.”

Detective McCann is held up throughout the film as its moral center.  He has legitimate care and respect for Catherine Banning--even though it is shamelessly teased as a love triangle.  He is motivated to solve the case from a sense of professional responsibility.  In his last scene Banning even tells him, “You’re a good man, Michael.”

But McCann’s indifference to Crown’s crimes is The Thomas Crown Affair’s moral failure.  The victims of art theft are not just the owners but the public itself.  Pop culture pre-Enron was similarly indifferent about fraud and white collar crime, believing the victims were only the rich and wealthy.  

This indifference is a product of the era.  The world would learn very shortly that costs of financial fraud and white collar crime are felt more by society than by the financial industry itself.  But to Hollywood and audiences in 1999, Thomas Crown’s art theft and financial crimes were all victimless crimes.

An aspect of The Thomas Crown Affair that deserves credit is its representation of New York City.  The city depicted in the film is different from the experiences of most New Yorkers, even in 1999.

Although the film is not always shot in the correct location, the city is represented well in spirit.  Early in the movie, a truck driver making a delivery to the Met gripes when Thomas Crown crosses into his lane.  Detective McCann similarly expresses contempt for New York City’s social circuit in a manner often overhears.  “I love this neighborhood, some of these broads are wearing my salary.”

An AIDS Research Ball hosted by BVLGARI is another realistic part of New York City culture in that AIDS activism had become mainstream by the late 1990s.

The Thomas Crown Affair is shot in a part of New York City that is inaccessible to most people, yet widely advertised.  And it is represented in film authentically and amorally--if for no other reason than because the film was shot almost entirely within the city.

Perhaps the most widely entertaining aspect of The Thomas Crown Affair is its contribution to the heist film genre.  Heist films are different from other crime movies in that the narrative usually follows the criminal’s or robber’s perspective.

Heist films are also preoccupied with how the criminal will pull off the caper.  They differ from detective films where catching and identifying the criminal are the lingering mysteries.  

But The Thomas Crown Affair is different from other heist movies in that the finer details of Thomas Crown’s capers are never shared with the audience.  For instance, when Crown steals the Monet we are left to wonder how he evaded museum surveillance.  Catherine Banning offers an explanation, but the question is never answered for certain.

Another mystery lingers when Thomas Crown steals the Manet at the end of the film.  Absolutely no hints are offered as to how he managed to steal it.  Part of the attraction of films like these is they leave audiences to guess how certain events occurred.  

My favorite explanation for the stolen Manet is that Crown had a mole working at the Met steal the painting beforehand.  That also explains how Crown obtained the information necessary to steal the first painting.

Catherine Banning’s explanation for why museum security failed to capture the first theft is that a heater was left in front of the painting.  That is because museum surveillance used infrared cameras that responded to temperature, and a heater would have been just enough to interfere with the infrared camera.  I should mention now that this feature of museum surveillance is one of the more far-fetched details in The Thomas Crown Affair.  Especially today, since face recognition software is in such demand in cyber security.

Lack of realism in films about art or jewel theft is common within the genre, and especially true of the era’s other films--Mission: Impossible, Entrapment and Ocean’s Eleven.  

The purpose of heist movies like this is wonder more than realism.  And prior films have been similarly tongue-in-cheek about painting and jewel theft--such including the Blake Edwards comedy The Pink Panther.  

Films like The Thomas Crown Affair are not intended to be a blueprint for future criminals.  Ironically, The Thomas Crown Affair did inspire one bank robber who got away with the loot using the same costumed diversionary tactic as Thomas Crown in the film’s climactic chase scene.

Even though I have said a lot about The Thomas Crown Affair, there are simple reasons why I am fond of the movie.  It is a well-made movie, beautifully shot and secretly intelligent.  It is a decent representation of New York City, despite complications in the script and budget.

The movie itself is light and entertaining and leaves it up to the viewer to make up their mind.  Yes, it requires some suspension of disbelief.  Yet even in that way, it treats its audience as mature adults.  A quality rare in action or romantic films of any era. 

-ve

NEXT POST--#8 LET THE BULLETS FLY (dir. Jiang Wen)

[arlingtonpark]

SNK 137 Review

I can't unsee it.

-rubs temples-

Ok, I know I’ve been absent the past two chapters. I’ll get to why and what I thought of 135 and 136 in this post, but for now…jeez, this chapter.

It was badass and dumb and sometimes both at the same time.

Where do I even start?

-sound of pages being leafed through-

Ok, then.

I actually really like Zeke’s character. He is unironically my second favorite out of the cast.

When we first see Zeke, he’s in his beast titan form. He’s lumbering, hulking, unsettling.

He’s a titan that can talk. He’s a titan that can control other titans!

And he wiped out humanity’s second strongest with ease. I forget his name. It was Mickey, right?

Worst than that, actually. He ordered his titans to kill Mickey with all the gravitas of ordering a side of fries at McDonald’s.

Iirc fans were wondering if this new character would be the main villain of the series.

He went on to wipe out the Survey Corps at Shighanshina, and after that we learned he singlehandedly foiled his parent’s right-wing conspiracy when he was a kid.

Zeke was a mastermind who shouldn’t be taken lightly…right?

Welp, the more we saw of Zeke, the more obvious it became that he wasn’t actually all the impressive.

He wasn’t very good at being a warrior. Honestly, it seems most of his high marks comes from his unique royal blood powers, and the good will be built with Marley when he turned in his parents. TFW cronyism.

He foiled the restorationists plot, but really he was just an abused kid who wanted to get away from his parents.

He killed Mickey, but Zeke was a King Kong sized titan and Mickey was caught off guard and unarmed, so…yeah, ofc he won that fight.  

Zeke has royal blood powers, but that doesn’t say anything about his intellectual prowess or anything.

The Survey Corps was wiped out at Shighanshina, but the circumstances of that fight strongly favored him. The Survey Corps were trapped in the city, so all Zeke had to do to win was sit on his ass and do nothing.

And he almost died anyway.

Levi got the drop on him because of his own incompetence. He let himself get distracted, which created the opening for Levi to strike.

Throw in his gullibleness towards Eren, his bumbling demeanor, and his totally emo philosophy, and the true nature of Zeke Jeager became undeniable: this guy is a fucking moron.

Like.

A real fucking moron.

And that’s why his character is unironically so great!

Zeke’s character is such a brilliant subversion of audience expectations.

We were all made to believe that this guy was a Big Fucking Deal through what turned out to mostly be circumstantial reasons.

In reality, he’s an idiot who’s been failing upwards his whole life.

Zeke got as far as he did because he’s really lucky. That’s all he has going for him.

I liked the more fleshed out version of his world view we got here. It is appropriately emo.

My read on Zeke has always been that if he existed in real life he’d be an extremely online philosophy bro, so seeing his outlook on life being effectively copy pasted from 4chan was just delightful.

Zeke is 2deep4(chan)u.

Life exists to multiply. All actions are explained by this singular drive. As such, life is hollow and we’re better off dead.

Imagine that is how you see the world.

Life sucks. It’s an existence of suffering driven by a desire to ensure more people are brought into this world so that they can toil away ensuring that yet more people are brought into this world to toil away ensuring people are brought into this world.

On and on and on and on.

To Zeke, this is the cycle of violence.

Not war which begets war which begets war, but rather life itself.

One suffering existence that begets another suffering existence that begets yet another suffering existence.

That is the context from which the euthanasia plan came from: it was an extension of this broader world view.

Everyone gets a dose of pain in this world, but Eldians especially get shafted. If anyone deserved release from this nihilistic existence that is “being alive,” it’s them.

Hence, Zeke’s plan to sterilize Eldians so they can die out peaceably.

…

It’s hilarious how easily Zeke is disabused of this notion.

I’m not sure if it works from a storytelling perspective, but it tracks perfectly with what usually happens when emo philosophy bros like Zeke have their beliefs challenged.

The emo bro will go on a self-absorbed rant about how nihilistic life is. For sake of example, let’s say the reason is because morality is just an opinion and nothing is objectively wrong.

The n the guy he’s ranting to will drop a critique on the bro so devastating that they’re left speechless:

“What about murder? Isn’t murder objectively wrong?”

Emo bro: -surprised pikachu face-

I swear to God this happens a lot. I don’t know if transplanting that into this pivotal storytelling moment works, but I sure as hell enjoyed it.

But, yeah, while we’re talking about philosophies, let’s look at some others.

Armin thinks there is beauty in pointless moments. Moments that are meaningful only for the people who partake in them. They’re an expression of the love they have for each other. Those moments are worth cherishing and protecting.

He’s right, but you know who also thinks that way?

Eren does.

Superficially, anyway.

When Eren starts rumbling the world, he thinks of his friends and the fun they’ve had together. He’s doing it for them.

Of course, he’s hurt them instead, but that’s still his logic, however deranged it may be.

What separates Armin from Eren is their sense of boundaries.

There are places that Eren is willing to push on towards that Armin is not.

For that, Eren thinks Armin is weak. All Eren had to say to him when they spoke at the restaurant was how useless Armin was.

Armin can’t go the distance. He can’t do what’s necessary. He takes options off the table too easily. He wanted to negotiate instead of seeing the truth that war was inevitable.

To Eren, that’s weakness.

In reality, it’s empathy.

Armin cares about people. Even people who hate him.

Eren doesn’t. If you’re his enemy, you’re dead to him, period.

Eren has no soul.

He may have slept under his enemy’s roof, ate his enemy’s food, and saw the good in them for himself, but he’s still killing them.

I don’t care if he’s crying on the inside. I don’t care how many times he said he’s sorry to Ramzi.

That actually makes it worse.

Eren made the calculation, the conscientious decision, that the lives of billions of people across multiple civilizations were worth less than that of his race.

Not even his whole race; just the subset of his race he was most familiar with!

Eren and Armin represent two widely similar, yet subtly different philosophies.

For Eren, the world is beautiful, but you have to do cruel things to protect that beauty.

The world is cruel because it is beautiful.

For Armin, the world is beautiful, but it is plagued by cruelty.

The world is cruel, but also beautiful.

SNK made the right choice. Armin was rightly depicted as the superior worldview.

(I have some gripes about how endemic the series seems to think cruelty is to the world, but we’re ignoring that now.)

Ymir is more of a wild card than I thought she’d be.

It seemed straightforward.

Ymir had been beaten and enslaved her whole life, so when Eren offered her freedom and treated her life a human, she sided with him.

That still looks to be what happened, but it seemed like Ymir also genuinely wanted to destroy the world with Eren.

The world treated her with cruelty, so of course she’d want to burn it all. Makes sense, right?

But Ymir, it turns out, is a lot more complicated than that.

She was beaten, enslaved, raped, hunted like an animal, and after all that, she still believed in this world.

She saw two lovers together, and that embodied what made the world worth getting attached to.

Those two lovers were her conquerors. Her oppressors.

She saw the love between two of her slavers, and instead of resentment or jealousy, she simply knew it was beautiful.

If people threaten his freedom, Eren wishes death upon them.

When Ymir is literally enslaved by them, she still acknowledges the beauty of their romance.

It’s a cool layer of complexity to add to their dynamic. They’ve been through similar shit, but they couldn’t be more dissimilar.

My guess is that Ymir is sympathetic to Armin and everyone came back to life through her help.

I know Armin Zeke the credit for that, but…that makes no sense?

Eren defeated Zeke when Ymir sided with him and he started the rumbling.

Eren, via Ymir, is in control, not Zeke, so it makes no sense for Zeke to be able to do any of this.

The only explanation is that Ymir broke from Eren and now Zeke is her new best friend.

…Yeah, this is the part where I talk about the bad stuff with this chapter.

The exact mechanics of how all of this went down is very underexplained.

Zeke being able to reveal himself like he did can be chalked up to Ymir’s power, but if it’s true this was purely Zeke’s doing, then…how?

How was Zee able to do that if Eren is in control? Why would Eren even put Zeke there instead of encasing him in crystal and keeping him physically close by?

This whole final battle has been very underwhelming for me, which is why I didn’t do a review for the last two chapters.

The premise is pretty bland.

The Alliance’s main opposition in this fight are mindless drones. The titans they’re fighting have no humans inside them, they’re just puppets. NPCs.

What drama there has been here has been the same fucking crap we’ve been dealing with for the past few volumes.

Yes, Mikasa, Eren has to die.

I know this is hard for her, but my patience has run out.

Eren told her to her face that they had to kill him if they wanted to win, and then when the Alliance is riding on Falco’s back, they make the final call to kill Eren and this is the face Mikasa makes.

Like this is the first time she’s heard it.

This is the face you’d expect from a child, not a grown ass adult. 

That was the moment I became convinced Mikasa would probably die in this fight.

Her head is too far up her ass as this point.

She is utterly incapable of processing the obvious fact that Eren hates her.

Yes, he’s theoretically destroying the world partly for her, but he’s also deranged and too self-absorbed to see that he’s hurt her. He has no real regard for her. 

It is beyond annoying that there has been almost zero progression for her character on this issue.

If by this point in the story, she had accepted that Eren had to die, but was still visibly coping with that, then all would be well.

What’s frustrating is that just when it seems like we’ve progressed past that stage, we learn we haven’t.

I also feel that a lot of the major beats of the fight were pointless.

A major point in the battle comes when Armin gets eaten by the Okapi titan, and Mikasa, Annie, and the rest have to rescue him. But Armin didn’t seem to be in any danger of dying, and him being sent to P A T H S was actually a good thing in the end because he was able to win over Zeke.

The whole deal with the explosives around Eren’s neck was also pretty badly handled.

You’d think the hard part would be getting the explosives to the neck and securing them to it, but nope. Pieck took care of that in a couple of panels, and the real meat of the fight is doing the very last thing they need to do to win.

It’s very tedious and contrived.

Instead of a fight that’s interesting because they have to wrestle their way through titans while carrying the bombs, we get a totally generic fight because the story breezed through the hard part and all they have to do now is push a single button to win.

But in the end that entire sequence was pointless because Armin decides to blow everything up anyway.

Jean’s shining moment?

A total waste.

Reiner’s shining moment...wrangling that worm thing?

Also a total waste.

Armin was going to blow it up anyway. There is no way you can say that Eren would have survived Armin’s explosion but for Reiner and Jean’s efforts.

It just defies all common sense.

So yeah, this whole battle was a pretty lackluster climax.

Looking to the future, I think this is it.

There’s only two chapters left, so we need to start wrapping up. My guess is Eren’s likely dead and next chapter starts the epilogue.

Tally-ho.

---

I made a post about all the character’s chances of living or dying by the end of the manga. I figured I’d update those death ratings here.

Eren: Likely Alive --> Lean Dead

Historia: Likely Dead --> Toss Up

Mikasa and Reiner: Lean Dead --> Lean Alive

Annie: Lean Alive --> Likely Alive

Jean and Connie: Likely Dead --> Lean Alive

Pieck: Toss Up --> Lean Alive

Zeke: Lean Alive --> Ded

You’ll notice I’m still rating most of the cast as having a significant chance of dying.

While I do feel that this is probably the end of the battle, I’m choosing to be cautious in my choice of ratings.

Mayhaps Eren will pull a come from behind victory.

Ya never know.

[ginmo]

Telegraphing vs. Foreshadowing. 

“Telegraphing is giving away too much, too soon, thereby ruining the suspense, or the impact of the event.

When you foreshadow, the reader usually doesn’t notice it when they initially read it. But later they might have an “aha” moment, remember it, and put two and two together. Often foreshadowing can’t even be detected until someone reads your novel for a second time. It’s that subtle.

But telegraphing works the opposite. The reader notices the telegraphing detail, groans, and predicts what’s going to happen. It takes the fun out of reading a novel. Envision the important event, or piece of information that your reader’s going to learn, like a balloon. Telegraphing is like letting some of the air out of the balloon ahead of time, so when the time comes for the “pop” you get a fizzle instead.” [x]

The two Mr. “Themes Are For 8th Graders” are horrible at telling the difference between telegraphing and foreshadowing. The show has both, but that’s because they treat them as the same and can’t tell them apart. My favorite example:

Jaime S5: I want to die in the arms of the woman I love.

Jaime S8: Dies, lovingly, in the arms of the woman he was surface level referring to.

Proper foreshadowing would have been Jaime dying (in battle or of old age) in the arms of the woman he loved, but the woman being someone different than he and the surface viewers had in mind at the moment he had made the comment. Foreshadowing involves subtext and subtlety, not straight up spoiling the fucking death. 

As for the books, literally every popular (red flag right there) Jaime and Cersei prediction for their endgame is an example of telegraphing. Their predictions stem 100% from what's written right on the page, zero subtext, interpreting it as is. 

Jaime believes he’ll only ever love Cersei, so Jaime will only ever love Cersei. 

Cersei believes Jaime will always be devoted to her, so Jaime will always be devoted to her.

Brienne doesn’t think love is an option for her, so love will never be an option for her.

Westeros and surface readers think Jaime is dishonorable trash, so he will start and end as dishonorable trash.

The twins believe they will die together, no matter what, so they will die together. Since they came into the world together they obviously will go out together. 

This quote from GRRM is pretty fucking telling.

“There’s an element of sociopathy to it, where it’s the two of us and no one else really counts, especially outside their family. They’re twins, they were born together, they have a feeling that they’re going to die together. There’s this bonding that they’re two halves of a whole, so who else would they pair with? Anything else is lesser.” [x]

The hilarious thing about this is some people view this as GRRM confirming that anything is lesser and that they will die together which... is... telegraphing LMAO. Why am I not surprised they take every fucking thing at face value. 

I’m going to quote @jaimetheexplorer, because she explained the entire GRRM quote wonderfully

“ GRRM is careful to specify that that’s a feeling they have, it’s not a truth. He might obviously be avoiding spoilers, but I think there’s more to it than that, in the sense that he is using that belief of theirs as an example of the level of unhealthy obsession and delusion in their relationship. This is the point at which their story begins; the point at which they buy into this notion that they’re two halves of a whole and the only ones who matter. I already discussed in part 1 about narrative arcs, how perhaps the main part of Jaime and Cersei’s story is about discovering that they’re not two halves of a whole, and set off on opposite journeys. Indeed, Jaime’s quote comes from early on in his POV, before he returns to King’s Landing and his disillusion with Cersei begins to set in. And GRRM is indeed raising a question that will be addressed later, as their story unfolds: “who else would they pair with?”. Of course, at the beginning of their story, the answer is nobody because “anything else is lesser”, but will that still be the answer in the future? (6’3” hint - probably not).“

I’m going to do a checklist here: 

[x] Nobody else matters (someone else matters)

He already began slowly and subtly addressing this. “no one else really counts, especially outside their family.” Brienne, someone outside the family, is stepping into a position where Jaime believes she counts. He punched her former betrothed, because the dude made fun of her. Jaime then sent him to the other side of Westeros, so he didn’t have to look at him. He literally views her as his protector. He left Cersei to die and then ran off to follow Brienne in their mission to help Sansa, another person outside the family. 

________________________________________________

[x] Two halves of a whole (as the story progresses they’re finding out they’re more different than they thought)

How could I ever have loved that wretched creature? she wondered after he had gone. He was your twin, your shadow, your other half, another voice whispered. Once, perhaps, she thought. No longer. He has become a stranger to me. - CERSEI, AFFC

I thought that I was the Warrior and Cersei was the Maid, but all the time she was the Stranger, hiding her true face from my gaze. - JAIME, AFFC

________________________________________________

[x] Die together (the feeling dissipating/not telegraphing)

He even destroyed the “They’re twins, they have a feeling that they’re going to die together.” Keep in mind that they believe they’re dying together, no matter what, precisely because they’re twins.“They’re twins" starts the sentence. They literally think they’re dying together because they’re intertwined, that they can never be separated, that they’re going out at the same time because of that forever twin bond they’re tied to one another. That’s it. Good or bad (murder/suicide) doesn’t matter. Again,twins, so context doesn’t matter.

That “feeling” is also starting to go away when the realization starts to set in that they aren’t as similar as they had thought (therefore not two halves of a whole. Hello separation theme, which means dying together defeats the point). Jaime abandoned Cersei to her death and then, when thinking about going back to KL, he’s all “meh, she may already be dead idk.” That feeling seems to be dissipating on Jaime’s end. 

Hm. Sounds like chipping away at the telegraphing by story and character progression.

Oh.. oh... and what’s next???

________________________________________________

[x] Who else would they pair with? Anything else is lesser (falls in love and pairs with another woman) 

IDK GRRM WILL ONE OF THEM PAIR WITH ANOTHER?? LMAO HOW ABOUT NO BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN CONSTANTLY SAYING THAT CERSEI DOESN’T THINK SO AND THEY’VE THOUGHT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY WERE INSEPARABLE SO OBVIOUSLY NO  

WHO WOULD THIS OTHER PERSON EVEN BE???? IDK MAN 

a woman.”

“A woman?” Cersei stared at him, uncomprehending. “What woman? Why? Where did they go?”

“No one knows. We’ve had no further word of him. The woman may have been the Evenstar’s daughter, Lady Brienne.”

Her. The queen remembered the Maid of Tarth, a huge, ugly, shambling thing who dressed in man’s mail. Jaime would never abandon me for such a creature. My raven never reached him, elsewise he would have come. - CERSEI, AFFC

BTW I put that quote in almost everything I write since it’s one of my favorites because lmfao dude what a beautiful moment 

So like, call me crazy, but if we’re talking foreshadowing instead of telegraphing here, then I think it’s maybe the woman who doesn’t believe love is available to her, the same woman who Cersei believes Jaime would never abandon her for because superficial looks. 

AND according to his editor: 

...it is easier to tell when he’s overplaying a hand and revealing things too early if you don’t actually know going in what will happen. That said, now that I’ve realized his three-fold revelation strategy, I see it in play almost every time. The first, subtle hint for the really astute readers, followed later by the more blatant hint for the less attentive, followed by just spelling it out for everyone else. It’s a brilliant strategy, and highly effective

Yeah, okay, he’s telegraphing. 

[theredhairedmonkey]

What Callum’s relationships say about him

Callum always seems to gravitate towards people who share the same values and traits as him.

This was clear even back in S1—when he saw Rayla stand up to Runaan to do the right thing,

He decides to stand with her.

So, it’s no wonder that he ends up having traits that line up pretty closely to the girls he ends up falling for. First Claudia, then Rayla.

Initially, I thought that was just some neat attention to detail—Callum isn’t superficial about who he loves or cares about, so he has to feel some kind of connection or “affinity” to that person.

But now, I think there’s more to it than that. I think that, in many ways, Callum’s transition from pining on Claudia to loving Rayla also reflects and parallels his character development. From awkward sheltered prince to powerful mage.

Lemme break it down.

When we first see Claudia, she is so engrossed in her book that she was about to walk into a tree.

She’s described as always having her spellbook nearby (much like Callum has his sketchbook).

Claudia is a magic nerd, adorable awkwardness and all.

Much like a certain step-prince we all know and love, Claudia is pretty eccentric.

When it comes to fighting, Claudia prefers to keep her distance; her spells are long-ranged, and she’ll usually be on the sidelines while Soren does the physical fighting.

She loves magic, mainly for casting spells.

But she’s also capable of having an appreciation of magical things for their own sake.

However, for the most part, she keeps her feelings about magic at an arms-length. Claudia sees magic as largely an academic pursuit, a tool, or an outside resource that you can tap into (provided you know the spells).

For Claudia, magic is about what you can get out of it. Either a spell, or a ritual, or some kind of power just waiting to be unlocked.

Lastly, Claudia is ruthless. Like, really ruthless, willing to do almost anything to achieve a goal, even going through unethical means.

Particularly, she’ll “save” her family members through any means and regardless of how they might feel about what she did.

As a result, it leads her to justify all sorts of terrible actions that she probably would never have considered herself.

Claudia is ruthless pragmatism personified.

During the time that he crushes on Claudia, in S1 and S2, Callum has a lot of traits in common with Claudia.

For starters, he’s fairly bookish himself—the first time we see him, he’s drawing in his sketchbook.

We see him draw many times in the first two seasons, mostly for fun.

Or to calm down.

But even if he has only a few moments, you might see him sketching something—even here, on the Cursed Caldera when Rayla’s gone not five minutes just to check on a sound they heard.

He’s a nerd, just like Claudia—he’s eccentric, awkward, and adorkable (and thankfully, some things never change).

He’s also not action-oriented either, fighting from a safe distance or watching from the sidelines.

But most of all, he shares Claudia’s fascination with magic. Like her, this fascination is primarily with spells and not necessarily with magic as a phenomenon.

Here, while talking with Lujanne, she tells him all sorts of wonderful things about Primal Magic, focusing on how Primal Sources function as part of nature, but he steers the conversation back to what matters to him.

So, while he has an appreciation for magic as a natural marvel, and even though he has a distaste for Claudia’s brand of Dark Magic, he mainly sees Primal Magic as a means to an end.

For him, magic gives him something he can be good at. A way he can feel secure about himself. A way for him to feel right.

But as he learns about the Sky Primal, as he grows to understand the Sky Arcanum, he begins to move away from this.

By the time he wakes up from his coma and connects to the Sky, he no longer sees Primal Magic as just a source of spells and way to discover his self-worth—it becomes something much, much deeper to him.

It’s an experience, an intimate connection he now shares. His Primal Source is no longer an extension of his abilities as a mage, one that he can tap into for a wind or lightning spell. Now, he is an extension of it.

Callum expresses this change with just one line of dialogue.

I thought I had to find my wings, but that’s just it! I am the Wing!

It just so happens that this change in his way of thinking happened around the time he began to align himself more closely with Rayla. Ultimately, while Callum had already fallen out of love with Claudia by this point, it’s when the Sky Arcanum finally clicks with him that he starts to associate more with Rayla’s traits and values rather than Caludia’s.

The main difference between how Claudia and Rayla see magic is as follows:

For Claudia, magic is a tool, a resource.

But for Rayla, magic is an ambience, a part of everything around them.

Even though she doesn’t have much of the technical understanding of magic that Claudia and Lujanne have, she still knows enough to express how she and the other elves view magic.

Now, it’s not a stretch to say that this isn’t the only thing that Claudia and Rayla don’t see eye to eye on.

Unlike Claudia, Rayla is very action-oriented, using her physical abilities for just about everything.

That’s not even limited to just fighting; here, she gracefully slides across the ice just to catch up with Callum.

Or she’ll climb up a tree to ride one of the giant helicopter seeds down the valley.

Or she’ll lay out some rope and jump off an Ambler.

Claudia has a plan for everything—her bag has a seemingly endless supply of problem-solvers.

But Rayla, instead, relies on her can-do attitude—she won’t second-guess whether she can do something, instead jumping right into the middle of things and figuring out the details on the way down.

Rayla also prefers to be right in the thick of things; if there’s a fight, or someone’s in danger, she’s there.

However, Rayla also places a high value on morals. Even though she’s not above using underhanded means or trickery when necessary (such as tricking Soren and Claudia in 2x03), she very much believes in doing things the right way.

This is why, for instance, Rayla is very angry with Callum when he uses Dark Magic, and it takes quite a bit for her to be able to look past it.

Like, Callum has a spell, one spell, that will save both Rayla and the dragon, literally solving all their problems in one fell swoop, and this is the look she gives him:

Oof.

So, needless to say, in the first two seasons Callum resembles Claudia more than Rayla. He prefers to take a back seat on the action, isn’t all that confident in his physical abilities, and spends most of the time avoiding fights, especially when he doesn’t have a plan.

And, even when he understood that Dark Magic was wrong, he was nevertheless willing to do something unethical to save Rayla regardless of how she felt about it. He shares that ruthless pragmatism with Claudia that Rayla doesn’t.

But once Season 3 rolls around, we see Callum start to move away from Claudia’s way of thinking as he begins to gravitate more toward Rayla’s.

Early on, Rayla shows Callum magic in Xadia. He begins to see magic and the world it inhabits the way Rayla does.

I’ve heard people wonder why Callum doesn’t learn that much magic in S3, and that’s because he’s learning magic less as spells and more as an experience.

And through that experience, not only does Callum learn a great deal about magic in Xadia, he learns about what the elves are fighting to protect. He learns why this kind of world is worth protecting.

And the more he spends in this world, the more we see him come around to Rayla’s way of thinking.

For starters, he’s much more action-oriented in S3—we see him follow Rayla up a tree, ride a difficult-to-tame mount, or climb a 70-foot Ambler’s leg while it’s walking.

I mean, he’s not as good as Rayla at these things…but baby steps.

Even though he may hesitate, he’s much less sure in his abilities than in S1 and S2. He doesn’t insist on taking an easier route. When Rayla gives him her sword, he simply follows her up the tree. He’s showing signs of that similar can-do attitude that Rayla wears on her sleeve.

As a side note, there may even be hints that his connection to the Sky Primal may be subtly affecting his range of physical abilities. We already know that the Moon Primal can increase the physical strength of the creatures connected to it (Viren notes that Moonshadow elves’ power increase depending on the phase of the moon, while Ez mentions that Phoe-Phoe drew her strength from the Moon Nexus). And it’s doubtful that he would have been able to scale trees or Amblers earlier in the series. Right now, that’s just a guess, but who knows?

He also comes around to Rayla’s values—there’s a right way to do things, and the ends do not justify the means.

Unlike in S2, where Callum was willing to use Dark Magic to save Rayla in spite knowing it’s something he shouldn’t be messing with, this season he takes a bit more principled approach.

After they fight over whether Rayla should stay, Callum uses a spell to discover that Rayla’s parents did not abandon the Dragon Egg, and in fact fought till the very end.

And the thing is…that actually gives him a solid argument for why this means Rayla should leave with them. They sacrificed themselves to protect the Dragon Prince, he could say. You should honor their memory by finishing what they started and protect Zym.

He could, just as he did with Dark Magic, use his powers to help save her life, and it wouldn’t even really be that unethical this time.

And yet he doesn’t, because this time he realizes it’s whether he can use magic to fix a problem. He’s not going to use magic to get Rayla to agree with him, or to support his argument for leaving.

Instead, he uses magic entirely for her. He does it to give Rayla the closure she needs, letting see her parents and showing her that they were in fact heroes.

And when she’s at a loss as to what to do next, Callum just gently reminds her it’s ultimately her choice. And he’ll respect that choice, provided she’s making it willingly.

He empowers her, reminding her that she gets to choose who she wants to be, much like he discovered for himself:

This is diametrically opposed to what Claudia would do in this situation. We’ve seen her take the Primal Energy from a living creature to cure her brother, even when he’s accepted his situation. She does something similar, or perhaps even worse, to save her father.

Claudia would use magic to save people through any means, even if those people might disapprove.

Callum used to think this way, but now he doesn’t, using his magic instead to empower the people around him, such as Rayla.

All of this shows just how much he’s changed. How much she has changed him.

As a last point, I’ve noticed something else that had changed in Callum, though it’s a lot more subtle. Before I mentioned that Callum would always draw in his sketchbook, largely for his own enjoyment.

Yet in S3, we don’t see any of that.

Sure, he carries his sketchbook around with him at all times, even during the Battle of the Storm Spire for some reason!

(like, did you think you’d have time to sketch while people are fighting and dying, Callum what are you even—)

But even when keeping the sketchbook around, we don’t see Callum drawing recreationally anymore—the one time he draws in it, he does it specifically for Rayla, both proving that he saw them in his spell, and giving her a change to see her parents’ faces again.

The reason for this is because he’s become far more preoccupied with the world that Rayla introduced him too. He’s not sitting down to draw what he sees in Xadia. He’s going to experience it himself.

This all culminates in one final moment in S3:

Callum lays down his sketchbook one final time.

And leaps off the pinnacle to save Rayla.

After this moment, we never see the sketchbook around him again.

I mean, sure, I definitely think we’ll see him drawing again in S4, but the sketchbook is no longer inseparable from Callum. The symbolism here is clear—Callum has been transformed.

And just to drive the symbolism even further, his blue jacket is torn to shreds, leaving Callum with just his sleeveless red shirt, scarf, and fingerless gloves. Not to get too bogged down into color motifs here, but this change was big, since red is typically more associated with “action” while blue with “calmness.”

But symbolism aside, he looks less like a young Merlin and more like a young Goku.

He’s no longer someone who will wait on the sidelines hoping everything works out. Callum is now someone who will jump right into thick of things, against all odds and with a determination to save the day himself.

In short, he’s become someone like Rayla now.

[boycottyashahime]

Alright, so I’m bad at Tumblr, and though I wanted to just reblog the original post from @strawberrycreampiefluff and put most of it under a cut or perhaps find a way to trim it, I couldn’t find a way to make it work. So, we’re starting a new thread. Here’s the link the other one if anyone reading hasn’t been following the discussion and want to catch up: https://strawberrycreampiefluff.tumblr.com/post/625063196626223104/what-do-you-think-of-this-whole-ppl-shipping

Anyhow, since we discussed this beforehand, I’ll start from the beginning, only working with the storytelling elements from the series, and I’ll leave out the latter part of the post regarding moralizing (which I mostly agree with anyway, so it’s no loss to me).

“I  was trying to convey that considering the methods of storywriting and telling,  it would break the “pattern” Rumiko Takashi built up and lowering the  impact of Sessh character growth he would later experience.  A father-daughter bond is not inferior to a romantic bond, but it  would seem out of place, to have both his father and brother form a  romantic relationship with a human and then Sessh breaking that pattern  by introducing a new kind of relationship-dynamic - when he is the most  crucial character in the series when it comes to demon-human relations.”

I’m still quite unclear HOW the impact of Sesshomaru’s character growth is necessarily lowered from not having a romantic bond with a human. Why is the continuation of this pattern so important, in your view, to the character’s development? From my perspective, introducing a new relationship dynamic into and breaking patterns is actually a good thing in stories - It’s a great way to add variety and a different point of view to a narrative. Having characters take a pattern in a different, unique direction can add meaning in a way the reader couldn’t see coming, give the story unexpected dimension.

And you’ve already said that you and other shippers like yourself don’t see anything romantic while Rin is still a child in the original series, so that is effectively what happened. Since we agree that the relationship wasn’t actually romantic within the context of the original Inuyasha series, Sesshomaru took a love of a human in an entirely different direction than his father or his brother did. Which conveys complexity in how youkai can relate to humans that wasn’t in the established pattern. As a reader, I find that kind of thing fun and engaging, though you may disagree.

“A father-daughter relationship would still put Sessh in a superior position to Rin (as the father), not adding a lot to his character development other than him caring for one other human being.”

I have to wince here, because while yes, technically Sesshomaru is in a superior position to Rin in a father-daughter relationship, the implication here is that this can be compared to the sense of superiority he had over humans as a whole that you referenced earlier. Is a parent-child relationship really comparable to a racist outlook? I feel like these two things are quite unrelated, having two ENTIRELY different connotations from the word “superior”. One is an entirely natural superior position, using one’s greater experience, knowledge, and ability to facilitate the growth and guidance of someone still on their way up. The other is a wholly unnatural and malicious disregard for a person based on superficial features. Sesshomaru’s superior attitude toward humans before he met Rin was not based on a paternalistic concern, but complete disgust and the notion that they were entirely unworthy of consideration. The two connotations of “superior” here are just not analogous in the greater narrative.

“In a romantic relationship, both partners should be equals (anything  other is unacceptable), for this to happen Sessh would’ve had to lower himself  (his pride) to Rins level, since he was the one with the big ego and  humans were regarded as one of the lower creatures of the food chain.”

Again, I think it is entirely possible for Sesshomaru to learn not to regard humans as “lower on the food chain” through a relationship that ISN’T romance, but that aside, this whole notion brings up a question: why didn’t Rumiko Takahashi write Rin into the story as a young adult? We’ve already discussed how romantic implications to the relationship couldn’t exist while she’s still a child in the series, and why Sesshomaru and Rin are definitely NOT equal during the series. So if it was so important for Sesshomaru to be otherwise equal to Rin so he can lower his pride and truly consider her such, why was Rin not written as a fully autonomous adult so we could cut to the chase? It seems that if what you’re describing was really Rumiko Takahashi’s intent, it would have been a lot easier if the girl was already grown up. At the very least, our dear author could have ended the series when Rin was an appropriate age to actually make the point instead of leaving it hanging.

“Doing the exact same thing he criticized his father for, which  for him would’ve been humiliating in the beginning of the series. The  sequel (if you regard it as canon) goes even farther, making him create  his own half demons - the very reason he hated his brother in the first  place. His mother even said he becomes like his father in the strangest  ways - and the only “strange” thing we know about his father was his  romantic relationship with Izayoi.”

Since English isn’t your first language, I’m guessing you’re just mistaken in the map of this sentence, but the word “strange” here is referring to Sesshomaru’s behavior in relation to his father’s. What is strange is how Sesshomaru is like his father, not his father’s ways. This actually makes the opposite point - it seems to refer to the ways in which Sesshomaru is behaving as odd, maybe in relation to a pattern his father fit into.

“That’s why I think it wouldn’t fall apart if we draw the parallel in a wider context as you say, because other characters didn’t have the same starting point  as Sessh. I very much agree with you, that Inuyasha’s platonic bonds  would also count as a dog forming close bonds with humans, but in  Inuyasha’s or Shippou’s case, they didn’t need the same character  development like Sessh, since they had a different attitude towards  humans or “lesser-beings” in the first place (Inuyasha was even past the  stage of lowering himself, also out of romantic reasons btw, since he  was ready to become human for Kikyo).”

I’m curious as to how the parallel and pattern matter if it’s null and void because Inuyasha and the other characters we talked about have different character arcs. Of course they aren’t starting from the same place as Sesshomaru, characters never do. They’re varied and diverse because it would be boring as tar to write them all going through the same issues. My point about the parallel was that even if it could be said that there’s some similarity in how dog YOUKAI form bonds with humans to actual DOGS, it’s not really a good parallel, because there are other “species” of youkai much less friendly with humans doing it too. I’m having trouble understanding what this argument has to do with that.

In reference to the above, I agree, the example characters you cited didn’t have the same level of dismissive racism as Sesshomaru did (I say “same level” because Shippou does carry a bit of prejudice, even as a small child), but when that’s apparent, why is the pattern even relevant? Since the characters aren’t set to all learn the same lesson, their relationships shouldn’t really resemble each other’s in the long run either, should they? Writers use relationships as tools for character development, and they usually want to use the right tool for the right job. Maybe romantic love with a human was right for Inuyasha because he had issues with vulnerability and reconciling his half-heritage. What if SESSHOMARU benefited more as a character from an unconditional bond (free from the conditions of sexual/romantic attraction) to demonstrate to him how even the weakest creature is incomprehensibly valuable for reasons impossible to articulate, and they are worth using his incredible level of “superior” power to protect and defend them? It’s a different kind of humbling oneself than what you were talking about, but I think it’s just as meaningful, and it fits Sesshomaru’s character development neatly into the the original text. It doesn’t require Sunrise make a sequel more than a decade later to wrap up the character development that Rumiko Takahashi meant to do when Rin grew up even though she could have just written her in as an adult in the first place.

“But Rin will obviously not always stay 8/11 years old, she will grow  into her own person and become a woman (while living apart from Sessh),  creating a completely different power dynamic with Sessh. One that would  still be an imbalance, but much different than when she was a child.”

As far as the narrative was concerned, Rin COULD very well have stayed a child forever, though. She was written as a character in a story. When the story is done, so are the characters. You’ve said before and here that Inuyasha is just fiction, and it is, but accepting that means accepting that Rin doesn’t grow up without some prompting. She doesn’t age but through the hand of a creator, fanfiction authors or Sunrise. When you say she’s not going to stay 8-11 forever, what you mean is that actual humans who experience actual time are not satisfied with her age as it stood when the story ended, and actively impose time upon her.

And since applying time to a fictional character is something that has to be intentional, so too do the conditions you mention to create the perfect environment for the ship. The different dynamic that isn’t father-daughter, but still a little bit of not-weird power imbalance. The “lowering” of Sesshomaru’s ego in that specific romantic way (that I’m still not sure I understand, but we’ll go with it). The way in which the romance is developed without either character realizing it so that Sesshomaru can’t be accused of using the power imbalance to manipulate a girl he’s had authority over since she was eight. Returning to what catalyzed the change in Sesshomaru in the first place while carefully treading around the fact that it was built upon an unconditional relationship that now suddenly has conditions on it. That’s a lot of mental legwork to do, which is fine, because that’s part of creative expression. But you have to acknowledge that none of this would be necessary if the pairing were “obvious”.

It certainly wasn’t very obvious to some of us. We came to a very different conclusion, saw everything a bit differently. Now we’re being punished for having a less popular interpretation of this relationship, shut down by SUNRISE and told that we don’t get to have that interpretation, because they’re considered an authority on what is canon in Inuyasha, and they’re taking sides to squeeze more money out of the Inuyasha franchise with a next-gen sequel. It doesn’t seem to matter that Sunrise was never really very good at telling Inuyasha stories, or that next-gen sequels never seem to be any good for lack of stakes and boring plots.

Sunrise’s interpretation is still considered to be more “valid” than ours. And that really hurts. So, if you found yourself wondering why there’s so much vitriol coming from the anti camp, it’s a combination of this, and the fact that they don’t really have the option of avoiding the content they don’t like anymore. It’s kind of EVERYWHERE now.

So, there we are. I don’t want to give the impression from the above that I’m trying to tear apart your arguments to somehow discredit the pairing. Shippers gonna ship, whether it makes sense to me or not. But I did want to highlight how any of the things you bring up can very well be interpreted entirely differently.

Hope you’re doing well, and you did well on that exam. :)

[thesaltofcarthage]

I finally get the anger about Thor: Ragnarok

I’ll admit it: I saw it the first time in the theatre and loved it, because it seemed funny and fresh. And it was absolutely what started me on the Thorki Spiral, which I hadn’t shipped before.

It was also where I really started to get emotionally invested in the MCU, and started plumbing more of the meta depths online, and understanding the character arcs beyond the plot arcs. And of course I’ve spent two years on this blue hellsite, enjoying the GIFs and the fics and the art.

But I didn’t actually rewatch the movie.

And last night I sat down to rewatch it, and... wow.

Wow, it is really not funny.

I recall reading a defense of Taika Waititi’s choices in this film, and how he is deconstructing colonialism and puncturing the White CisHet Male Hero myth, and I totally get all that. All the NZ/Aussie voices and aboriginal cultural influences are genuinely refreshing.

But I also recall reading Waititi’s casual dismissal of the Thor comic canon, and how he viewed Thor and Loki as “rich spoiled boys whining about their problems.” How he sees Loki as an “emo goth kid” who needs to grow up. How he deliberately ignored everything which had come before. And I recall reading about Hemsworth’s boredom with Noble Thor and how he longed to do more comedy.

The problem with Ragnarok is that Waititi views the protagonists as bad guys.

Bad Guys need to be punished. They need to lose.

I was intrigued by how Odin, by way of Hela, was framed as a conqueror, and how that part of history needed to be acknowledged and rejected. But: 1) Odin was already previously presented as a bad guy because of his shit parenting 2) the narrative re-rejects that point of view by redeeming him on the cliff in Norway just before his discorporation. Odin is never punished for his conquering rampages. He never has to acknowledge what he stole, or how he hurt people or entire cultures, or make reparations. He never has to admit what he did to Loki. He just gets to melt away and join Frigga.

In Waititi’s view, the White CisHet Male Heroes who think too much of themselves and need to be taken down a peg are... Thor and Loki. The title character and the canonically queer/pan/genderfluid outsider.

Yes, Thor and Loki are played by White CisHet Male actors. That does not make both characters White CisHet Males. (And let’s be clear: while there’s a lot of White CisHet Male Privilege going around which can certainly stand to be dismantled, “White CisHet Male” isn’t automatically equivalent to “evil jackass.” Thor’s identity as a White CisHet Male doesn’t mean that by definition the narrative has to break him.)

Loki was not a conqueror in the MCU — not the way Odin was. Loki’s “conquest” was canonically forced at the hand of the actual enemy, Thanos, who tortured and brainwashed him, and was controlling him via the Mind Stone.

Loki is not a colonizer. Loki is an outsider, an Other. He may present as White Cis Male, but he doesn’t have to, and he hasn’t always. There’s the wink from Jeff Goldblum and the implication that Loki was sleeping with him to “gain his favor,” but this is presented as more of a joke on Loki than anything else. And that’s what the entire narrative does: repeatedly make Loki the butt of the joke.

Poking fun at the people in power is a well-worn narrative device. Using humor to puncture legend, to remove power from people who claimed it illegitimately and at the expense of the less powerful, is a classic function of storytelling and should absolutely be celebrated.

Mocking Thor’s pompousness? Keeping him off-balance? Cutting his hair, having him whack himself in the head with Hulk’s sparring ball? Sure, why not. Because Thor is the hero. He is the center of the narrative. He is the one who has taken power and needs to learn to live without it to grow.

Except... that was the arc of the first Thor movie. Thor is not the arrogant shitheel he used to be. And Thor doesn’t grow or change in Ragnarok. There’s no character arc. He just... blithely sails on, pursuing what he thinks is right. Granted that what he claims to be pursuing is “saving the people of Asgard,” which is a noble and selfless goal, Thor personally doesn’t change. He’s as goofy and blustery in the post-credits stinger as he is in the pre-credits scene where he’s dangling in chains.

The only moment which can remotely be framed as “change and growth” is “Are you ‘Thor, God of Hammers’?” Which, again, could have been really powerful, as Thor learned that he didn’t need the literal mark of Odin’s approval (a measure of his “worthiness”) to channel his divine powers, but it ended up being an admittedly kick-ass action scene. And he’s never shown as being utterly helpless without Mjolnir; the hammer is an excellent weapon, but not his only one.

And Loki? Loki doesn’t have power, not in the narrative sense. Loki didn’t rampage over entire realms, not of his own volition. He did not steal or kidnap. Loki was never in line for the throne; that is, again, the entire plot of the first Thor movie. Loki has nothing to puncture. Attacking someone in power to even the scales is justice. Attacking the powerless is just bullying.

Which is what it felt like Waititi was doing, over and over: bullying Loki. Dr. Strange, who has been studying sorcery for what, 18 months? can outwit Loki, who has been a seidmadr trained by the seidkona Frigga for over a thousand years? Strange sends Loki into a portal where he is falling for half an hour?

When did Loki fall last? Off the Bifrost. When he was committing suicide. When he was captured by Thanos, who then tortured him for six months.

Oh yes, that’s something to make fun of. But Waititi wouldn’t know that, would he, because he made a point of ignoring the characters’ histories.

Thor being casual, callous, even rude, to the beloved brother he thought had died in his arms years ago? Thor putting an electrical torture device on his beloved brother, the man he defended to the entire Avengers, the man he refused to surrender to Midgardian authorities, and leaving him there to suffer? Thor mocking his beloved brother, telling him he needs to change and grow? Loki is the bloody god of chaos. How is Loki the character who hasn’t grown and changed?

But Waititi wouldn’t know any of their past interactions, because he made a point of ignoring the characters’ histories.

Waititi just saw the most superficial possible reading of these two characters and assumed that they were ripe for punishment — that they needed to be reduced. Which is what he did, proudly. So when the fandom reacts and complains that he’s disrespecting beloved characters, what he hears is that we’re defending White CisHet Male Privilege.

Waititi thinks he dismantled two copies of Obidiah Stane. The fandom saw him bludgeoning Bisexual Steve Rogers, Pre- and Post-Serum. You don’t pick on the little guy. You don’t reduce your hero.

Thor and Loki’s rich and complex history, even just in the MCU, is completely ignored. It’s reduced to the throwaway line of “You faked your death” (which is not what happened) and “I mourned you! I cried for you!” and Thor’s anger that Loki managed to survive. Not relief that Loki is still alive, but offense. And if the script had explored that more — “Why did you pretend to be dead? Why did you hide in Odin’s guise? Why didn’t you find a way to let me know what happened? If you were hiding as Odin, why didn’t you act as Odin?” — I would even have bought that. There is, in fact, a lot to unpack there. But that would have meant exploring everything that happened off-screen between the Thor movies. It would have meant studying that history, acknowledging it, and expanding on it. And Waititi saw Two Spoiled Rich Kids and had no interest.

The problem with Ragnarok is not the humor, or the outsider perspective from a Maori director. The problem is that the creator chose the wrong targets. I have learned in the past two years how many fans have come to identify with Loki the outsider, and Waititi deliberately chose to remain ignorant of that aspect of the character. He created two strawman versions of the characters and proceeded to tear them apart.

I am less hopeful now for Thor: Love and Thunder than I was. I don’t know how important Jane Foster’s storyline is in the comics, but if he ignored Thor and Loki, it’s not unreasonable to imagine he’d ignore Jane’s history too. I may have defended Waititi’s Ragnarok before. I won’t do so again.

[tarithenurse]

Stolen - 4

Pairing: Loki Laufeyson &/x fem!gifted!reader Content: Nothing bad as such ;) A/N: HUGS! Just because I miss hugging people. Tags are open: just ask or reblog.

4. The Speed of Pain

…   Reader  …

Sitting on the bed, you’re completely absorbed by the gorgeous light show outside the window where gazillions of stars are drawn and condensed into a rim brighter than anything you could have imagined – at least compared to the orb the width of your thumb inside. A black hole. The term is familiar but that’s almost the only knowledge you have of the phenomenon, and most astronomers would probably kill to be in your place right now under the guise of “knowing more” or for the sake of “research”.

With a view as mesmerizing as that why would you bother turning when Loki enters and leaves by the whoosh of the door? You don’t.

Minutes drag by until a detail registers in your mind. Did the locks activate? Torn between hope and the nauseating confidence that you’re imagining things now, the few steps to the access panel are further away than ever before. Hands shaking, breath superficial, you reach up to poke the dark screen.

What the -?! It takes all your strength to keep standing as a couple of blue symbols present themselves, each with an obvious option. The reasonable thing would be to expect that it’s a trap and Loki it waiting just on the other side of that door to catch and punish you for trying to leave. On the other hand...maybe luck actually exists.

It’s unreal when the door slides into the wall to reveal a way out. Never has painted metal looked more inviting or as liberating, and you almost admire it for too long, barely slipping out as the gate to freedom begins to close.

The interior of what you since have learned to be a space ship had appeared dismal and claustrophobic when you arrived.

“Freedom.” The shakingly whispered word is all you can muster for now.

Looking around, your minimal knowledge of space travel tells you that you’re in a sort of cargo hold with cabins lining the sides towards a metal staircase leading up to the right at the very end. To the left is...nothing. Well, there’s a sort of ramp slanting up against a wall but even though you instinctively know that’s the real way out you also know it’s usual considering that thing called “space” outside, reducing the options to just two.

“You’re not ‘sposed to be out.”

The warbled, deep voice makes your cheek sting with the memory of pain. It doesn’t take long before the cool metal stops your frantic backpedalling, making Arox-or-whatever-he’s-called grin. Like a hyena just without the sound. The only way is around him.

“See’f you can catch me, then.”

As stupid as he’s repulsive, the man charges headfirst towards you, leaving you just enough time to slip out a piece of song that conjures a dense fog. Judging the distances by the sounds only, you press yourself to the wall just in time to avoid a collision with him – it does sound like he collides heavily with the metal you’d been backed against just a second ago: first a hard smack and a grunt, then a sound like a sack of lour hitting the ground.

Move, c’mon legs! Thankful for the support of the wall, you pass the closed door to your former confines as you aim for the edge of the fog and a clear view. At least there isn’t much to trip over, but you know you have to move fast or the mist will start spreading before dissipating as the magic fades, so your hands slide along the wall, feet gingerly probing the metal grate of the floor for fear there should be an unevenness.

In the haze, the blue lights of a door panel are eerie, ghost-like, and you can’t help but be comforted by the clear view as you access the room despite what you actually see. The layout is identical to yours the place is still less spartan thanks to the pile of leathery, inhumanly big clothing in one corner and the neat array of weapons on the table. What must be guns of the space variety flank some vicious knives with jagged handles and symbols etched into the blade. Tempted to take one, you also realize that they’d be as big as swords for you...not to mention that you have no idea how to fight with a weapon of that kind.

Quickly deciding to move on as the fog is thinning, the next two cabins flanking the staircase are empty which brings you to the one at the very end of this level. This gotta be Loki’s. Already, the little hairs on your body are standing, your feet itching to move away and you have to force yourself to walk up to it. Let him be upstairs. Or something. Blue lights glare accusingly at you, but no one complains as you have a look inside the place. Empty.

A few steps, the brush of a finger, then the door slides shut and you lock it behind you before getting to work. Confident that you don’t have much time, you ignore the muzzled, silk sheets on the bed and the clothes dangling from hanger in an open cabinet. No, it’s the personal trinkets and the row of old-looking books that are of interest to you – at least until you realize you can’t read a single word and the thingamabobs are nothing more than writing tools, pretty drinking glasses, and something akin to a chess set.

“If I were an insane killer alien...where would I hide anything personal?” you mutter as you keep searching, now head deep into his closet.

“Tsk tsk.” The sound makes you freeze with the fingers around a leather belt. “Haven’t we learned our place yet, little pet?”

...  Loki   ...

Green and black shimmer in the shadows as [Y/N] straightens her back. “Leaving the door to my prison unlocked wasn’t an invitation?”

“A test.” He can’t help chuckling at the sight of muscles working in her shoulders and arms as though she’s wringing her hands.

Her breath trembles. “One designed for me to fail if I did anything.”

From your point of view. Loki, however, has learned much more about the stubborn creature now than during the last fortnight by watching her actions. Unseen at the top of the stairs, the scene between the attempted escapee and [Y/N] played out to reveal more of the nature of the magic in her blood and her tenacity. It had even surprised him when the weapons were left untouched.

“As fun as this has been,” he smiles, “it’s time to return to your own...cell.”

A lesser man, a mortal, would not have seen the leather belt whipping towards his face as she turns around but being a god, Loki catches it in the air even before the air cracks at the force behind the attack of the insolent girl. It stings his skin, but the eyes widening with fear in her face is a balm to soothe the worst of wounds.

“Pray tell: what did you intend to accomplish with that?” He tugs sharply and secures the entirety of the belt, and still she doesn’t answer. “Was it a blunt attempt to prove your strength of spirit even under less than favourable circumstances? A, shall we say, display of force of will?” Stepping close to her, the Jotun slips the leather around her neck – spicy, cold fear fills his nostrils immediately. “Or did you simply not...think?” One wrong word and Loki will cut it short.

Pupils have dilated with fear. The lips caught between her teeth. Still the jaw is set stubbornly as if to prove that regardless of every thought (if any) before the rebellious action has a strong foundation in which to grow. Loki will savour the thrill of breaking her slowly, watching her crumble to be rebuild in his image. Or to die.

“Do as I wish, mortal. Heal the priestess and I may let you go home.”

[Y/N] hesitates, brows furrowing as she tried to determine the odds and figure out where the catch lies. “Liar.”

“So you’d rather let the priestess suffer a slow, painful death than have a chance at freedom?” He can see the protests boiling within her even if she stubbornly refuses to retort. “I suppose we’ll see in a few days’ time.”

[12housescorpio]

The signs stereotype vs how they actually are

Aries stereotype: violent, angry, loud, harsh, brass, immature

How Aries really are: to a point, their stereotype isn’t completely wrong. They come off as violent because they aren’t afraid to express their brutality as loudly and passionately as they see fit. But Aries also have a very noble, surprisingly wise and patient side to them. They don’t recognize when they’re being “too-much” or if other people are uncomfortable in anyway so they may seem rude but really they’re just in their own Aries bubble.

Taurus stereotype: obsessed with food, cozy, home bodies, aesthetic lovers, warm, soft patient, stubborn.

How Taurus really are: Taurus love money. Power. They are practical for sure and extremely good with money and adult related things, but they are extremely impatient when other people are not. Taurus are venusians so they love aesthetics the same way that libras do but the difference is that they want people to be the aesthetic, which can make them extremely superficial. They want themselves and the people around them to be beautiful and are often not comfortable unless those around them are attractive or at least dress nicely. They are very stubborn, but at the same time they are extremely open philosophically, they love hearing other people’s opinions and learning new things. They can be homebodies but mostly they just don’t wanna go anywhere out of their comfort zone. If they try something new it’s only after doing research that it will be fun for sure, due to their practicality.

Gemini stereotype: evil, two faced. (I haven’t really seen any other Gemini stereotypes aha)

How Gemini really are: Gemini’s are jumbled messes, they are notorious for being anxious, hyper, jittery, all over the place especially mentally, they have a high standard for the people they hang out with, they really want to surround themselves with interesting, funny and entertaining people. I by no means think that Gemini’s are evil anymore than I think any other sign are evil. I honestly don’t even know where that came from. As for two faced I don’t really see that either, they definitely won’t tell you what they’re thinking but that’s mostly because they don’t see a point in doing that, they’d rather just move on and hang out with other people if you upset them, but they’ll still be nice to you. They always have a lot of friend—they like to collect people.

Cancer stereotype: cuddly, emotional, motherly, kind.

How Cancer really are: very true they are easily the most emotional signs and they can definitely be cuddly and motherly, they can also have issues with being pathological liars, and having a victim mentality. While they have the potential to be the kindest, most thoughtful and understanding people you’ve ever met, they can also be vindictive, vengeful, secretive and manipulative. They can have issues with dependency on other’s for validation or just being near other people. Sometimes they can be guilt trippers, especially when it comes to being taken care of. They want to take care of other people, but if they don’t deal with their issues with needing other people, they can take care of other people with the intention of being taken care of in other ways or will kill themselves to take care of someone who doesn’t do anything for them or willingly stays in toxic situations because they don’t want to be alone. Can be suspicious, jealous and clingy.

Leo stereotype: courageous, brave, attention seekers, loud, all-about-me, spot light stealers.

How Leo really are: Leo’s are just less flashy, people pleasing Aries lmao. Leo’s are doers, they live for moments, and happiness. They love to make people laugh, they want everything to be perfect and because of this can be perfectionists. Extremely people pleasing, hates negativity and will actively ignore it which can lead to not dealing with problems that need to be dealt with. Can for sure be spot light stealers, but usually they don’t notice this and also love to make sure other people have the spotlight as well. They love moments, and are very sentimental at times. Can be selfish and self absorbed but can also be extremely kind and healing towards others. They inspire, uplift, support and direct others who need it.

Virgo stereotype: workaholics, snobby, loves homework and chores

How Virgo really are: the truth about Virgos is that they are fixers. They are constantly trying to improve things, fix things and do things in general. Depending on what placement the Virgo sign is in, the Virgo will be critical, and perfectionistic of that thing. So for example, Virgo risings will be critical and perfectionistic of how they are viewed and may be critical of how others appear as well. This deeply affects the Virgo if there are things they cannot make perfect within themselves or within their lives, they are constantly troubled by not being able to control the things around them which could be why they are stressed or nitpicky a lot. But this is not all they are. They also want to help, support and fix their friends problems, which is why they offer so much love and assistance. Sometimes this is unwanted, but it is truly how the Virgo expresses love.

Libra stereotype: airhead, indecisive, superficial, shopaholics

How Libra really are: I’ve spoken on why I think libras being airheads is just plain stupid, because they are literally the sign of law, government, analysis of decisions and all things equality. They are balance scales because they weigh the options. They want things to be fair, so they often play devils advocate. They see both sides. They are people pleasers, they want to do what’s best for everyone. They are excellent communicators and debators. They often have level headed opinions that are unique and unlike any other. Not to mention, there’s a reason that libras are part of the Air - triad. The air element represents analytic ability, communication and going with the flow. It’s true that libras love to surround themselves with aesthetics but in no way shape or form does that have anything to do with superficiality, they love all walks of life. It’s true they can absolutely be indesisive, but would you rather them rush into a decision that they end up not wanting to make? Exactly. Let them take their time.

Scorpio stereotype: evil, manipulative, vengeful, dark, brooding

How Scorpio really are: I could really go on and on with this subject. I’ve said a million times how much I hate the Scorpio stereotype, luckily it’s died down the past few years since I first started tumblr. Scorpios are by no means evil. Scorpios are understanding, loving, empathetic and misunderstood creatures. Just like EVERY water sign, Scorpios can get in their head and lash out. So can every other person on the planet. Scorpios are the rulers of over thinking, self reflecting, looking back on the past, putting patterns together and all that tends to apply to relationships especially since Scorpios tend to have rough childhoods and difficult past relationship—they develop trust issues. Either a Scorpio will enter a relationship with you and constantly pay too close attention to your body language (seeing if you’re going to pull some fuck shit) and they also tend to be destructive because Scorpios again, are the rulers of death and transformation (Pluto)

Sagittarius stereotype: adventurous, philosophical, bubbly, travelers, honest, cheaters, commitment phobs

How Sagittarius really are: honestly those stereotypes are pretty true lol the only thing I want to mention is that the honesty Sagittarius have isn’t necessarily your typical honesty. They choose what information to hide and which to choose. If you ask them out right they won’t lie to you, they might sugar coat it but usually they’ll tell you the blunt truth with a smile on their face. But they aren’t idiots, they know what’s going to upset people and what isnt, and they also know what information to get out of you and how to do it. All innocently, usually. Usually Sagittarius just wanna know the gossip. Although there are always bad eggs. Also, they aren’t commitment phobes, they just love to experience and have fun and go out and not be tied down, usually people don’t understand that so they choose not to date until they find someone who gets it.

Capricorn stereotype: workaholics, the sad version of the Virgo stereotype, sex obsessed, evil

How Capricorn really are: yeah I mean Capricorn’s are definitely ambitious and career focused, they don’t fuck w the bullshit of romance and tend to have an apathetic outlook. But no one ever talks about how moral and sarcastic Capricorn’s are. They’re so much more than just work-work-work I mean come on guys Capricorn is such a complex sign. Capricorn’s are sarcastic, extremely critical of others and themselves, they have high standards and feel that everyone should meet those standards especially themselves. They’re also SO fucking funny. They’re moral, always say exactly what’s on their mind (lowkey more honest than Sagittarius but you didn’t hear it from me) but tend to be pessimistic and sometimes down right cruel. They’re calculated, and logical.

Aquarius stereotype: cold, detached, obsessed with the occult. aLiEnS

How Aquarius really are: I really don’t think y’all have ever met an Aquarius. Aquarius are fun, full of life, and yes they adore the unknown and tend to be the most intuitive sign (next to Pisces) and they don’t fuck with close minded people. They love all things weird, eccentric, unique. They LOVE people. They are just intuitive enough to know who not to fuck with, even if they don’t know it’s their intuition. They can be detached only when they know they can’t trust someone, when they feel as though they can trust them, they let down all their walls are are the kindest, best friends you could possibly have. Aquarius are smart, funny and just plain the best. Enough said. Like there’s no other way to explain Aquarius other than better than you lmao

Pisces stereotype: innocent, weak, soft, emotional, pReCiOuS lItTlE bEaNs, psychic

How Pisces really are: completely capable of handling anything that comes their way, beautifully creative, intuitive, truly intuitive but it’s only because they’re stuck in the 5D and unable to see the 3D so they’re looking at people thru a distorted fishbowl, unable to see things how they really are. May see people as x when they’re really y. This is why they tend to see good people as bad or bad people as good. Or more commonly, innocent actions as malicious.

[readingsbylibramc]

birth chart reading for @keemias

hello! welcome to your reading. I’m gonna give you a quick overview of what I’m going to analyze about your natal chart. feel free to ask me anything if something isn’t clear, of course. you’ll find out your dominants’ influence on your persona, your physical appearance, impression on others and the way you approach the world; your ego, identity, the real you; your reactions, your desires, inner emotions; your way of expressing your feelings, your mind and ideas; your desires and approach to love; your energy tank, instincts and temperament; in-depth analysis of each house with their rulers and analysis of heavy aspects; love life + soulmates/karmic partners interpretation; your relationship with your friends; your family life; your approach to career and work in general + possible jobs suggestion; your style, fashion sense analysis; life purpose and past life description; basic transits’ analysis to describe your current mood and, last but not least, your secret skills, how to make the most out of your soul and manifest what you desire based on your birth chart.

🦋 chart shape, dominants

your chart is a bowl shape. all of your planets are focused in half of the chart. this usually makes the owner of the chart feel uncompleted, as if a part of their life is missing. in your case, it would be something regarding your identity, your mind. you may look for this missing part of yourself in your partner, or maybe in your friends, or even in stuff like work, passions, spirituality etc. this may cause you to be too dependant of others, or maybe you become obsessed and overindulge in what makes you feel complete.

your dominant planets are mercury, pluto and the sun. you're an intelligent, mature and deep person, but you also know how to have fun. you know what you want, and you're very bubbly with people you feel comfortable with. you may be more logical than intuitive, or in the best case you're able to balance both these energies.

your dominant sign is virgo. with virgo as your dominant sign, I assume that you're very astute and practical. you have great problem-solving skills, and you have the ability to stay collected even under stressful situations. you're quite logical, but you also a warm, generous heart. you love helping others, as long as they don't try to take advantage of your kindness.

your dominant element is air. in your life, you adore seeking for knowledge of any kind. you may be interested in studying different subjects, from those you study at school like science, maths, literature etc. to more unconventional ones, such as astrology, psychology, criminology and so on. you enjoy interacting with people; even if you’re not that sociable, you’ll still be interested in their point of view and their ideals, as you see it as a way to expand your own mind. you’re also interested in vintage, and you may have a retro aesthetic or just like history in general.

🌍 ascendant in scorpio, 20° / 3rd decan ruled by pluto and the moon

your scorpio rising makes you quite pessimistic; you see the world as a place full of dangers and malice, hence it’s hard for you to trust people. this may be translated through fear; you’re either scared of other people, and hence you look more vulnerable, or maybe you’re the one who prefers to look intimidating to avoid problems. I don’t think you look unapproachable, though. there are other placements in your chart that say the opposite, so I imagine you project an image of yourself that makes you look quite naive. you can sense others’ emotions very well, so they have no secrets for you. you can perceive any single emotion in people just by looking into their eyes. while this is good, as you understand who’s best for you and you’re aware of the dangers you may face, scorpio risings tend to take advantage of this and be a little manipulative. this awareness of the world makes you look mysterious and secretive, as if you always know something more than others (and you probably do). pluto is also the planet of transformation, and you might experience a lot of rebirths throughout your life, both physically and emotionally. you might lose/have lost a big amount of weight, for example, which makes you look like a different person. or maybe, you like dying your hair of a different colour, giving you a different vibe. you wish you could be softer and show your inner emotions more easily, as scorpio is a water sign. the thing is, since it’s a fixed sign, it’s hard for you to be flexible and adapt to changes. when they happen, they’re usually out of your control as they’re literally life-changing. physically, I see you having a square or long face with high cheekbones and a pointy chin. overall, your bones are very prominent and you’re naturally skinny. your eyes are extremely magnetic, and they could also be almost-shaped. you might have either very pale skin, or just an olive skintone. sometimes, even a mix of both. your hair, eyebrows and lashes are very thick and dark too. you could also have full lips, or at least a quite defined cupid's bow.

scorpio ascendant conjunct scorpio venus: you have the planet of beauty (venus) conjunct your appearance (ascendant). you're surely very attractive! even if you're not a conventional beauty, there's still a certain charm that can't get overlooked. you're very feminine and polite, especially with strangers. you care about the impression you make on others, even though you shouldn't worry that much, as it's generally good. you're probably very sociable, it doesn't matter whether you're introverted or not. you still have amazing social skills, and you also have a very charming voice. you literally draw people to you, I imagine it's not hard for you to make new friends and engage in conversations randomly. you also care a lot about the way you look, hence you probably have a skincare/workout routine, and you're fond of shopping and selfcare in general. you want to always look at your best; that's caused by the fact that you're secretly kind of insecure about your looks. you may have the tendency to think that the compliments you receive aren't honest, and people are just trying to be nice to you. another downside to this placement is that you may attract people's jealousy. even though this could be a self-esteem boost for someone, it may be hard for one to handle, in your case especially in relationships, maybe with your friends.

scorpio ascendant square leo jupiter: you probably learn a lot from people around you. you're most likely surrounded by wise, spiritual and possibly foreign individuals in your life. they help you to grow up, both spiritually and mentally. this placement also softens your rough scorpio image, making you look more outgoing and approachable. you're also very open-minded, and you rarely have prejudices. the downside to this placement is that you may depend too much on your friends or lovers, especially when it comes to your beliefs. you're easy to influence, and you may change your mind often if others disagree with you. you could possibly have high expectations from others, creating a false idea of those who surround you. at least, you're aware of your abilities and you have the potential to make the most out of them, but you're modest about it. you don't come off as bossy, as other jupiter - asc aspects would.

🌞 sun in libra, 11° / 2nd decan ruled by venus and uranus

this is the most intelligent and creative libra decan. you are very intuitive, you understand others’ real feelings very easily. you’re very polite and mannered, you have this innate elegance about you that could make people jealous. you may even come off as snob. even though your scorpio rising may make you look intimidating or even shady, once people get to know you you’re actually very reliable and trust-worthy, as you are a person of strong morals. you may unconsciously manipulate people, but you don’t do it with malice. in fact, you’re probably not even aware of it most of the times. you’re reserved, and you don’t like being the centre of attention, despite craving compliments. nonetheless, you still like getting to know new people; you’re the type to know everyone, but you may struggle to find actual best friends, as your bonds with people are quite undeveloped and superficial. you have a nice sense of humor, and you may rely on sarcasm a lot. you’re also the type that doesn’t like to accept their mistakes. probably, when you were a child you used to scream 'it’s not my fault!’ in every occasion. in life, you strive for equality and fairness. for example, you don’t want to give less than someone else, you would feel guilty about it. at the same time, you don’t want to be the one that gives more either; you’re afraid that people could take advantage of you. therefore, balance is what you find the most pleasant.

🌙 moon in virgo, 16° / 2nd decan ruled by mercury and saturn

this is the truest virgo decan. you want to have everything under control, you can't bear not being organized. you most probably write down your appointments and stuff on an agenda, or perhaps even in the notes app of your phone. you're extremely precise, you want everything to be perfect. mixed with your libra sun, you probably care a lot about your appearance; you most likely have a skincare routine, workout... just anything that makes you feel healthy. you love taking care of yourself, especially of your hygiene. you also put a lot of effort in your outfits, you fear not being at your best state. you're a perfectionist, after all. this also project in your home environment; you may clean your house thoroughly, it's most likely all neat. in addition, this mania of yours of being perfect makes you have high standards; in fact, you need people in your life that try as much as you do. you despise lazy people. you probably have a reputation for always being calm and elegant, as you try to avoid conflicts as much as possible. you're very smart and insightful, and you strive for perfection; you want to prove your power to yourself, as it helps you boosting your self-esteem. in fact, it depends a lot on your achievements; if you don't meet your expectations, you start going through a hard time of insecurity and struggles. you love communicating, but you may struggle to find the right words, especially with your mercury squaring saturn. your eyes talk for you, though. you're also very introspective, and you're fond of art and creativity in general. you're very critical, both of yourself and of others. you don't do it with malice, though, but as I've already mentioned you want to frequent people that try to be at their best all the time, just like you after all.

🗣 mercury in virgo, 28° / 3rd decan ruled by mercury and venus

you have a very logical, pragmatic mind. ironically, this creates a great balance with your libra sun, as you have both logical and creative skills. you try to be as well-spoken as possible, especially with strangers, but when people get on your nerves you can’t help but kill them with your words. before expressing your opinion on a certain matter, you like making sure that your thought actually has proof to be supported. you’re very analytical, and hence you also overthink a lot. especially when it comes to people you care, you start overthinking so much about little things like late replies to messages that you create a variety of hollywood-worthy scenarios in your head. you also pay lots of attention to details, and you can’t tolerate typos and grammar mistakes. you always try to speak and write in the most correct and polite way as possible. you may have an elegant, yet neat handwriting. your voice probably sounds very calm and collected, yet you don’t have any problems speaking at a louder tone, especially with your mercury being conjunct your mars.

virgo mercury conjunct virgo mars: this placement makes you slightly more aggressive with your words. in fact, it makes you look more assertive and almost bossy. you could often attack people with words when you get angry, and you can get quite provocative too. while you are quick-minded and it's hard for you to be tricked, you have a very sharp tongue that could hurt others. other people may not understand your sense of humor for example, and they could get offended. you love debates and expressing your opinions, as you take a lot of pride in your thoughts. yet, may also take things very personally, you get defensive extremely easily, and that makes it hard to have a healthy discussion with you as you're very fiery. you could often get into arguments.

virgo mercury square gemini saturn: this placement gives you limitations and lessons regarding the way you think and talk. it may be that you’re too shy to approach others and to say what you think, so you just don’t try. otherwise, if you actually take action and try to overcome this problem, you could get into troubles. that’s probably caused by the fact that you don’t really pay attention to your words. you’re quite straight-forward, and due to your scorpio ascendant you always seem as if you’re up for a fight. you may be particularly pessimistic, or maybe you lack confidence in social interactions due to these problems, which could be possibly caused by your parents, or perhaps interfer in your relationship with your family. in fact, you may argue quite often, and misunderstandings are also common. this is something that gets naturally better with time, but in order for it to happen you need to take action. you may for example start speaking more in school, perhaps you could apply for class president. anything that allows you to challenge your mind and voice, in order to make you gain experiences and become a master at it. many celebrities, once they mastered this hard aspect, got loads of success. you can do that too, you just need to work on it.

❤️ venus in scorpio, 14° / 2nd decan ruled by pluto and neptune

this placement is extremely intense; you have very high standards when it comes to love. you're a passionate, loyal lover, but at the same time you also want and need a lover that is willing to go as far as you go with your feelings. you may often test your partner to see if they're worthy of your love, for example. you have this sort of self-destructive behaviour that makes people stressed, just because you have extreme trust issues and you feel the need to control everyone, especially if 'everyone' is your lover. you find yourself being more attracted to 'darker' types; that is, you may be into bad boys / girls, someone with an edgy / grunge aesthetic. I've noticed that many scorpio venus individuals have a thing for people wearing leather jackets, for example. you're probably into the idea of that passionate, even kinky love, despite being quite afraid of opening up to others. you despise too much intimacy, especially since you may often attract and / or fall for self-centered players that don't care about the intensity and purity of your feelings. as I've already mentioned above, you may have a few trust issues that lead you into being extremely jealous and / or possessive. you could even get quite stalker-ish at times, but in the best way possible of course. that isn't because you want to take over your partner's life, but you need to feel secure and understand whether you're dedicating your time and your heart to the right person or you're just wasting yourself. a betrayal would hurt you deeply, as you'd literally die for the one you love.

scorpio venus square leo jupiter: you come off as a very positive, happy-go-lucky person. you're extremely friendly, and this makes you be good at social relationships. you may have lots of friends, or at least you have the potential to make many if you open up and talk to other people. yet, while this energy gives you positive vibes, some people may take advantage of that, as you could easily be mistaken for naive. people can try to dominate you unconsciously (sometimes even on purpose) not only in relationships but even in friendships. aside from that, I don't think this placement causes you many problems. you may have the tendency to procrastinate and not work. you could be quite lazy and get easily distracted, as you're constantly with your head in the clouds. yet, thanks to your virgo energy, you still manage to find some motivation to do your work.

☄️ mars in virgo, 22° / 3rd decan ruled by mercury and venus

your life revolves around being productive. you don't like to waste your time, you always try to learn and gain something useful from everything you do. that's caused by the fact that you're motivated to be perfect in what you like; this, combined with your competitive nature, may often cause you to burn out. in fact, the downside to this placement is that you may overwork yourself too much. this is bad, even though you may actually not feel this effect that much, as virgo is literally your dominant sign. you're used to work hard, and you may actually enjoy it, it's a way to stimulate yourself both physically and mentally. on the other hand, you're an hard-worker, you're most likely capable of achieving any goals you have, as you have both motivation and precision.

virgo mars square sagittarius pluto: with this placement, I assume that when you were younger you were some sort of victim. you could have been bullied, for example, you used to be insecure about the way you looked and were. you could have felt different from others, and they took advantage of that to make you feel even more insecure. or maybe, it was a parent, or every authoritative figure in your life, that restricted you from following your own ideals. because of that, now you constantly feel the need to prove yourself. you probably tend to accumulate a lot of anger all together, which you need to let all out or you could explode. you could find comfort in physical ways to relieve stress, like punching bags, slamming doors, etc. or perhaps, when you're angry you just get overwhelmed by all of your emotions. you may cry, scream, even throw up in certain cases. on the other hand, you are extremely magnetic and attractive to others, you naturally draw people towards you. you're also extremely passionate in whatever you do, you put your whole heart in doing things you love. you're very hard-working and determined to achieve your goals. with this aspect, you're probably more dedicated than the common virgo dominant.

virgo mars square gemini saturn: this is another placement that indicates that something or someone is trying to restrict you, they're trying to prevent you from following your dreams and taking your own choices for your life. that someone is most likely an individual that has a lot on impact on you, it's someone very authoritative. or perhaps, it may even be a bully or abuser of any sort. as a result, you either rebel and get extremely angry, or you hide all of your disappointment inside of you. but soon or after, all of your intense feelings are going to eat you alive if you keep going like this, it's a very unhealthy behaviour. you could find it extra hard to achieve your goals, as when you try you always come across some hardships. what matters the most, is that you try to be more positive, you could even try manifesting more patience or serenity. you can't hold onto anger so much, or it will just fill you with negativity that could damage you. let it all go, focus on your goals and try to understand how to be more patient. in fact, you may often feel like you need to do everything as soon as possible, when it's not like that. you can allow yourself to be more calm and live life as it comes, it will make you feel much better with yourself and you'll also get more mature, which is crucial to learn your saturnian lessons and increase your self-confidence.

🏡 houses

your 1st house is in scorpio. you fulfill your ego when you deal with intense situations that satify your needs. that is, you find strenght in getting out of your comfort-zone. even though you may be afraid of it. you’re an enigma: you know everything about others, but others know nothing about you. it’s your way to protect yourself from eventual enemies, as you’re prone to have a few of them throughout your life. pluto is also here; your scorpio energy is enhanced even more in this way, and since it's opposite mars you may usually come off as aggressive or too impulsive. you indeed come off as someone very fiery, and you may be when you get angry, but deep down your libra energy just wants calm and peace. physically, you may also have stronger features: you could have a strong jawline, a wide forehead, a distinctive nose and thinner lips.

your 2nd house is in sagittarius. you tend to overindulge in 2nd house matters, hence you may spend too much money, you could overeat, or even overestimate your own skills. you could have an exaggerated vision of yourself; maybe, you’re too confident, or perhaps it’s the opposite. that is, you underestimate your worth way too much. since you spend so much, you may find yourself lacking money from time to time, therefore be careful to how you spend them. in addition, chiron is also here: your deepest insecurity is your appearance, your self-confidence. it may be that when you were younger, you used to struggle a lot with your appearance. you could have been bullied, or perhaps you could have suffered from an eating disorder. luckily, this placement can get better. in fact, you can gain wisdom from this wound of yours; you can heal others who have self-worth issues once you start loving yourself. you may also have troubles with money, it could be that you may be too dependant from them, or you struggle to save or even earn them. you may even come from a poor family. the ruler of the 2nd house is in the 9th house: you may earn money through foreign languages, you could be particularly skilled at them. you may also earn money abroad or thanks to foreigners or perhaps even thanks to teaching.

your 3rd house is in capricorn. you enjoy listing and talking about your duties and goals. you’re the type to write down your tasks in your agenda, e.g. tidying up your room, feeding your plants etc. the problem with this placement is that you may struggle to take action, and procrastinate. or maybe, you could do the opposite and overwork yourself. no inbetween. also, when you were a child you probably started speaking later than other kids, or you speak so fast that you end up stuttering. uranus and neptune are also placed in this house: you could have 'unexpected' siblings, meaning that probably your mother didn't expect to have one of her children. also, you may have a very dreamy and melodic voice, even though it could sometimes be hard for others to understand you since it's also quite nasal. the ruler of the 3rd house is in the 8th house: your job may involve communication, you'll most probably interact with other people in your future career. or maybe, you might write stuff, hence you could be a writer, a journalist, etc. possibly, you would do well as a therapist too. you could also be quite spiritual and intuitive, and you may be able to speak to ghosts, read tarots, birth charts, etc.

your 4th house is in aquarius. when you were young, you probably didn’t feel at ease with yourself. you might have been the outcast, that one kid that stood out in the daycare. you probably didn’t have many friends either, and it could have been painful for you. even though you enjoyed playing, drawing and watching your favorite cartoons alone, you're very sociable, and you've probably always felt the need to be surrounded by others. you find emotional comfort and security in your home, in your parents and in just family in general. you used to be very attracted to arts when you were a kid, and you kept this love with you while growing up. maybe, you were the type of child to lie to your parents. with the ruler of the 4th house in the 3rd, you probably feel comfortable and secure in your home enviroment, especially with your siblings. you may actually feel more attached to them than to your parents. also, your parents could be very successful academically speaking, and you may still live in your birth city / country, or you may return there when you get older.

your 5th house is in pisces. you have a variety of talents and creativity, but that may possibly be covered from you at first. you’d do very well at stuff that involves art and drawing. in love, you’re attracted to artsy people; if they’re into art, singing, dancing etc. they’re your ideal of soulmate. you may be very fond of children, and you wish to have at least one in the future. you find joy and comfort in your hobbies, so it's extremely important for you to nurture your artistic needs and talents. actually, your creative talents are actually the key for you to achieve the best success and joy. you may have lots of children too, and they'll bring happiness to your life. the ruler of the 5th house is in the 3rd house: your hobbies include communication of any sort. you could write poetry, books... possibly, you could be interested in foreign languages and you may also communicate in more indirect ways, hence through photography, dancing, videos... especially since your 3rd house is ruled by neptune, the planet of images.

your 6th house is in aries. you work hard to be the number #1 in what you care about, especially if your goals involve school, work, health etc. your days are usually quite busy, and you may tend to overwork yourself. combined with your virgo stellium, this placement usually makes it hard for you to be healthy, both physically and emotionally, and you may have the tendency to overwork yourself. you could even have bad luck at work. in addition, since the 6th house also rules health, you may also suffer from some sort of disease, your health status may not be the best. you could also be a bit clumsy and hurt yourself easily, you may find yourself having a lot of bruises and / or scratches all over your body. with the ruler of the 6th being in the 10th house, you'll most likely pursue a career where you'll have to work daily, like a sort of routine. you may become a teacher or professor for example, or you may even work in the healing field; you could be a nurse, a doctor, a therapist...

your 7th house is in taurus. in a marriage you seek security, both emotional and financial. you want a loyal partner that would never do anything to hurt you, and that has a wealthy job as well. intimacy and trust also matter a lot for you in a long-term relationship. you may attract very conventionally beautiful partners, and they'll most likely be homebodies. that is, you don't attract very sociable people, or at least you don't hang out with people that attend clubs, parties, etc. frequently. possibly, you may often attract jealous, possessive people too, so beware of that. the ruler of the 7th house, venus, is in the 12th house: you may often have karmic encounters. that is, you may befriend or even date people that were a part of your past lives, they're your soulmates. your dreams may often involve other people, and you could even dream of your future spouse. you may also attract people that have some sort of addiction, like an addiction to drugs, alcohol, or even more ordinary things like internet, sleeping, etc.

your 8th house is in gemini. you may frequently find yourself thinking and studying occult/taboo topics, such as paranormal events, thrillers, tarots, astrology etc. you’re interested in finding out the truth, not only among your peers but in the whole world. you have a desire that all the malice that is hiding behind the government etc. gets exposed, even though you may be so interested in them that you could get used to it and end up overlooking them. you may also be very secretive, you tend to keep your thoughts and ideas private, especially due to saturn's presence in this house. in fact, you may actually be afraid of darker topics and embrace them. for example, you could have little or no sex drive at all. this is something that gets naturally better with time as you make more experiences and grow mature. you may also be particularly sensitive to or even tame physical pain. last but not least, this placement also indicates that you may have a painful, even violent death. the ruler of the 8th house is in the 10th house: your future career will most likely involve secrets and private matters, and hence you may work as a therapist, as a counselor, you could even handle others' money or become a detective. you may also be involved in more logical, scientific jobs like a scientist, a mathematician, etc.

your 9th house is in cancer. someone close, important and intimate with you may teach you the biggest lessons in your life. you could also live abroad with your family, or become a teacher in a daycare/primary school. jupiter here indicates that you have a knack for philosophy, and you may be interested in foreign culture, music, fashion etc. actually, those matters are the key to achieve success in your life, as you're most likely skilled at foreign languages, teaching or even writing. with the ruler of the 9th house being in the 10th house, this placement confirms what I've already mentioned above: you may pursue a career abroad, or you may have to travel to work. or perhaps, you may even work with foreign people and hence you could have to speak foreign languages. you may also work as a teacher / professor, or even as a writer, poet or philosopher.

your 10th house is in leo, with also mars, the moon and mercury sitting there. you want to be recognized and stand out. you may want to be a celebrity, or at least you want to be the one people look up to in your work place, you like being praised. luckily, your future career will most likely allow you to be the leader you want to be! in fact, this 10th house mars combined with your whole virgo stellium gives you amazing leadership skills. you're very responsible, you don't need others to guide you, and if you work hard you can achieve pretty much anything you want. you probably don't see work as a burden, it's pretty much the opposite. working is literally your energy tank. the moon and mercury sitting there are other placements that indicate that your future job will involve communication of some sort. you could become a writer, a translator, a therapist... also, as I've already mentioned above, you may have to speak foreign languages for your career. with the ruler of the 10th house being in the 11th house, your future career may actually be a long-term dream or goal of yours. for example, let's suppose you've always wanted to be a writer when you were younger; this placement indicates that you can actually become one if you work on it. you may also work with your friends, or find your friends at your job place. you could also get popular or even famous for your career.

your 11th house is in virgo, with also your sun placed there. this placement, together with your heavy scorpio influence, makes you very picky with friends. you may frequent and feel happy with different people, but you only call friends a few of them. you also have friends with similiar ideals and approach to yours, hence it’s easy for you to get along as you see eye to eye. your sun in this house makes you crave human contact. even if not directly, since I assume that you're quite introverted, you still like hearing about others' opinions on different matters, but you may prefer interacting with others through internet for example. or perhaps, you may actually hear about others' points of view through books, blogs, etc. you're also very fond of your friends, and you may often be very liked by them. you could be the loyal, caring friend in your group. the ruler of the 11th house is in the 10th house: this placement pretty much confirms what I've said above, that is you may pursue a career that involves your long-term dreams. you could meet your friends at your job place too, and they could also boost your reputation and popularity. you may often befriend known people.

your 12th house is in libra, with also venus sitting in this house. you find beauty in neptunian topics, such as astrology, spirituality, dreams, art etc. you may actually be quite skilled at things that involve beauty and aesthetics. you may also be afraid of being judged, especially for your interests and/or physical appearance. you could often idealize the idea of love and partners; that is, you could daydream of marrying the perfect, royal spouse that would always be by your side. yet, you could often find yourself daydreaming so much that you actually see people as what they're not. that is, they turn out to be different from what you thought. the ruler of the 12th house is in the 12th house: you may have some escape tendencies to detach from reality; maybe, you use retail therapy as a coping mechanism. you could also oversleep, pray or maybe meditate to stop thinking about your worries for a while. you usually have very peaceful, romantic dreams, and your past life was quite pacific too. in fact, you don’t seem to have many karmic lessons to learn.

❤️ love life, soulmates

in love, you attract taurus, libra, pisces, aries placement and / or traits. your future spouse is probably going to have prominent libra/venus/7th house placements, as well as some pisces/neptune/12th house dominance too. they will be extremely soft and kind-hearted, maybe a little clingy, but true sweethearts. they may be very fair and balanced too, even though they could be a bit flaky sometimes. they may also be one of your soulmates, and hence you could have this 'I've already seen you before' vibe to you when you meet them. your children are probably going to have prominent pisces placements, or at least they’ll have pisces/water traits: they’ll be spiritual, calm, artistic and sleepy, yet they may also develop a rebel/emo attitude during their teenage years.

👼🏻 family life

your mother is probably a very caring person that knows how to stand up for herself when she has to, but she may struggle to do that. in fact, she looks very emotionally detached, and she could also be quite moody and unpredictable. she also has very strong beliefs that you inherited from her. your father is a bit softer and more romantic, he knows how to have fun and used to play a lot with you when you were a child. he may be very intelligent and smart, and he could also be the dominant figure in your family. if you have siblings, they probably have prominent capricorn/pisces/aquarius placements in their chart. you may sometimes fight with them, but you still have a very deep bond with each other. in the worst case, your mother might have had a miscarriage, or maybe they were stillborn.

📊 career

honestly, your chart indicates that you could do well at a variety of jobs thanks to your virgo stellium! you may find yourself being interested in teaching and learning, you would make an amazing teacher or even professor in university. you could also become a successful writer, as your mercury sharing the same sign as your moon shows that you're able to fully convey your emotions and feelings in your speech in a clear and correct way thanks to your virgo dominance. you may also do well as a therapist or even as a nurse or doctor, you seem like the type of person that is good at impacting others with your words. with your virgo energy, you can probably help others thanks to your skills.

👚 fashion sense, style analysis

you may have lots of dark, edgy clothes in your wardrobe, from leather to animal prints. you could possibly also fancy velvet in your clothes. your style is mostly quite classy and expensive/expensive-looking (you probably love formal and elegant clothes), but still with a touch of boldness to it. as for the colors, I assume you also enjoy wearing darker shades, from dark blue, purple, burgundy… to just directly black. you could possibly be fond of total-black fits too.

👁 past life, life purpose

in your past life, the focus was on yourself. maybe, you had troubles with self-esteem and identity in general. you had to work hard and finally understand who you were to fulfill your past life purpose. hence, this lifetime your focus will be on the bonds you create with others. even though at first you might feel almost scared to the idea of marriage, especially having mars in the 7th house, this lifetime you're here to develop this matter. after all, you may despise love for your troubled past. with your north node in the 7th house, you're naturally lucky in love. there's nothing to be afraid of, you only need to take small steps and open your heart to someone, putting your worries and insecurities aside.

🤔 major transits analysis / october 10th

transit venus is going to be conjunct your natal moon very soon. you could be feeling very affectionate lately, you may be craving a relationship and peace in your day-to-day life. with transit mercury in your 12th house, you may also feel a bit tired and / or stressed, you probably prefer spending time by yourself daydreaming instead of going out and socializing lately. also, the north node is about to enter your 8th house; you may come across unexpected or sudden issues regarding financial matters, but that will help you understand how to deal with and earn more money. it could be painful and stressful at first, but it'll just make you improve.

🧿 manifest what you want, secret skills

your secret skills revolve around finances and just security in general. with a positive attitude, you may attract material luck: money, clothes, houses… everything that you desire. since you’re a logical person, I assume the most efficient way for you to manifest through the LOA is writing! take a notebook and just write down positive affirmations, such as 'I have the car of my dreams’ etc. you may also write them on post-its and glue them around your house, so that you can accelerate the progress. you can also try to idealize your wish before trying to manifest it. for example, if you want a new sweatshirt, try to imagine yourself wearing it. you could also go into a shop and actually try that sweatshirt it on; being in contact with it will boost the law of attraction even more.

this is the end! thank you again for booking a reading, hope it resonated :)

[comicbookuniversity]

How Black Lagoon Begins Attacking Gender Norms

by Bunnypwn Gold

Rei Hiroe’s Black Lagoon is one of the most intelligent, fun, and kinetic action-crime dramas around. The entire series looks and feels like an action movie; even the way it’s structured feels more akin to a series of movies, with different self-contained arcs building off of the previous installments. While many action movies include philosophical elements and dialogue in an attempt to make the festival of blood and explosions seem more intelligent without exploring the issues, Black Lagoon actively builds its themes and the substance of its plot and character arcs around its stellar action-hero philosophy quotes. One of its strongest points is how integral all the characters’ social identities are to the way the story is told. Chief among these is the way gender is explored and examined. Looking through the first five stories of the series, a powerful message about breaking out of the toxic gender binary is developed, creating an argument that drives the rest of the series. This argument is never made explicitly, but instead through the pattern of behaviors exhibited by Japanese salaryman Rock, as the feminine, and hotshot gunslinger Revy, as the masculine.

For anyone who has not read the series, a little catch-up is in order. At the beginning, Okajima Rokuro, a generic Japanese salaryman, is kidnapped by Revy, the gunhand of Lagoon Traders, a company of underworld couriers. Rokuro was in possession of a disc the Lagoon Traders were hired to steal, and Revy wanted to sweeten the pay with some ransom. During a shootout with mercenaries hired by Rokuro’s company and a chase to certain death, Rokuro goes from wanting to return to his ordinary life, to finding out his bosses are planning to let him die, and finally to diving into the underworld as a crewman aboard the Black Lagoon, taking up the nickname Rock. He then spends the first few stories of the series being taught how to perform basic duties and tasks aboard the torpedo boat by Revy until they have a falling out and make up after a dramatic argument. It is this series of events that sets up the larger dialogue on gender in the rest of the series.  

In an interview published for Sunday GX magazine and printed in volume 8, series author Rei Hiroe and Gen Urobuchi, author of the Black Lagoon novelization, discuss their views on gender in light of the series’ myriad badass women. In it, Urobuchi is quoted as saying,

“I naturally have this idea that women are strong or tough. Like men are just male bees—creatures that should die after they ejaculate…In that sense men are weak. Whereas the battle begins for women once they get pregnant…Women have to keep fighting. I don’t see that kind of strength as cute. I can’t dote on it.”

Later on, when discussing the final scene of The Wild Bunch, in which the heroic cowboys go off to their deaths trying to save their friends, Hiroe and Urobuchi have the following exchange:

Hiroe: “They’re already dead at that point. That’s what’s so cool. They have no intention of getting out alive.”

Urobuchi: “That’s really the only moment men can compete with women, I think. There’d have to be a third world war for men to shine. Like a Mad Max type of world. Maybe only when there’s a real danger of extinction will men have a role. Right now this society could exist only with women.”

This lays out the core of the series’ argument about gender: women are strong because they fight to live and make life, whereas men place all their value on their own deaths and the deaths of others, and the current gender binary denies women their strength and forces them into submission with the violence of death-based masculinity. This is somewhat familiar, since associations between the genders and life and death in this vein are common across cultures. What is particularly instructive for how the series is constructed is how the machismo, male-dominant view of gender is embedded in action movies, particularly cowboy movies. For anyone who has read Black Lagoon, it’s clear how powerful an influence cowboy and other action movies have on the series.

Rock spent his life as a low-level employee in a large Japanese company. Like most companies around the world, large Japanese corporations like the one Rock worked for are male-dominated and are typified by traditional ideals of masculinity, with the CEO and board of directors, among others, working in the role of powerful, great men, and everyone under them working their way closer to that great ideal of manhood. Rock, being so low in the company, is far from manhood, in that sense; he describes his job as mostly consisting of bowing to superiors, and his general conciliatory, subservient attitude throughout the early part of the series can easily be read as traditionally feminine. From that perspective, his time at that company can be read as emasculating (for more on the idea of emasculating corporate culture and men trying to take back their manhood with violence, see Fight Club). Rock even reveals that he would blow off steam at a batting cage, which is a notably phallic activity, with bats and balls, and, being a sport-based hobby, is more traditionally masculine by nature; in a sense, after constantly kissing ass and being forced to get drunk to keep his bosses happy, he recharged his masculinity by knocking his stress into the far end of the cage.

Revy, on the other hand, fits perfectly into macho-violent cowboy movie masculinity during the first set of stories. If she had been replaced by a man, then superficially the story could have been told the same way, with the only difference being that Rock would likely have been a little less shocked to see Two Hand smile while he killed all those mercenaries. She’s short-tempered, mean, constantly looks out for herself before anyone else, and is just so indignant that she has to take orders from anyone. She’s greedy and aggressive and takes great joy in both risking her life and taking the lives of others. Throughout the first few stories, Revy often complains that every little thing Rock does wrong costs her money, and she’s not particularly generous with her own. Though she continues this throughout the rest of the series, and so it isn’t specific to this period, the fact that Revy is most often seen in her downtime looking at porno magazines promising the largest-breasted women around drives home the kind of macho, hypermasculine role she fills. We later learn that she grew up on the streets of NYC, having to run from street criminals and violent police officers. She would take up the gun at age 11 and begin emulating the only kind of power she knew up to that point: the violent men who terrorized her. Her worldview is defined by this dog-eat-dog attitude, with people being nothing more than dead bodies waiting to happen and profit from. She’s so scared of showing vulnerability and anything that could be seen as feminine because the last time she was vulnerable and feminine, she was nearly killed in the gutter by dirty cops.

The pilot chapter of the series sets out to demonstrate the gendered positions of Rock and Revy. Revy starts off the chapter by messing up her boss Dutch’s plan by kidnapping Rock for extra cash. She is then indignant when Dutch reprimands her for this, because she was trying to take initiative and be independent, masculine qualities often praised at companies such as the one Rock worked for. Rock spends all his time whining, or as Revy calls it, “bitching,” about what’s going on, being very demanding, and wanting everyone to take care of everything for him, all of which puts him in a stereotypically feminine role, and a negative one at that. At the bar, Revy belittles Rock’s manhood for drinking beer, saying rum “is what a real man drinks,” and ends up in a drinking contest, because Rock has to prove he’s a man despite his feminine role and Revy, as a “real man,” can’t back down. Revy then demonstrates her penchant for and love of violence as she kills a bunch of the EO mercenaries hired by Rock’s company to kill them and retrieve the disc, just living her best life. The turn for Rock in this chapter is when he talks to his boss and finds out he plans to let Rock die; the company leaders will reward his death with their presence at his funeral, showing the masculine value of death and the power of the executives’ masculinity that their presence is meant to be that great a reward. As the mercenaries chase the Lagoon into the straits, Revy demonstrates her masculine lack of regard for her own life by nonchalantly resigning herself to death. Rock, on the other hand, embraces the opportunity to take up the masculinity his company denied him by devising an insane plan to win the day. After coming out on top and choosing to join the Lagoon, however, that masculinity starts to change for Rock. By choosing to join the Lagoon, Rock was choosing that as his way of life, not simply the place he was willing to die. For Revy’s part, it’s easy to read the way she relishes her part in Rock’s plan as a cowboy choosing to die how she lived, but it can also be read as her accepting a way to fight to stay alive in the way she sees best, which is itself an important turn for Revy. These points are developed further in the rest of the opening of the series.

Throughout the next four stories, Rock remains at the low end of the totem pole, still receiving his training and unsure of how he will actually make his living on the Lagoon, placing him in a similarly feminine position as he was in as the errand boy in a large corporation. Revy emphasizes this with her masculine sense of inherent authority, constantly bossing Rock around and belittling him for failing to learn sailing knots faster or not checking his scuba gear thoroughly. Revy also buys Rock a Hawaiian shirt, which is never seen because Rock refuses to wear it. While buying clothes for a man may be seen as feminine, it more resembles Revy trying to institute a work uniform, since she got it to replace the semi-formal work clothes Rock still wears; it should be noted that Benny, the Lagoon’s engineer and another man who takes a passive position in the crew, wears a Hawaiian shirt. Revy’s masculine position is further solidified in Ring-Ding Ship Chase, the second story, when she single-handedly took out several motorboats filled with heavily-armed men and mounted with machine guns. Rasta-Blasta, the third story, pushes in another direction, with Revy taking a masculine approach to watching over Garcia, the young boy they’re transporting for sale, by threatening to beat and kill him when he won’t comply with orders. Revy’s role can be read as either paternal disciplinarian or like a cowboy angry because kids, which she never wanted, cramp her style. Rock takes on the maternal role in how he deals with Garcia in that story, being more gentle and nurturing. Later on, Rock tries to stop Revy and ass-kicking terrorist-turned-maid Roberta from fighting to the death partly in an attempt to protect them as women, because he still thinks like how things work in Japan. But of course, Revy has to fight Roberta, because, as a “real man,” she can’t stop before things are settled.

Die Rückkehr des Alders, the fourth story, represents the major turning point in this opening arc. During their mission to salvage a Nazi painting from a sunken German sub, Revy leaves Rock behind for a moment to take medals and things from the dead soldiers so she can make a little extra money on the side. Rock takes a stand, saying she should leave them behind. While taking a stand can be read as masculine, Rock does so in defense of what the medals meant to the soldiers, and how those sentiments are more valuable than whatever money can be made from them, essentially taking a feminine position in support of life and love. The fact that Rock backs down by the end is what really does in any hope of this being a masculine moment for Rock. Revy, on the other hand, lays out the bare bones of her cowboy “we’re dead men walking” mentality, pushing herself further into the macho corner. Here is where she reveals what her childhood was like and argues that the bones in the sub and the medals were essentially the same: just things. There’s no value in things like sentiment, which people build lives around. She’s literally placing monetary value on the deaths of Nazi soldiers, the starkest version of her masculinity. She continues when raiding the neo-Nazi ship by killing everyone she sees, including the hired staff who were unaffiliated with the neo-Nazis. When she kills them, she doesn’t have her usual smile, a sign of how her desire to remain in this powerful role is stressing her, how it’s not really bringing her a happy life.

The big conclusion happens in the follow-up story Calm Down Two Men, which sees Revy and Rock going on a simple errand run and then getting lunch. During the errand run, both demonstrate their typical patterns of behavior. Rock is more submissive, just trying to get along, and Revy is aggressive and angry, using violence as her way of handling business. Their roles here play out fine enough with the first two errands, but Revy nearly gets them into a shootout at the Rip-Off Church before Rock saves the day with some diplomacy. Revy is put on edge as Sister Yolanda tells Revy to learn from Rock, which would disrupt her status and position in multiple ways. At lunch, they get into an argument which ultimately dispels the tension left between them after their time in the sub. It is instigated by Rock, who is taking a stand for his principles, a stand that demonstrates his new masculinity. Revy tries to take control back quickly by threatening to shoot Rock dead, since she refuses to be put onto the defensive, which she would interpret as a weak, vulnerable feminine position. Rock redirects the gun and later takes a punch without flinching to show that he can’t be stopped with violence. Rock speaks here about how he got by at work before, and how Revy inspired him by showing how much more he could have in life. This scares Revy, putting her on the defensive, to hear someone demonstrate how hollow and insignificant the power she was wielding truly was. Eventually, Revy sees that Rock is actually offering her something more powerful in exchange and takes him up on it. To sum up Rock’s offer, “Well, if there aren’t any Robin Hoods…then BE a Robin Hood,” meaning take a stand for the principles you want to uphold in life. Before the chapter is out, Revy asks Rock if he’s with her or against her, just like in the sub, in an attempt to place her new path near her familiar ground. Rock doesn’t allow her that simplicity.

In this way, the two switch places in their gender roles by the conclusion of this opening arc, but do so in a way that breaks them free from the stereotypical gender binary. Just as Urobuchi put it, Rock has fully formed his new, life-affirming masculinity by the end of the argument, while Revy is only just starting to chart the course of her new, powerful femininity; to complete the parallel to sex described by Urobuchi, Revy and Rock smoke after their fight and “kiss” their cigarettes to light Revy’s. The argument fully demonstrates how the old gender binary our heroes left behind was damaging to each of them, with Rock left emasculated and, more importantly, unable to live life his own way because of how he always came up short of expectations, and Revy being a tightly-wound ball of self-destructive anger and violence doomed to leave this world without having really gotten anything out of it. Overall, it’s a clever, subtle, and effective way to demonstrate why traditional gender roles are harmful and degrading to all involved. While, as a nonbinary person, I have to point out it still is based on a binary view of gender, it’s still an interesting way to demonstrate how breaking free from the traditional gender binary is empowering and can redefine the course of a person’s life for the better.

[liskantope]

Some not-so-brief reactions to major Disney films 1968-1988

A little while ago I wrote another collection of quick commentaries on major Disney films (which I’m watching one by one through Disney+) from their inception with Snow White in 1937 to The Jungle Book in 1967. I was planning to round off my next collection at another 30-year mark, but the little mini-reviews I’ve been writing are beginning to look so long-winded in aggregate that tonight I decided maybe I should stop at this point. Also, last time, without fully being aware of it, I stopped at the end of what is considered Disney’s Silver Age (coming after Disney’s Golden Age, also included in the last set of commentaries), and apparently 1968 to 1988 is considered Disney’s (Bronze and/or) Dark Age (the Disney Renaissance kicking off with The Little Mermaid in 1989), so there’s another reason it makes sense to cut it off here.

I’ll keep watching the major Disney features, one a day, through the 90′s works, but whether I’ll find time to keep writing about my impressions of each film I watch, I can’t guarantee anything.

The Aristocats, 1970

This is a beloved favorite of mine. I got the video in later childhood, having previously admired the main number “Everybody Wants To Be a Cat” (still the highlight of the movie, from my adult point of view) and having read the story in a Disney book. After seeing it many times in childhood, I rewatched it only a few years ago when it showed up on Netflix. Around that time (or maybe just afterwards), I noticed that my favorite cartoon/Disney reviewer YouTuber Phantom Strider occasionally mentions that he dislikes The Aristocats -- he doesn’t put it on his top 10 worst Disney movie list or anything, but he’s made some disparaging remarks without going into detail. Watching it once again this month on Disney+, my verdict is that, yeah, it’s subpar in quite a few ways, but my more critical adult sensibilities will never override the fond feelings I have for this movie.

Since this is the next movie on the list after The Jungle Book, I couldn’t help constantly comparing the two, and I did see some parallels. In both cases, the story is pretty weak: this time, a family of cats gets kidnapped and stranded far from home by the greedy butler villain and have to pass through several adventures to get back to their owner. In both cases, the plot is a very linear one involving small adventures and minor characters having little bearing on the overall arc (this is perhaps slightly less the case with The Aristocats, where the new acquaintance Thomas O’Malley stays with them the whole time, and at least Scat Cat’s gang makes a return at the end -- minus the unfortunate and entirely unnecessary character of the Chinese cat -- to fight for the protagonists). In both cases, the voice acting is great and includes Phil Harris and Sterling Holloway. In both cases, the villain’s motives are rather flimsily stated -- the butler villain is more comical and slightly more rounded out, and the fact that his motive doesn’t make a lot of sense is perhaps meant to be part of the comedy. The Aristocats has far more filler material, including a useless but somewhat amusing and ultra-cartoonish sideplot about our butler villain losing his hat and umbrella and having to return to the countryside to get them (it’s more amusing than it sounds, trust me).

The Aristocats is simply weaker in almost every way than The Jungle Book. Although I like all the music, including “Scales and Arpeggios” which I only just learned was written by the Sherman Brothers and I appreciated a lot as a kid who practiced the piano every day, the only truly memorable song was “Everybody Wants To Be a Cat” (not written by the Sherman Brothers), whereas in The Jungle Book there are multiple numbers of that caliber written by the Sherman Brothers at nearly the top of their form. This film can also be compared to One Hundred and One Dalmatians and again comes out looking worse -- Dalmations sort of perfected the whole “animals coordinating a rescue” type plot, and The Aristocats only seems to make a feeble attempt at it.

One interesting thing about the pacing of the film that as an adult I’m a bit taken aback by is how quickly the ending of the movie runs. I was shocked when I rewatched this for the first time as an adult on Netflix, got to the ending of “Everybody Wants To Be a Cat”, and saw that there were only 15 minutes of running time left: that includes the late-night discussion between the romantic leads, the arrival at their home, Edgar re-kidnapping them, Roquefort going for help and nearly getting himself killed by Scat Cat’s gang, the whole action sequence of the actual rescue, a final scene with Madame welcoming O’Malley and rewriting the will, and the final song. We don’t even get to see Madame’s reaction at seeing her beloved cats alive and well, which is one of the ways this movie compares unfavorably with Dalmatians. There is some real artistry in The Aristocats, but the amount of effort put in is clearly not up to the standard of Disney’s finest.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks, 1971

I mainly knew this movie through the song “Beautiful Briny Sea” growing up. Eventually I did watch the film one time; I also read the book it was based on (I can’t remember which came first). I remembered very little outside of that one song, the fact that the characters travel in a bed, and David Tomlinson (who I knew well as Mr. Banks) being in it as an jarringly un-Banks-like character. I had entirely forgotten the fact that the story takes place during World War II and that this is crucial to the plot. I knew this as the Disney movie that tried to be Mary Poppins and failed to be anywhere near as exciting or resonant. However, I was still very curious to rediscover, two decades later, what the movie was really all about.

The story is really quite good on a level that appeals to grownups as well as children -- not as deeply as Mary Poppins, mind you, but distinctive and captivating. (I think this has something to do with the story being as much to do with the adult characters as with the children.) The acting is also solid. It only increased my respect for David Tomlinson’s versatility as an actor, in fact, and it was fun to see the likeness of the dignified and proper George Banks display so much awkward vulnerability and eventually get himself into so many slapstick situations. Unfortunately, the only memorable song is “Beautiful Briny Sea” -- I mean that quite literally, as sitting down to write this a couple of weeks after watching, I’m finding it hard to remember much about any of the other songs.

Also unfortunately, the song “Beautiful Briny Sea” is sort of a beacon in a murky area as, halfway through the film when we switch to the animated portion, the movie suddenly gets... quite bad. The live-animation hybrid is consistently done to weak effect, first of all. For some reason, only Mary Poppins made this effect believable, ahead of its time. Secondly, I understand that we have to suspend our disbelief to enjoy a children’s fantasy film, but having the group plunged into water without themselves or their book appearing wet or having any issue breathing is pushing this a bit far. Thirdly, the writing gets rather silly. As soon as they come across an animated codfish who welcomes them to the area, the oldest kid Charles (always the skeptic) says, “Now I’m hearing things! Fish don’t talk.” Nor do fish “walk” along the bottom of the sea with a cane while fully clothed and smoking a cigar, Charlie, so what was your first clue that you’re in a story where things you thought impossible are happening?

The whole crew later gets up onto the animated island of Naboombu, where Mr. Banks Professor Browne is forced to referee a soccer game between teams of anthropomorphic animals as part of his efforts (somehow) to get his hands on the lanyard of the island’s arrogant monarch (who rather resembles Prince John from the next film on this list) which winds up evaporating as soon as they get back to their own world anyway. The ensuing soccer match is by far the most bizarre part of the film, or of any of these films really -- it feels much more like some wacky Saturday morning cartoon than Disney animation. Browne the referee winds up getting (literally) dragged into the game; the live/animation hybrid is done especially poorly here. Once the characters get back to the “real” world, however, the movie becomes good again, with a fantastic climactic conclusion that left me smiling at the overall effect of the film despite its weaknesses.

Robin Hood, 1973

This was a Disney classic that we owned from the time I was fairly small, and that I watched more times than almost any other one, with Alice in Wonderland being the only possible rival I can think of. I went what was probably close to a twenty-year period without seeing it or missing it until a couple of years ago, on a transatlantic flight when it was one of the movie options on the plane. I was taken aback on that rewatching by the fact that... Robin Hood just isn’t that good. When I later saw my parents (I think this was on the way to visiting them), I told them of this revelation, and they told me, “We never thought it was that good either, but you seemed to like it.” I guess I can see some of the appeal to my much younger self, but less easily than I can see the appeal of the some of the other so-so films like The Aristocats -- there is something about Robin Hood that is eye-catching on the superficial level but ultimately shallow. At the same time, I’ll always have to feel a bit sentimental about this one because of the role it played in an early period of my life, introducing me to words like outlaw and in-law and taxes (I vividly remember thinking in early watchings that Taxes was just the name of the unpleasant wolf character), helping to develop my understanding of what poverty looks like, and also introducing me to the concept of political satire (under an anti-free-speech monarchy no less. The scene shown in the video just linked is my favorite scene of the movie, by the way.)

I think my main criticism of Disney’s Robin Hood could be summarized by saying it oversimplifies what could have been a nuanced story, way more than it needs to. This shows most starkly in its clearly-marked division between good characters and evil characters. Naive Good-vs.-Evil plots are very much part of the Disney brand, but I can’t think of any of their other films which takes that aspect to this much of an extreme in developing the characters, so that the entire cast is very openly divided between the white caps and the black caps and (this is the most important part) to the detriment of individuation between the characters. The personalities of all the characters on the Good Side seem pretty much interchangeable throughout the film. Oh sure, Robin Hood has Plucky Hero stamped on him with Designated Sidekick Little John, and Maid Marian has Love Interest stamped on her, and so on. They get into different situations because they all play different roles in the community. But there are no deeper differences between them. Friar Tuck, for instance, is the local religious leader, and you think he might present a more thoughtful, pacifistic, and spiritual point of view to his comrades and enemies. But no, he shouts at the Sheriff and chest-bumps him out of the church and engages him in physical combat just like all the other characters do. All of the people on the Good Side are in complete lockstep throughout, and this makes their part of the story deeply uninteresting.

King Richard is never developed as a character; he is a faraway abstract entity throughout the film, which makes his sudden appearance at the end (which is what really saves Nottingham and finishes the story) very ineffective. (Let’s not get into the fact that he’s described as heroic for going off to participate in the Crusades -- “While bonny good King Richard leads the great crusade he’s on” -- talk about sugarcoating history!) This is part of what I mean about oversimplifying: they could have injected some complexity into the political story beyond “usurper taxes all the money out of the people because of his personal greed until the real king returns and makes everything lovely again”. I strongly believe it is possible to present real issues in a way that is both mature and engaging to children and that it has been done even in other Disney features. Disney didn’t try very hard to do it here.

I’ll give the writers credit in that the three main bad guys, Prince John, Sir Hiss, and the Sheriff of Nottingham, are somewhat individuated, partly I think out of necessity because the Bad Side of any story has to consist of people who quarrel amongst themselves. Prince John is actually well enough developed as an insecure, petulant child with no idea what it means to lead a country that I enjoy watching him even as an adult. The parallels between him and President Trump are unmistakable, and I’m surprised that I haven’t seen more memes about this. Still, by the end of the film, even he was starting to wear on me.

Another aspect of the movie that bypassed my attention as a child but bothers me as an adult is its blatant American-ness in retelling a very old, extremely British story. As in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, all of the accents, except for those of two of the main bad guys, are American. The rooster narrator of the story sounds particularly American and plays folk music throughout of a style that strikes me as the epitome of American.

The way the script and animation deal with bodies and obesity is particularly interesting in this one. Four of the characters I can think of are portrayed as fat, including one of the main bad guys (the Sheriff “Old Bushel-Britches” of Nottingham) but also three of the good guys. Minor quips are made about this by some of the characters, but overall it could arguably be considered a rather positive, good-natured treatment of this issue for its time. It is the source of some physical humor, and some of the body-related physical humor in general slightly raises my eyebrows as an adult -- there is a boob grab, for instance (well, fake boobs as part of a disguise, but still).

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, 1977

I had avoided watching any Disney rendition of Pooh for a long time before watching this one last week. I got to see a lot of Pooh in earlier childhood because of videos given as gifts by other kids’ parents, which my mom (who loves the original books by Milne and hates Disney’s interpretation of them) let me watch only with great reluctance. I soured to the Disney Pooh franchise as I got older and remember in high school getting sick of how many things were decorated with animated Pooh characters, and how few people knew the original books.

Starting to watch this film, I had no idea which of the Pooh stories would be included or whether I would remember seeing them before. As it turned out, I remembered almost none of it: I knew the theme song well and was slightly familiar with the early song about Pooh climbing the honey tree (it must have been on one of the Disney Sing-Along videos) but didn’t remember anything else until vaguely recalling some of the later Tigger stuff (I remembered, before it happened, that Tigger escapes from the tree by sliding down a paragraph of text in the book, one of many instances of extreme fourth-wall-breaking that runs as a theme throughout). As it happens, although The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh seems to go along pretty smoothly given that it makes no pretense of having a unified story arc -- something I give it credit for -- it is actually composed of four short films produced throughout the decade beforehand. This explains why I only remembered the Tigger stuff near the end: we must have had the quarter-length film Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too at my house for a while, but not the other three. (What I actually watched the most, I think, was a video of TV episodes called “Newfound Friends”, which I’ll look up on Disney+ out of curiosity but probably won’t include in this list.)

I remain anti-Pooh[Disney_version], but this anthology film wasn’t as bad as I had thought it might be. The first story about Pooh and the honey tree was actually pretty good. I am not opposed to Sterling Hollaway’s portrayal of the title character. Eeyore’s voice is way too flat, but otherwise most of the characters are portrayed okay. I distinctly remember reading Rabbit as a female character as a kid, and on hearing his voice again I suppose I can understand why. Tigger is the most offensively adapted: he is one-dimensional in a very obnoxious, not-so-amusing slapstick way. His portrayal would have come off better if they had given him more of a child’s voice, which is more appropriate to the book version of his character anyway. The gopher character is pretty annoying as well; he’s rather useless and unnecessary given that he’s not in the books (he even has a fourth-wall-breaking line about not being in the book). Some of the stories from the book are meshed together in a way that does a disservice to each of them, and the movie might have been better if it had committed to adapting fewer of Milne’s chapters. The story about Pooh getting stuck in Rabbit’s front door is done in a distasteful way, with Rabbit turning the back half of his body into part of the upholstery (an idea that Walt Disney had himself when he first read the book!). The songs weren’t great, and I wish that some of Pooh’s poetry from the books had been adapted to song instead.

Leaving those details aside, this is an earnest attempt at turning Pooh into an animated feature which turned out to be not too terrible given my low expectations.

The Rescuers, 1977

I remember watching this once as a kid and almost nothing sticking with me apart from the fact that the main villain (who I remembered nothing about, not even really the gender) had two pet crocodiles. I watched it a second time on Netflix a few years ago, I think within the same week of watching The Aristocats on Netflix.

I have one word for this Disney animated classic: weak. The story is not all that interesting. Having watched Dalmatians and The Aristocats in the few weeks before hand, coordinated animal rescue plots were starting to wear on me. There is no music except for a few forgettable songs not sung by the characters. Eva Gabor makes Ms. Bianca a beguiling character, but the rest of the characters are completely forgettable. The main male character, Bernard, has the blandest voice ever. Even the little girl being rescued, while sympathetic, is not very unique or interesting. (There is something subtly heavy and haunting about having her teddy bear as her best friend through most of the film, though.) At the time of writing, I’ve already halfway forgotten what the villain’s sidekick was like. There are a bunch of other animals who are fun to watch in animation but don’t stick in my mind, apart from Pat Buttram’s drunken rat character (because it wouldn’t be a Disney film of the 40′s-80′s without some alcoholism in it).

The villain, Medusa, is a particular fail here. She is basically a lame Cruella de Vil 2.0: modern, non-fairy-tale-ish, greedy and materialistic, drives like a lunatic, etc. After watching, I found out that the story writers initially thought of simply bringing Cruella back as the villain in this movie, but decided against the idea of it being in any way a sequel to Dalmatians (remember that at this point no Disney sequel had ever been done -- the 1990 sequel to this film was the very first!). I think they should have gone with that idea: bring back one of the most celebrated Disney villains, rather than come up with a new one who is a lot like her but with subtly less pizazz.

Random observation: this has to be one of the only classic Disney stories where the animals can talk to exactly one sympathetic human (the girl) but no other human. If I remember right, I don’t think even Cinderella can understand the words of her mouse friends.

Anyway. Some people say the sequel is much better than the original here. I haven’t seen The Rescuers Down Under yet, but I hope it’s true.

Pete’s Dragon, 1977

This is the first movie on this whole journey that is so obscure that I don’t think I’d even heard of before, let alone seen, and that’s despite the fact that there was a remake in 2016. (The one thing that rang a bell for me while watching was the idea of a dragon playing tic-tac-toe on its belly, an image I possibly saw in an isolated context.) I questioned whether I should watch yet another 1977 Disney film at all, when it would be mostly live-action and was obviously so obscure. In the end, I’m glad I watched this, partly because the story did grip me on some level, but mostly because this film is so very entertaining in how badly done it is.

Pete’s Dragon, in almost every way, is bad -- hilariously bad -- the sweet spot of Bad: the kind of bad that’s actually interesting to examine and yet also shallow enough to make for good Bad Movie Night watching. It’s hard to know where even to begin. The consistently terrible acting of almost everyone, especially in every single line of the boy protagonist (I hate to trash a child actor like this, and part of it was probably bad direction: for instance, someone should have taught him to go easy on the pointy finger). Almost none of the right emotional notes are hit at the right time in what is a very heartfelt story. Only Helen Reddy as the female lead and Jim Dale as the charlatan doctor strike me as good actors doing the best they can with a terrible script and bad acting around them. Then there are the cheesy, poorly-written, often poorly-sung songs. (Did I mention that in one song, each of Pete’s main abusive guardians continue to sing, each in an unperturbed, full-throated voice while being flung in the air by an invisible dragon and plunged into the water?) The awkward choreography. The weak visual effects (as with Bedknobs and Broomsticks, they really didn’t know how to pull of hybrid animation well. I’d go easier on them for this if Mary Poppins hadn’t nailed it 13 years earlier.) I could go on and on.

It made a lot of sense to me when I read afterwards that Pete’s Dragon was originally written as a stage musical, because there is something unusually stage-musical-ish about how the songs are written (for instance, having subsets of the ensemble throw out response lines in unison) and the way the choreography is done. I’ll say as someone who has been in stage musicals that these elements can feel a bit awkward even on the stage; they look to me more awkward in the medium of film; and they’re especially awkward when the songs, choreography, etc. is as poorly written as it is in this film -- someone who hates musicals wanting to teach a friend to hate them too might well choose to show their friend this movie and pretend that it’s a representative example.

Even through all this, I was able to appreciate that the story is pretty good, and I came to care for the sympathetic characters, however badly acted they were. I also enjoyed the atmosphere of a small coastal village in northeast US (called Passammaquoddy, apparently a real bay in Maine). So, by the time I was partly through watching this (fairly long) movie, I felt very committed to continuing, enjoying it as I was just as much for its entertaining badness as for anything else.

I want to end by mentioning one musical scene in the movie that took me by surprise because it was actually good, and funny and catchy and overall entertaining. It’s our introduction to the charlatan Dr. Terminus, and so it’s self-contained. If you want a taste of a part of the movie that I think is head and shoulders better than the rest while reflecting exactly what I mean by a stage-musical-style musical number (not making any claims about how good in absolute terms this scene is, though), here is a YouTube video of it (the song “Passammaquoddy”) (warning: mildly off-color taste on body type and disability stuff). I would actually enjoy leading a song like this in a musical.

The Fox and the Hound, 1981

These more obscure Disney films are getting more and more interesting. I distinctly remember knowing about this one as a kid, seeing VHS boxes of it at friends’ houses, etc., but I never had much interest in actually seeing it. I watched it for the first time on Disney+ with great curiosity, coming in knowing literally nothing about what the story would be about except “a fox and a hound are friends”. I was pleasantly taken aback by the new setting of backwoods American farmland and by unusually quiet, low-key tone.

The main thing I can say about this movie is that it’s far and away the least Disney-ish of the animated ones I’ve seen so far. If nobody had told me which company made this movie, it would never even occur to me that it was done by Disney, except for the presence of Disney icon Pat Buttram’s very recognizable twangy voice (perfect for this movie, not really appropriate for the setting of Robin Hood). It’s hard to explain just why I feel this way. Maybe it’s something to do with the pacing and the sort of quiet story. Or maybe it’s the fact that none of the animals seem to be drawn in the traditional Disney fashion (that is, we’ve seen fox and owl characters before in Disney, and for some reason their counterparts in The Fox and the Hound aren’t recognizable to me.) Or maybe it was the almost complete lack of songs. Honestly, trying to write this, I can’t quite pin down what made this a slightly offputting Disney-watching experience.

Despite feeling affection for the characters from the get-go, I actually found myself rather bored throughout the first half of the slowly-progressing movie. Then I perked up in the middle, actually thinking there might be a death, and of a rather morally ambiguous character too (this didn’t feel like a Disney film, so it might break the rules?). After that I felt enthralled to the point of breaking down and finishing it after having previously decided to leave a bit left over for the next day. I’m really not used to not having any idea how stories will end when going through Disney movies, and I guess I couldn’t handle even that small bit of suspense.

In the end, I thought the story, and how the story was rendered, was pretty good -- not stellar, but genuine. I don’t know about how overly-neatly everything was wrapped up with the main antagonist Amos Slade doing a complete 180 at the end, but after all this is Disney even if it doesn’t particularly feel like it and I shouldn’t be surprised at a happy ending.

Random side note: I wonder if Big Mama (the owl character) could be criticized as sort of an African-American stereotype and thus what Disney+ would call an “outdated cultural depiction”, or if it will be in another ten years.

The Black Cauldron, 1985

We continue with our sequence of more obscure Disney flicks. I guess this era is called the Dark Age of Disney for a reason, and one could say that this movie epitomizes such an era both in its role in the evolution of Disney and in its actual content. I don’t recall even hearing about this one as a child. I’ve heard it referred to as an adult only in the context of its successor being advertised as fun to provide a contrast with the overly-dark box office failure that had just come out, so I came in expecting a not-very-worthwhile movie that would be uncharacteristically dark and un-fun.

All I can say is, wow! The Black Cauldron, while indeed uncharacteristically dark (in ambiance at least, less so in subject matter), is genuinely, seriously good!

Within literally the first two seconds of the film, I knew that I was in a Medieval setting (not having known anything whatsoever about the story prior to watching) both from the music and from the backdrop. This remained the case throughout the movie. Everything in its style is boldly, wholeheartedly Medieval, not like some other Disney movies where the Medieval setting is watered-down and phony *cough*swordinthestone*cough*robinhood*hack. The only other movie on this list so far which comes close to succeeding at this was Sleeping Beauty, but that is such a different type of film, with such a different animation style, that comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. Honestly, I don’t think that the flavor is so thick even in Sleeping Beauty. The art of The Black Cauldron actually feels closer to that of Magic the Gathering than anything else I can think of from Disney. The effects of the animation are absolutely gorgeous -- in a rather dark way, mind you, not bright and colorful like what is usually associated with Disney.

The story is complex by Disney standards and I had zero familiarity with it beforehand, so for the first time I actually had to check myself to make sure I was paying attention. The characters are reasonably developed with engaging dialog (though slightly hesitant and sparse, with unusually little humor). It was a little jarring to hear “the Forbidden Forest” mentioned by one of the characters and remember that Harry Potter wouldn’t be around for over a decade. The main villain is one of the scariest ones of Disney and I would imagine may have been somewhat influenced by Ian McDiarmid’s Emperor, who had made his debut only a couple of years earlier.

I said that the last film on this list seemed distinctly un-Disney-ish, and I can say the same about this one in its own way -- maybe this was an experimental trend at Disney studios during the first half of the 80′s. The Black Cauldron has even less music in it than The Fox and the Hound and may be the only animated feature I’ve seen here with nothing resembling a song at all. One strong impression I got throughout, especially when the dungeon sequence started and the princess was introduced -- and this isn’t exactly a compliment -- is that something about the pacing, dialog, body movements, etc. seriously makes this movie feel like I’m watching a video game. (For personal context, I’ve never been a gamer, and most of my exposure to video games comes from watching college roommates play during the late 00′s.) I can’t justify exactly where I get this feeling. Also, the princess is strangely voiced and feels particularly like a non-player (video game) character somehow. I’m now curious as to whether there have ever been any games based on this movie or whether it had faded too much into oblivion by the time gaming reached the right level of progress.

Anyway, The Black Cauldron may not be especially fun or enjoyable to kids, but for an older person in the mood for some spooky Medieval fantasy animated entertainment, I recommend it as a fine movie.

(Fun trivia: I had believed that the successor on this list was the first animated feature to use computers to assist in animation, in the clock/gear sequence, but apparently this one actually was. Also, to date it was the most expensive animated film created.)

The Great Mouse Detective, 1986

Now for a classic that I had been greatly looking forward to. We didn’t have The Great Mouse Detective at my home growing up, but I know I saw it a number of times and later remembered liking it so much that on a whim in college, around the time I revisited Mary Poppins, I borrowed it from the local Blockbuster. I distinctly remembering feeling a little sheepish checking it out, but the young guy at the register actually said something like, “Yeah, that’s one of the best ones.” Years later, one of my best friends during graduate school was hanging out at my place and the conversation went to us agreeing on how excellent The Great Mouse Detective is and musing over the fact that nobody ever seems to talk about it, and we decided to watch it together as it was on Netflix at the time. We didn’t bother to log out of my roommate’s Netflix account to watch it, and he was later very irritated at me about the fact that Netflix was now constantly offering him children’s animated features. Anyway, it seems I’m far from the only one who has often viewed this one as perhaps the most underrated Disney classic of all time. (Further evidence: it comes second in WatchMojo’s list, with their winner being its predecessor!)

The Great Mouse Detective was billed as “All new! All fun!” to assure audiences that it would be a departure from the heavy seriousness of its predecessor, and in this it generously delivers all the way through. It’s based on the just-silly-enough-to-be-delightful premise that in late Victorian London there was a mouse version of Queen Victoria living in Buckingham Palace and a mouse version of Sherlock Holmes (our title character) living under the human Holmes’ flat in Baker Street. Our villain, the dastardly Ratigan, is hatching a plan to take over all of Mousedom via a plot which is incredibly silly, but the movie, which is consistent in its unpretentiousness, is able to pull this off just fine. All of the characters are nicely fleshed out (there’s a case to be made about Fidget’s character reflecting ableism but let’s leave that aside). Ratigan is the juiciest villain we’ve seen since Cruella de Vil. The plot is actually pretty complex, not at all like the predictable fairy tale / fantasy type plots we’ve often seen, yet not so complicated that it would lose the audience (or if it loses some kids, they will still be entertained by the great voicing, music, and animation). The action is, bar none, the very best I’ve seen so far on the animated movies of this list, and the movie is somehow packed with action -- every single sequence of it is superb, and the climactic scene inside of Big Ben is a revolutionary masterpiece of animation (by the standards that existed at the time). The abrupt transition to that scene, beginning in near-silence, is one of the more delightfully, deliciously chilling Disney moments for me.

This is not one of the great Disney musicals, but all three of its three musical numbers are still very enjoyable. I remember learning in college that the same person wrote “The World’s Greatest Criminal Mind” and “Goodbye So Soon”, but I only just now internalized that the composer was Henry Mancini who I love from The Pink Panther and Victor Victoria. There is a certain type of wit and humor in the lyrics of both of those songs which I don’t know how to characterize in words except to say that it’s sprinkled with phrases either containing self-contradictons (“You’re the best of the worst around”, “You’re more evil than even you”) or redundancy (“No one can doubt what we know you can do”) or just plain wordplay (“Even meaner? You mean it?”, “With time so short I’ll say so long”). None of it makes a pretense of being extremely witty or anything; it’s just mildly dry. I don’t know what to call this kind of humor and can’t think of another example of it, but it consciously (though subtly) influenced the vibe I was going for with the section headings in certain of my earlier Wordpress essays.

Perhaps Lady and the Tramp can make a case for winning the Most Underrated Disney Animated Feature prize, as it seems more mature and elegant, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find The Great Mouse Detective every bit as enjoyable and that I still have enough inner child in me that I can rewatch the movie in my early 30′s and come out of it smiling broadly.

Oliver and Company, 1988

The first major Disney feature that came out in my lifetime! As with The Fox and the Hound, I always knew about this one growing up but was never really interested enough to watch it (even despite the fact that it was somehow loosely based on Oliver Twist, whose musical adaptation I was raised on pretty heavily) -- at least, I don’t think I ever saw any of it until one day in my young adulthood cable days when I caught it on TV. By “caught it on TV”, of course I mean that I probably didn’t see all of it, and it was interrupted by commercials and I was probably doing something else at the same time and not paying much attention. Literally the only thing I could remember was the line “Don’t want to mix with the riffraff?”

It’s just as well because in the grander progression of Disney creations, Oliver and Company turns out to be pretty skipable. Now I will say that I appreciate the variety of locations and cultural backdrops in Disney films and the amount of effort the creators put into carrying them out (something that was mostly lost on me as a kid). In this case, we are transported for the first time to contemporary New York, and it’s clear that the writers, voice actors, and animators went full throttle on making everything seem as in-your-face New-York-ish as possible. I don’t fault them for doing this, but it’s all done in a slightly brash way that doesn’t at all attract me to late-80′s New York culture.

I was struck in the first few minutes by a change I don’t quite know how to describe in words, except to say that the animation and even more the music feel palpably distinctly more modern than anything I’ve visited so far. The animation is simpler and more generic (luckily I have a fondness for kittens and they do succeed in making Oliver look adorable, but otherwise the visuals left me cold), and the music is a sharp reminder of the blander forms of pop music I remember growing up hearing. “Why Should I Worry?” triggered a recognition of the song that I had long forgotten -- apparently I used to know it very well but I’m not entirely sure how. The other songs are forgettable enough that I’ve already forgotten them. Interesting to find out that the principal voices were done mainly by Billy Joel and Bette Midler, marking another step on Disney’s road towards featuring more big-time celebrities in their voice acting (culminating in Robin Williams’ role in Aladdin several years later).

The story is very watered down compared to either the book or the musical version of Oliver -- understandable, I suppose, but I didn’t find it very interesting. The characters were lackluster, and the main villain Sykes managed to be even more forgettable than What’s-her-name from The Rescuers. This movie normalizes hitting on women by making catcalling noises, as done by two of the non-evil characters -- I wonder if this was put in because it’s considered a distinctive feature of New York culture, but either way I found its presence in the film obnoxious. I will say that the character of Georgette (played by Midler) stood out as very funny, and I enjoyed all of her scenes, but I don’t have much else positively positive to say about this one.