#which they both need sometimes!!

[munsons-mutiny]

Let’s talk about the Watch What Happens (reprise) and why Only Davey could’ve sang it.

Like at this point they’re pushing the Katherine and Jack agenda, why shouldn’t she be his inspiration to keep going in this moment???

And the answer is cause she can’t grasp the situation fully!!!

Let me make it very clear that this is Not Katherine slander. I love her. I think this scene highlights the differences in their struggles and upbringing in a really brilliant way.

When she sees Jack wants to quit in this scene she’s so harsh with him. Doesn’t try to empathize with his situation at all, wants him to just buck up and keep going! Because for her, in her situation, with her upbringing, that’s the only way to get anywhere! She wants to be a reporter? Well she can’t listen when she’s told no. She has to push ahead no matter what. She can’t show fear and she can’t show weakness cause she’ll be called a girl like it’s a bad thing and have it used against her. But she doesn’t see her privilege in this! That in coming from a rich powerful family her physical safety can not be put in jeopardy! Her worst case scenario is moving back home and having to deal with her family’s idea of what it means to be a women in this time period. And don’t get me wrong that’s horrible, it would be a terrible and unfair outcome.

But it doesn’t threaten her physical safety!! (Not to say this is true for all women in her position but the show paints a picture that her dad does genuinely love her in his extremely misguided way and we never see him threaten her physical well being or even to stop bank rolling her). She can’t understand that sometimes you need to let a fight pass you by to survive. She doesn’t understand what it really means for Crutchie to be in the Refuge until later. So she pushes hard and it would’ve just ended in a fight where her and Jack miss each other’s points entirely.

But Davey gets it. Maybe not to the extent Jack does, but Jack said it himself Davey’s dads physical safety being jeopardized at work has threatened his whole family’s housing and food security. Something that could’ve been prevented with a union. He knows that this isn’t safe, he fully grasps the danger they’re in, to an extent that Katherine can’t because she’s never threatened by it. Not really. For her and her rich friends she involves this could just be a pet project (she would never view it that way of course) but if this all goes pear shaped all she has to live with is the guilt not the consequences. Her life continues with maybe some delays depending how long her blacklisting lasts.

But for Davey this could be the choice that means they can’t afford food or can’t pay rent. This could be the choice that means Les can’t go to school and his dad doesn’t have a safe place to recover. He gets it, he matches Jack’s fear, but he can’t backdown when they’re making real changes that Jack is having a hard time seeing in the wake of losing Crutchie to an institution that is a large source of his trauma. He needed empathy and hope not an ass kicking and Davey delivered.

Without him that scene would’ve ended with Jack running away a lot sooner and a lot more permanently. Rant over. Hopefully this is semi-well articulated it’s late and I couldn’t sleep til I got this out.

[artkaninchenbau]

A h-heartfelt reunion..?

Bonus

[violetren]

The great thing about the White Collar OT3 is that at no point does the introduction of Neal into El and Peter's everyday lives never feels like a threat to Peter and El's marriage.

Like from the moment Neal shows up at their house in episode one he and El hit it off.

Within the first 5 episodes Neal and El have figured out they have similar knowledge and interest in the finer things, they're sharing looks over how Peter talks about and will react to things, El is telling Peter to trust in Neal a little, Neal is helping make sure they have a lovely anniversary, and El is calling Neal in to mediate/help prove her point in mini arguments to make Peter do stuff.

They also work really well because while Peter, El, and Neal might all be slightly different flavours and intensities of hyper competent adrenaline junkie weirdos, all three of them are intensely loyal to "their people" so the second El and Neal recognised that they both trust Peter as someone who will always try to do the right thing and respect them they were like "oh green flag."

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[those-badass-reeds]

I'm begging people to please just learn to enjoy things, genuinely. Like yes, think critically while consuming media and stay alert, but also remember to allow yourself downtime.

I'm tired right now and probably won't be able to articulate this properly, but I just saw someone on Twitter complain that movies like The Menu and Glass Onion are shallow half-critiques that don't actually say anything radical about the rich/class systems, and I mean... Yeah? That's actually ok? They're entertainment products designed for mass appeal. And I'm not saying that something can't be entertaining as well as taking a clear, defined position, but I'm saying that not every piece of media has to be an in-depth takedown of social/political systems.

Both films had something to say, and do a good job of getting people thinking about our current society and it's issues. They aren't documentaries created for a niche group who have thoroughly studied these ideals, nor do they claim to be. Not everyone watching these movies will have the same knowledge of social systems, and most people certainly don't want to be flat out lectured by fictional characters.

Learn to enjoy things for what they are sometimes, without feeling the need to condemn them for every way they didn't live up to your personal standard

[makiswirl]

can i just say. and this is probably a niche hill to die on. that i am so gobsmacked every time someone vaguely hints at the idea that jotaro doesn't care meaningfully for the other crusaders, usually particularly kakyoin and joseph, when those two actually tend to be the ones he reacts to being hurt the hardest

like he cares for his loved ones!!!! that literally plays into his character motives in every single part he shows up in!!! stop lying to me!!!!!!!

[littlefankingdom]

Things I NEED y'all to stop putting in Jason fics:

"Since Red Hood arrived, he cleaned up Crime Alley better than Batman ever has" First of all, this is not even the case in the comics, so y'all are making this up to make Jason's way "the right way". Second of all, if murdering criminals violently worked better, then that's what the cops would be doing, because, new flash, but the gov used to be way more violent, and crimes were worse, and the gov had to lower its violence, because we know it doesn't work and the gov didn't have enough good excuses to continue. If you think they are not waiting for an excuse to violently kill people, you are wrong. So, stop writing that shit, it's borderline fascist propaganda (violence is the only way to keep power/peace, so free real estate for us to kill anyone we label as criminals) You do not need to find excuses for Jason.

"Crime Alley is Jason's territory and the Bats cannot enter it without his permission" Also, not canon, never was. Are you all forgetting that Bruce's parents died in Crime Alley? That's how it got its name. It's where Batman was born. It's where Bruce goes to mourn his parents during patrols. It's an important location for the Batfam as a whole. It's where Dick thinks his siblings are not authorized to fight when Bruce is "dead"/gone because it is insulting Bruce's memory. It's the meeting points the Bats use multiple times. Batman's first night was probably in Crime Alley. Crime Alley is the mission, to make it a better place for its inhabitants is Bruce's goal. He is shown multiple times to be very protective of its people, especially in front of powerful figures (politicians/rich). As much as Bruce loves Jason, he would not give up Crime Alley. Yes, Jason grew up in Crime Alley, but Crime Alley was Bruce's before Jason was even born.

"Crime Alley hates the bats, except for Red Hood" Again, Batman has been protecting the people of Crime Alley since he started. He was the only one who fought for them against the people that hurt them, the cops not giving a fuck about the poor. Like, stop trying to paint Bruce as a rich guy disconnected from the people, that's not who he is and who he ever was (except for some storylines, but like, fuck these storylines). He has not live their struggles, but he has studied it, he cares about it. And, I can understand that not everyone in Gotham and Crime Alley likes Batman, of course. But to make children dislike Robin or NIGHTWING??? Dick's whole thing is how he is always everyone's favorite. He's an acrobat, he is flying with grace in the sky without powers, he is all smile and gentleness with children, no fucking way children don't like him.

"Dick killed the Joker for Jason." No, he killed the Joker in an act of rage and fear when he had Tim and threatened to kill him like the last one. BUT ALSO, and this is really important, DICK WAS HORRIFIED about what he had done. He hated himself and self-isolated, refused to listen to Bruce and Barbara when they tried to comfort him. This is not something he is proud of. Dick wouldn't be like "Yeah, I killed the Joker, but you know Bruce... I don't regret it." He does regret it. Bruce forgave him way faster than Dick forgave himself for killing the Joker. He would not do it again if he could, that's why it only happened once.

"Jason is mad at Bruce for being too late to save him." Nope. In Under The Red Hood, Jason literally tells Bruce he forgives him for not saving him. Jason was NEVER angry at Bruce for not saving him. Jason is mad because he thinks Bruce doesn't care about him. If Tim hadn't taken the Robin's mantle, Jason probably would have gone home, because that's what hurt him the most, the possibility that he was replaced in Bruce's eyes.

"Jason ran away because Bruce believed he killed someone" It was never explicit if Bruce did believe Jason pushed the rapist. But also, no. When Jason ran away, Bruce just benched him as Robin because he saw that Jason was hurting and needed help, and being a vigilante wasn't helping. Pls, read Death In The Family, Bruce was trying his best to support Jason and help him. Jason being violent at times is a sign, for Bruce, that Jason is hurting. He doesn't villanize Jason's actions. Don't be like DC writers and forget that Bruce knows that violence and aggression come from pain.

"The memorial is Bruce's making and Alfred hates it" WRONG, it's the contrary. Alfred made the memorial, Bruce was against it. Please, stop putting all the blame on Bruce and making Alfred perfect. Bruce hates the memorials, he hates his sons being remembered as soldiers. He put up with the memorials because it's Alfred. (I am so tired from y'all blaming Bruce for this one, omg) Also, while we are it, Alfred doesn't put up with Jason's bs. Jason can criticize Bruce, but there's a limit for Alfred.

[shannonsketches]

Why is the anime so weird, it's not even the same series dude?? It's like,

Anime:

GOKU: I have a great idea to bring peace to the universe, and my leadership and compassion alone will unite us all. I have No Flaws and am A True Relatable Everyman :)

VEGETA: NO! I AM THE BEST AND I WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS UNTIL I AM RECOGNIZED AS SUCH!!!!

Manga:

GOKU: Vegeta what's cornmeal made of? I know it's what the corn eats, but what's it made of? VEGETA: Hey Kakarot let's play the quiet game until one of us dies.

[quadrantadvisor]

I think Tim Drake deserves a villain arc. As a treat. Just like a little one, to get it out of his system.

Option 1: Tim hunts down the dregs of the League of Assassins, bends them to his will through money and influence, and starts building his own ninja army. This utilizes his management and organizational skills. If Jason is allowed to have a gang, its only fair Tim gets one, too. This would be terrifying and have lasting impacts on the world villain economy.

Option 2: Literally just Teen Titans Red X. Here he's using self sufficiency and stealth skills. Much more of a loner villain arc, just striking out for a little while and finding himself. Also maybe doing some actual Robin-hood-ing and stealing from the rich. It could be fun. And it fits his theme!

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.

[bogkeep]

idk why there's so much discussion around the ~*morality of traumadumping*~ when it's a VERY solvable social conundrum. all you need to do is ask something like "hey is it ok if i talk about this thing? it's kind of heavy" and respect the answer

[not-so-superheroine]

Jesus is my older brother, not my dad.

other christians don't seem to feel the same?

am i missing something where he insists on such a thing except perhaps with actual little children?

[salemontrial]

Why the FUCK didn't Sasha apologize to Quinni.

[primrosebitch]

Tbh it really is something to have grandmothers (one late 70s other late 80s) who are in better shape than you are, like I go see my grandma and we walk somewhere and i'll be panting before she's even slightly out of breath and it's not like she's in the best of conditions either, and then don't even get me started on my other grandma, she still does sports.

[widowshill]

— And do you or do you not have difficulty remembering such simple instructions? — Only during thunderstorms, sir.

THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) / DARK SHADOWS (1966)

[glimblshanks]

For Mariner to be happy and fulfilled she needs a stable group of friends, a good relationship with her mom, a settled and supportive work/living situation, and plenty of time to process her war trauma. Meanwhile all Ransom needs to be happy and fulfilled is a bunch of stairs and some decon slime, so all that's to say that opposites attract, and they're actually perfect for each other.