#why are you here if you don't even want to do this fundamental aspect of doing research

[abrahamvanhelsings]

agreed to have a student interview me on my usage of chatgpt for studies/work (bc i hate it and want to air my grievances for an hour) and then they send me the list of questions beforehand and the first question is deadass "which generative ai tools do you use". and all the followups don't even consider the idea that someone might not use these programs at all. like we're truly at a point in time where the usage of ai in academic work isn't just allowed, it's expected. hell world.

[funkytoesart]

you can always tell the people who give social media advice who are naturally or conventionally attractive even without even having to look at a photo of them cause they're always the ones that recommend showing your face in reels or videos to promote your art and it's like,,, talk about pretty/skinny privilege lol

[multifandomlandfill]

Watching the death note musical and man, I just want to give Light some tea and terrible unlicenced therapy.

[riddlemearose]

Late to the party, but I have some thoughts on the latest Linked Universe update.

Wars spends the whole update essentially studying Wild in an attempt to sum him up and work him out.

–> He stays back so he can analyse Wild's fighting style. Him comparing it to Twi's is interesting for a variety of reasons, none of which I have the energy to list so I digress. –> Wars also pretends to forget Wild's background as a knight, either as a way to compliment Wild or draw a connection between them.

Also credit where credit is due for Wild acknowledging a knight is only as competent as their weapon is good.

Without a weapon or access to their items, the majority of the Chain is dead in the water.

Very little talking or casual interaction. Unlike Hyrule & Legend; Time, Four & Wind; or Twilight and Sky, Wild and Wars are very specifically positioned as far away from each other as they can feasibly be, as seen below.

Wars may be trying to bridge the gap between them with his words, but neither he nor Wild are particularly comfortable here.

Wars is relying on Wild’s experience, allowing him to take the lead as a sign of trust, so he's legitimately surprised to learn the difference between Shrines and Dungeons

Most of Wars’ dialogue for the whole update, but also notably when Wild is explaining the role of the shrines, is vague and open. This can run the risk of coming off either passive aggressively or uninterested in Wild’s mind, given the perception he currently has of their situation. This is not a criticism of Wars, bc it shows that Wars isn’t as confident in this as he’s pretending to be.

More on the arm joke in a moment, but Wars straight up doesn’t know how to respond to humour being used as a coping/deflection mechanism, which is 100% Wild’s go-to response. -> Wars is probably still working on determining exactly why Wild is deflecting, while Wild is trying to work out what the point of all Wars’ questions is.

Note that Wars isn’t offering any information back (nor is Wild asking for it) –> this is very one-sided, so it’ll be interesting to see how quickly Wars will notice (bc Wild definitely doesn’t want to initiate any conversations, given he thinks Wars is angry with him and won’t realise for a while that this is Wars attempting to work out where they stand)

Okay, the Arm Joke gets its own section, bc I think it's a very interesting part of the comic.

Wild joking about "hopefully still having his arm", while yes being a TOTK reference, also gives Wars some unfortunate insight into Wild's era. It'll be telling if Wars takes that as a reflection of Wild's impulsivity over the dangers of his era though. That runs the risk of making or breaking their interactions right now.

Additionally, Wars also accidentally misunderstood a fundamental aspect of Wild's era in his reaction to Wild's joke.

In basically every other era but Hyrule's, life planning is common bc their eras are "safer". So Wars' "where do you see yourself in 5 years" question would not be abnormal to 6 other Links. But to Wild, (and to Hyrule, even tho he's not here for this) thinking 5 years ahead is incomprehensible, because of how difficult life is. Life is still day to day to both of them. There's no reason to think 5 years ahead when you're still trying to manage potential foot shortages and monster incursions.

So Wild's making light of how dangerous his era is, bc that's the norm - to never assume your life will be a long one, but to have at least had a good life while you've got it - which Wars unfortunately but understandably gets mildly irked at, bc to him it's a simple question of "what job do you want to be doing and how are you going to get there".

I don't think Wars cares whether Wild does or doesn't want to be a knight. I actually think he would mind what answer Wild gave, so long as he got an inclination of what Wild's ambition is. He wants to know what Wild wants to do with his life, but that's a tricky thing to think about, given the world Wild comes from and Wild's own identity issues.

But that kind of question – given the state of tension between them and Wild assuming that Wars is just angry with him, not trying to get to know him better – runs the risk of making Wild close off more bc he may perceive that he's being judged for not giving the 'right' answer.

Art by @/linkeduniverse.

[ovaryacted]

Nic hi howdy im so sorry for just jumping into your inbox but okay… your post abour husband Dr Abbott made me thinking of how he wrote that sweet note for his patient’s family & how sincere and heartfelt he is - he probably is a husband that openly leaves you sweet simple messages on sticky notes or playful reminders of dates on your calender

OMG NEVER BE SORRY FOR JUMPING INTO MY INBOX PLEASEEE! That's why it's here, and I LOVE how you came into my inbox talking about husband! Jack Abbot cause ughhh, I just know he would be a good partner genuinely. Forgive me if I yap for a little bit.

The thought of him writing notes here and there is something that I consider canon in my mind (duh), not just because it's a cute little thought but cause it's a fundamental aspect to Jack's character. He gives me the sort of vibe that he's a guy with heavy emotions, or he feels deeply even if at times he may not always say certain things when it pertains to him being vulnerable. Yes he's emotionally repressed to a degree, but the combination of him going to therapy and having this deep respect for other people in general are all parts of him that translate across the screen in such an intimate way.

I think he cares about people, he cares about humans. And when he wrote that letter for the veteran that passes in the first episode after we're introduced to him, it gives me the impression that Jack probably used to do that too when he was still in the military. He'd pass on notes to the family members of his closest comrades if they don't make it, he's the one that gives family members condolences because he knows what it's like to be out there in no man's land, not knowing if you'll make it back in one piece or alive at all. He does that as a way to pay respect to people, and to acknowledge their existence in a reality where life seems so fleeting, and that's true for both out in the field and now in the ER.

I also think in general, Jack journals, probably keeps two separate kinds of journals. He has several medical journals he writes in and reads spanning over the years of his medical expertise and knowledge, and you read through them on occassion as his wife to jog your own memory and learn certain things. But there are several other journals that are strictly for him, where he's able to talk about his biggest fears, the nightmares that plague him, the worst things that play on loop in his mind have a safe space on the page and you wouldn't dare to snoop through that. He also doesn't let you, not because he doesn't trust you, but because he wouldn't want to traumatize you with his own thoughts, and you grant him that privacy no questions asked. As sarcastic as Jack may seem, he's a sentimental guy who has big feelings, and has a thing for giving the people close to him words of reassurance, praise, or acknowledgement. He knows what to say, how to grab your attention, and carries himself well to drive the point home. That's just who he is.

So with all of this, yes he does leave you little notes here and there at random for you to find. Some will be in the mirror for you to find first thing you wake up when he's already at the Pitt, a cheesy one-liner he knows will make you laugh under your breath and roll your eyes. Others will be scattered in different places: one on your thermos reminding you to grab coffee, the intense blend he brewed just for you. He'll put one in your car somewhere, another in your damn locker (yes he knows the code), one on the fridge, a remaining one in your snack pack of sorts, where he prepped several calorie & protein dense bars and the like to keep you going throughout the day.

You keep all of them, each little note varying from calling you pretty, to asking you out on a date, reminders for appointments or anything important, or letting you know what he's making for dinner. He'll even give you a corny joke or two, and at least once a week, you'll get a sticky note with a medical question that he expects answered by the time your paths collide at work, something to keep your mind active and going, and he'll reward you with a kiss after you get it right.

Though, despite collecting all of these notes over time, probably on your second jar now with no sign of stopping anytime soon; nothing is better than hearing him tell you these things directly in that signature rasp of his that sends your heart swooning. Jack Abbot wouldn't necessarily consider himself a sap, but he can be a softy when warranted, just to you though.

[siggiedraws]

What’s your thoughts on idw silver, I personally think he is ok but I feel like the idw comic didn’t really do very well with his character.

I can't say I like him... at all.

American Sonic media already has a history of needless and quite frankly terrible changes, whether made out of ignorance, xenophobia towards Sonic Team/SoJ, some vague, made-up sense of marketability, or all three. So, I'm already wary of media like that. They always change fundamental aspects of Sonic's appeal and are supremely unenjoyable to me as a result.

To stay on track here - why do I dislike IDW Silver? The main reason is that I think he's portrayed as way too polite and nice to people. He has no backbone. It's as if he was just based off of popular fanon or Archie comics, rather than the source material. I don't blame anyone for thinking Silver is some timid, polite sweetheart if fanon and IDW/Archie is all they have consumed, but I'm doing my best to dispel that notion for the sake of conquering misinformation. As a casual fan, it is understandable to have misconceptions, but I'm going to be much more harsh to official media.

I need to hammer home the fact that Silver is rude and often talks down to people. Sonic '06, Silver's debut game, showcases this very well. In an '06 cutscene, he talks down to Sonic after attacking him when his guard was down. The casual stride over to a wheezing, incapacitated Sonic kills me. The disrespect is fucking crazy.

In the level Flame Core, he acts haughty and superior about his abilities, even letting out a light chuckle at how pathetic the enemies are. And, a detail that is easy to miss, he doesn't even apologize for trying to kill Sonic.

That's not even mentioning the Rivals games being a wonderful source of Rude Silver™, where there are too many snide remarks to count.

IDW Silver is a telltale case of Silver's nuance being stripped so that he only represents one trait of his- that trait being "naivety." Silver's naivety is mentioned twice by Blaze in Sonic '06 because this is relevant to the story. Naivety is Silver's fatal flaw that leads to him being easily manipulated by Mephiles. However, his naivety isn't due to some innocent, childlike outlook on the world. Silver takes everyone at face value and always assumes people are telling the truth to him due to a lack of social skills. This is why, when Silver mentions something outlandish or unbelievable to people, he is confused why they don't believe him. This is shown in both Rivals 2 and the Sonic x Silver wallpaper cover story.

IDW seems to completely miss this nuance and conflates "naivety" with childlikeness and innocence. When you realize this, decisions put towards Silver's characterization in IDW makes a lot of sense - his hyperactive excitement and adulation over Whisper is a good example, but how he doesn't talk back to Sonic calling him "flatware" in Issue 8 particularly bothers me.

Realistically, Sonic would immediately get thrown into a wall if he said this to Silver.

Portrayals like IDW Silver are just so utterly confusing. How in the world does Silver get misconstrued this way, into something entirely opposite of what he is, in both fanon and official media? To be completely honest, it makes me frustrated. I want things to change and I feel like I have to speak up. I ended up writing an essay about Why Silver is Rude. I'm sorry anon.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I don't understand the chevron law thing, could you explain it like I'm five? Should we be working towards fixing whatever the courts just fucked up?

So, okay, I am condensing like a semester of a class I took in 2017 into a very short explanation, but:

It would be really annoying for Congress to individually pass laws approving every new medicine or listing out every single poison you can't have in tap water, so instead there are agencies created by Congress, via a law, to handle a specific thing. The agencies are created by Congress but overseen by the executive branch (so, the president), which is why we say things like "Reagan's EPA" or "Biden's DOJ" - even though Congress creates them, the president determines how they do the thing Congress wants them to do, by passing regulations like "you can't dump cyanide in the local swimming pool" and "no, you can't dump strychnine, either."

However, sometimes people will oppose these regulations by saying that the agency is going beyond the task they were given by Congress. "The Clean Air Act only bans 'pollutants,' and nowhere in the law does it say that 'pollutants' includes arsenic! You're going beyond your mandate!" To which the experts at the EPA would be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided arsenic is a pollutant." On the flip side, the EPA could be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided that arsenic isn't a pollutant," and people would oppose that regulation by being like, "But the Clean Air Act bans 'pollutants,' and it's insane to say that arsenic isn't a pollutant!" So whose interpretation is correct, the government's or the challengers'?

Chevron deference basically put heavy weight onto how the agency (i.e. the government) interpreted the law, with the assumption that the agency was in the right and needing pretty strong evidence that they were interpreting it wrong (like, blatantly doing the opposite of a clear part of the law or something). If there was any ambiguity in how the law was written, you'd defer to the agency's interpretation, even if that interpretation was different depending on who was president at the time.

(Note: there are other ways of challenging regulations other than this one, like saying that they were promulgated in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious" – basically, not backed by any evidence/reasoning other than "we want it." Lots of Trump-era regulations got smacked with this one, though I think they'd be better at it if Trump gets a second term, since they've now had practice.)

Chevron deference wasn't all good – remember that the sword cuts both ways, including when dickholes are in power – but it was a very standard part of the law. Like, any opposition to a regulation would have some citation to be like "Chevron doesn't apply here" and every defense would be like "Chevron absolutely applies here" and most of the time, the agency would win. Like, it was a fundamental aspect of law since the 80s.

The Supreme Court decision basically tosses that out, and says, "In a situation where the law is ambiguous, the court decides what it means." That's not completely insane – interpreting law is a thing judges normally do – but in a situation where the interpretation may hinge on something very complicated outside of the judge's wheelhouse, you now cannot be like, "Your Honor, I promise you that the experts at NOAA know a lot about the weather and made this decision for a good reason."

The main reason it's a problem is that it allows judges to override agencies' judgements about what you should do about a thing and what things you should be working on in the first place. However, I don't think there's really a way of enshrining that into law, outside of maybe adding something to the Administrative Procedure Act, and that would require a Congress that isn't majority Republican.

I will say that kind of I expected this to happen, just because IIRC Gorsuch in particular hates Chevron deference. IMO it's a classic case of "rules for me but not for thee" – Scalia and other conservatives used to rely on Chevron because they wanted their presidents to hold a ton of unchecked power (except for the EPA), but now that we've had Obama and Biden, now conservatives don't like Chevron because it gives the presidents they don't like unchecked power.

[indecisiveavocado]

Hello! You are (probably) wrong about Messianic "Judaism"

You have probably been referred here because you were making some awful arguments about Messianic "Judaism".

That's ok, that's why you're here.

How in depth do you want me to go?

One sentence

Messianic "Jews", "Jews" for Jesus, and other movements like that are not Jewish, they are Christian.

Two sentences

Messianic "Jews", "Jews" for Jesus, and other movements like that are not Jewish, they are Christian. They may sincerely believe they are Jewish, and they may look superficially Jewish, but they are still Christian.

A paragraph

Messianic "Jews" and other movements that claim to be Jewish but believe Jesus was the Messiah are not Jewish. They are Christian. They may sincerely believe that they are Jewish, but that doesn't change it. If I sincerely believe that I am, say, Muslim, that does not make me Muslim. They believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and Judaism does not. They are Christians roleplaying as Jews.

Questions

But there are Jewish athiests!

Yes. But Jewish atheists and agnostics are generally honest about it. Judaism is flexible on the degree of belief in God you need. It is not flexible on Jesus not being the Messiah. (Plus, athiests haven't genocided us for coming up on 2000 years, so they have a degree of goodwill Christians don't have as much of.)

But Chabad--

[Edit: This originally said the group of Chabadniks who think their Rebbe was the Messiah were not Jewish.]

The Chabadniks who think their Rebbe was the Messiah are still Jewish, but Messianics are not. Why?

First, consider degree of departure. Beliefs about the Messiah are important in Judaism, certainly; but not as much as monotheism. Allegedly, one Rabbi in Talmud, Elisha ben Abuya, questioned the monotheistic aspect, and henceforth he was referred to as 'Acher' (Other). The Sh'ma affirms the monotheistic aspect of Judaism. Of Rambam's thirteen principles of faith, one deals with the Messiah. Four deal with monotheism in some way or another. From a Jewish view, Christianity is, at best, questionably monotheistic.

Second, the intent differs. Chabad tries to get nonobservant Jews more observant (even with a few quirks in religious practice). Messianic Christianity tries to pull Jews away from Judaism.

Finally, of course, how widespread the thing is varies. In Chabad, it is a minor group, and certainly not a core tenet. In Messianic Christianity, it is a core tenet of it and indeed a major distinguishing aspect from Jewish denominations.

But they must have some merit! If they didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah--

And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

How can it be this simple?

Christianity (regardless of how much they fight over it) is fundamentally a broad group. It's easily broad enough to include Messianic Christians without blinking.

You're anti-Messianic practices!

I am, yes. I am against the lying and misrepresentation their liturgy, beliefs, etc consist of. I am against the image of Judaism they project. If they stopped pretending to be Jewish (or converted to actual Judaism), I would have no problem with them. But, again: if Grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon. A fundamental part of Messianic Christianity is pretending to be Jewish by culturally appropriating Jewish practices, which is very sketchy given that Christians have consistently genocided Jews, including forcibly converting us.

Jews: if you see someone insistent Messianic Christianity is Judaism, feel free to direct them here!

[shoutydwarf]

veilguard spoilers !

literally None of these characters are above b tier for me except davrin and that's carried by him being a grey warden that doesn't need me to therapy speak him into being fixed.

sorry to be a toxic origins bro on main but my favorite characters are always the ones that don't recognize me as the player character pressing the buttons. their development isn't contingent on me making choices for them. they have opinions i don't agree with and which i can't change their mind on, a la vivienne/anders. alistair is one of my top companions because he has LINES in the motherfucking SAND. he will be your brother and/or your lover for the entire game but if you don't put his vengeance above your duty to the wardens, he will leave, if not attempt to seize power and force his ends. same for most all other origins and 2 companions (and inquisition to a lesser degree) - A. the option EXISTS to fundamentally piss them off to the degree they will want to kill you, and B. some of them literally WILL try to kill you. that's how roleplaying games are supposed to work. i am supposed to be a person in this world surrounded by other people in this world and i expect it to feel like that. moreso, i know they CAN make it feel like that, because they DID that in all 3 previous games.

there is no way to fail loyalty missions in VG. characters are so lukewarm that the guild of looting, pirating thieves exercises ethical tomb raiding and does monologue you about it. not a single one has any opinion that beckons you to use your brain cells. these characters do not evoke any emotion from me. i could write whole think pieces on why vivienne has the disposition that she does, why she thinks she's right, why i fundamentally disagree with her but still greatly empathize with her and consider her the best option for divine (out of 2 other companions that are just as complex). i have NOTHING to say about the veilguard companions. there is NOTHING to talk about here.

every single one of their villains are entirely one dimensional and unforgivable. THAT is the true disney aspect of the game. loghain, meredith, samson, calpernia, bhelen, branka, the architect, celene and gaspard, even fucking HOWE all have nuances and complexities to them that, even if you still end up at the conclusion that they're awful, you still have some things to think about. there are reasons leading up to their descents into cruelty and madness beyond just "me wanted power :p for fun :p"

this is also part of why davrin is the only memorable character for me; his villain was someone i knew and, frankly, the only interesting one out of the entire lot but only because she had an entire book's worth of setup. harding's was also great but because of the larger issue with zero catharsis for the titans, i have to kick her down several tiers with the rest of Mid Town.

don't get me started on the hardening system and how it can literally only happen to a single companion as a consequence to a single choice in the entire game. and then that 'hardening' actually has no bearing on their loyalty missions or, in neve's case, their romance.

the game does not make me think at all. it is designed to be consumed but not digested. there is nothing beyond the curtains. there is nothing to discuss. there is no nuance, no spice, no complexity, no grey areas. all that exists to talk about here is "i liked this part" and "i didn't like this part".

it is, like too fucking much of modern media, brain rot soup. and it doesn't even taste good.

[ufopigeon]

to the random ass proshippers

I’ll block proshippers and I won’t throw any first punches if I find the accounts. Just block n’ move on. Think what you want, but think it away from me. This is for the ppl who are going after others both anonymously and in the open, and being insistent about misunderstanding his character. It is absolutely absurd that some are really trying to PUSH the mere implication that the Postal Dude could be a pedo/have pedophilic tendencies, or that ���it makes sense for him”. Some of you are ragebait I’m sure, but I also sadly think some of you are really genuine. And this is also the last I am going to speak about it. Just wanted to do something longer on behalf of everyone else who does not agree with this random influx.

The Postal Dude is obviously designed to be an ambiguous character, allowing players to project various characteristics onto him. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that any and all negative traits can be justified. Ambiguity in character design is meant to give freedom in interpretation, but it doesn't equate to carte blanche for projecting extreme or inappropriate characteristics that aren't supported by the game’s narrative or the developer's intent. Assuming that a character would commit any and all bad acts simply because they commit some is a lazy and inaccurate approach to understanding character design.

The argument that, "Durrr he’s literally a mass shooter, why is it so far-fetched for him to be a pedo too?" is a slippery slope fallacy. It’s that same exact shit all the edgelords try to use when they say (just so they can justify attacking any queer fans, same way SOME proshippers want to feel justified in attacking those who disagree), “The Postal Dude SPECIFICALLY hates gay people and trans people and wouldn’t support them at all/be grossed out by them! Why? Uhh, because he’s literally an evil, vile character! Duh!” Sure he is. No denying that. And sure, you can think that about him. But it’s just fundamentally inaccurate. Just because the games allow for extreme behaviors doesn’t mean they endorse or include every possible immoral action.

And just because a character engages in morally questionable actions doesn’t logically lead to them engaging in the worst possible behaviors. The creator's stance is crucial in defining the boundaries of the character. If the creators have explicitly stated that Postal Dude would never engage in pedophilia (just like how they explicitly stated he wasnt transphobic) and that such content would never be included in the game, this is a definitive limitation on what the character can be reasonably interpreted as. Again, I don’t care if you hold a private opinion that differs. But when you start accusing those who disagree with this extreme interpretation of being the weird or wrong ones, that’s where it becomes an issue.

Dude's actions, while extreme, are presented within a certain context that aims to criticize or mock certain aspects of society. Pedophilia is not something that fits within this satirical style. Yes, even for Postal 1997. I don't care if it is generally considered more "serious" than other games, they still had Dude throwing out stupid-ass catchphrases in a silly radio-host-sounding voice that was obviously supposed to be a stark contrast to what was happening on screen (“Buttsauce”. “Smells like chicken” when burning NPCs. Really now? Go ahead and listen to more from the original. They’re all silly one-liners.). It was a shock at the time and a bit of dark humor. Following games only increased this aspect.

All in all, Postal Dude’s actions, while immoral, are usually presented in a way that allows for some level of detachment or absurdity, keeping them within the realm of dark comedy. Yes, 1997 is still included here. It’s an absurd game. One man took out hundreds of people and was armed to the teeth, even with literal rocket launchers. His main weapon has infinite ammunition. It was an obviously over-the-top video game with a loose connection to reality and an even looser message about “something something mental health and everyone has it in them to go postal”. It was a game made to shock people. Pedophilia, however, is universally considered an irredeemable act, something that cannot be framed in any context that would make it acceptable or even darkly humorous. The distinction between immoral and irredeemable acts is crucial here. The Postal Dude can be morally ambiguous, but crossing into irredeemable territory would fundamentally alter the character in a way that the game and its creators/99.9% of the fans do not support.

Also: “But muh 1997 promo art where it says his girlfriend was 17!! She says they just started dating 3 weeks ago!!” Yeah. The same photo was used with the girl also saying, “It was so weird. He told everyone I was his girlfriend, but I only met him once.” It says “live” near the bottom corner, implying this was an interview with the girl AFTER the crimes had taken place. In the promotional pic where it states she’s 17, it also says she DIED of third degree burns while he was on his rampage. Now that doesn’t really add up, does it. How can this girl give an interview after everything is said and done while also dying in the middle of his killing spree?

AKA, these promotional photos were reused over and over because they were on a budget and really not thinking about it, and are absolutely not valid for legit storytelling purposes at all. RWS has even said this themselves.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Is it just me, or does miraculous seemingly exist in this weird in-between where it's trying to be a standard superhero story and a deconstruction of superhero stories at the same time?

I don't know. All your trappings for a classic Superman run are there: goofy costumes, secret identities, villainous monologues, stories about friendship and teamwork and saving the city from knights and mimes and all other sorts...

But then it's like, randomly, it'll decide to pull elements from Watchmen or Worm instead. Chat Blanc and Recreation stand out as especially egregious on this front. A broken world destroyed by a monstrous hero? Ladybug standing back as the villain wins, keeping his secret to protect the fragile new order? These are famous plot beats from stories where morality goes to die, and I just can't fathom why they're showing up in a kids cartoon, of all places.

It's not just you. Miraculous has a lot of really weird elements for a standard superhero show, but before we get into that, let's quickly define what we mean by deconstruction for the folks who don't know that term (source):

"Deconstruction" literally means "to take something apart". When applied to tropes or other aspects of fiction, deconstruction means to take apart a trope in a way that exposes its inherent contradictions, often by exploring the difference between how the trope appears in this one work and how it compares to other relevant tropes or ideas both in fiction and real life. ...Note that while deconstructions often end up darker, edgier, sadder, and more cynical than the normal version, there is no reason they have to be. While the deconstruction process can reveal things we weren't thinking about for a reason — a major contributing factor in why it tends to be depressing — deconstructions are free to exist anywhere on the sliding scale of idealism versus cynicism.

As an example, Disney's Frozen deconstructions the idea of romantic love being the most powerful thing by having True Love's Kiss be a platonic kiss between sisters and not a romantic kiss between the leading lady and her love interest even though Ana still gets a love interest that she barely knows, but let's not get into that here. Just know that I don't like Frozen. I'm only using it as an example because it's obnoxiously popular and aimed at kids which is important because it shows us that you can have good deconstruction in media aimed at families and children. The message that your sister's love is just as powerful as your boyfriend's is a good one for kids to internalize. It's also one that you can understand without knowing the genre. Frozen might be funnier and more satisfying for those of us who know the classic fairytale standard of True Love's Kiss, but you don't need to know that standard to enjoy the film and walk away feeling like it had a good message.

This is Miraculous' problem.

Miraculous is not playing with genre conventions in a way that lets you enjoy the story even if you don't know the genre conventions. It is doing dark and edgy deconstruction that requires you to know the classic way things play out so that you might want to see something different. In Frozen, True Love still wins, it just takes a different form. In Miraculous, True Love fails.

Is it more realistic for an abused teenage boy to be overwhelmed and lose all hope because of the reveal that his abusive father is the supervillain and his mother's body is hiding in the basement? Yes. Is it a better message for kids who relate to Adrien?

No. Seeing Adrien give into despair is not empowering to the people who relate to him.

That's why I don't like Chat Blanc and Ephemeral and the season five final. They may be realistic, but episodic superhero shows for five-year-olds aren't the place for that kind of genre-desconstructuon-based realism. Kids shows are fundamentally incompatible with this type of deconstruction because this type of deconstructions only work if the audience understands the tropes and other genre conventions that the story is playing with. The first hero media you watch should not be a deconstruction of the genre that dismisses the idea of love and friendship conquering all. Little kids don't have the framework to get what's going on. They're not looking at Chat Blanc and viewing this as some interesting and realistic take on the standard genre conventions. They just see Adrien killing Marinette and what's the lesson of that?

Even from a deconstruction point of view these episodes were dumb because the story isn't saying something interesting about victims of abuse and the support they need since the story doesn't go on to give Adrien support. As I've mentioned before, if Chat Blanc's moral was ultimately that Adrien needed to know the truth before the final fight, then I could see it having value even though I think that's too complex for the target audience. That's not the moral, though. The moral is apparently that Adrien needs to be coddled and kept in the dark which I am never going to agree with.

[wellofdean]

I read your post about Supernatural being queer somehow from season 1 and I have two questions.

1. Don't you think it straight-appropriates the word "queer" to say it just means "not normal"? That argument seems disingenuous to me, and a lot of us want representation, and to see that word applied to explicit depiction of queer sexuality, and it's a cheat that they don't. Queer studies did start as the study of queer sexualities and the experience of queer people.

2. Are you saying that the makers of Supernatural intended for it to be "flesh on queer bones"? Do you think they intentionally sat down to tell a queer story?

Those are good questions my anonymous friend. Thank you for asking. Here are my thoughts:

To answer your first question: no, I don't think it appropriates anything. Here's why: firstly, if we're talking about sexuality and gender, it's queer 101 that no one owes anyone a justification of their queerness, and not everyone who is queer is interested in labeling it or making it legible to you, and they have no obligation to do so, and not doing so doesn't make them any less queer. Furthermore, some people who are queer are not interested in sex, so what about them?

All of that together is why, for me, the entire queer project is much more deeply about non-compliance with hegemony, and specifically with hegemony around gender roles, sexuality and to put it under a big umbrella, patriarchy, than it is about who you fuck. Those things extend into so many other aspects of life that I think you can easily talk about "queering" a very wide range of topics, and possibly? ANY TOPIC.

You are responding to this post, I think, and in it, I made a choice to talk about family and hunting, and our heroes roles and characterizations in that, and did not talk about gender shenanigans or sexuality, because my point was that even before we get to anything to do with it, Sam and Dean are immersed in a queered world in a fundamental, structural way. That said, I assure you that if you go back into season 1 of Supernatural, you will find LOADS that could be said about gender and sexuality, too. As well as other things, and a particularly important area, as @ironworked pointed out in the tags, is blue collar/white collar class issues.

As I said, the depth of queerness in Supernatural is actually dizzying just in terms of the story's BONES to say nothing of how they flesh it out. Queerness is about deviation from the norm. It's about rebellion and disobedience against hegemonic systems for the sake of personal authenticity and love.

Think about Cas for a minute. Cas's whole story is that he rejects his role in a hegemonic heaven. He rebels for love, and that is pretty explicit as early as season 4 when he tells Dean "We're making it up as we go". Fellas, that is THE QUEEREST SHIT EVER even if he didn't do it for Dean, and like... HE DID IT FOR DEAN. Cas did not have to tell Dean he loved him for me to know it, and for Cas to be a deeply queered character. When he DID say it, I wasn't the least bit surprised he was in love with Dean, because seriously, we been knew. I was only surprised I got to have the immense pleasure of hearing him say it and looking at Dean's face while he took it in. Jesus. I will NEVER RECOVER.

This is my perspective on representation in Supernatural: It's excellent, and I relate to, and feel seen by it as a queer person. Nobody needs to get fucked on the maps table for me to do the math that this is a queer story. It is very, very, very thoroughgoingly canonically queer in so many ways, and not all of them are to do with sex. I think some fans will only allow it to be called queer if dudes make out in it. I am not one of those fans.

As to your second question, I think there is a wealth of evidence in the filmic oeuvre of Eric Kripke to suggest that as an artist and a writer, he is concerned or maybe even preoccupied with masculinity issues and issues around family, and around the way patriarchy fucks men up. So, yes. I think he knew what he was doing and he knew that queerness was part of the mix. For fucks sake, it's a family of men who hunt monsters. That is very fucking on the nose. Do I think he kicked off Supernatural in 2005 planning a 15 year operatic queer romance between Cas and Dean? No. I don't think anyone planned for it to go as long as it did, and it's a matter of record that some things were influenced by fan response, actors' chemistry, different writers and showrunners' preferences and etc. What I will say is that when they had a choice to "straighten shit out" or lean into the queerness, they fucking leaned in, nearly EVERY TIME. Like, it's pretty amazing how consistently they lean the fuck in.

I'll admit -- I wasn't watching it with those eyes the first time, and I didn't give it much real estate in my mind when I watched it as it aired from 2006 to the end, but the last three episodes reshaped it for me and made me angry, and also made me need to watch it all again, this time with an explicitly queer lens, and BOY HOWDY let me tell you this: the Supernatch rewatch journey is a wild and wonderful trip to Queertown. It is legit more difficult to argue that Dean is straight than it is to argue that he is queer. There is a full on CORNUCOPIA of story evidence to support that read and relatively little that convincingly counters it on the straight side, and that starts right at the beginning, when they bend pretty baby Dean over a police car in episode one, and he smirks insouciantly in his lip gloss. Do I think everyone involved knew how that looked? Sexy, submissive and a bit gay?

YES I DO.

[the-crooked-library]

I noticed something near the end of Dracula when Jonathan and Mina separate for a final time (so she can go to Dracula's castle), that a difference between Harker and Hutter is also near the end.

For context, several chapters earlier Jonathan gets two weapons “put these flowers round your neck”—here he handed to me a wreath of withered garlic blossoms—“for other enemies more mundane, this revolver and this knife;.

Then when Mina and Van Helsing are about to depart for their ride to the castle, Jonathan keeps the knife and gives the revolver to Mina. Even for me a large-bore revolver; Jonathan would not be happy unless I was armed like the rest.

I know the phallic analysis of the weapons in the book are overstated in scholarship but I think it's telling that Jonathan insists Mina to be armed with a big gun while he lets her go do what she wants without him. Thomas didn't arm her and likely wouldn't even it were suggested imo.

omg yes! That is definitely another detail that really stood out to me during my watch, and yet another reason I genuinely start getting annoyed whenever people conflate Thomas with Jonathan - because frankly, that is allowing Thomas to reap what Jonathan sowed, so to speak. I've seen a lot of people absolutely in love with him, and yet the traits they list as the reasons are none that he possesses; in fact, the great majority of them are in exact opposition to his canon personality, and this is one of them.

Don't get me wrong, I love Thomas as a character. I think he is quite sympathetic - and, on the Watsonian level, really trying his best; but at the same time, I think it is essential to acknowledge that he is deeply flawed, if only because on the Doylist level, these flaws are fundamental to his arc in the story. It is purely a question of structure and function; because, at the end of the day, he is a fictional character, and thus, a narrative component, rather than a person.

In this case, his choices prior to the vampire hunt provide the viewer with further evidence -> of an aspect of his characterization -> that acts as one of the driving forces behind the plot of Nosferatu. Specifically, he does not notice that Ellen is lying to him; he leaves her at home as he goes off to "fight"; he doesn't even consider arming her; and he does all these things because, even though he does care for Ellen, he never really thinks of her as a person.

Thomas doesn't notice that Ellen is lying, even though she is clearly nervous when she does it, because he doesn't know what she looks like when she's hiding something (I personally think it is because she masks around him, at least to some degree - throughout the film, he is uncomfortable every time she's honest). He doesn't bring her to the hunt because it doesn't occur to him that she could help with tracking down Orlok - despite him being aware now of her immense psychic abilities, despite Von Franz describing her as a native in a world he is only visiting. And, exactly as you said, he doesn't even think to leave her a weapon; because, even as he sets out on his "quest," even after she's told him of Orlok's obsession, even though the point of the hunt is apparently to "save" her, he doesn't consider the possibility of Orlok going after her.

Contrast that with Jonathan - who knows Mina so well that they can get concerned over three lines of writing, who works with Mina's brief psychic connection to Dracula in order to track him, and who arms Mina before the final fight, because he is not satisfied unless he can do everything in his power to ensure her safety. When it comes to their relationship, Mina's revolver, while not exactly phallic (seriously, why is that topic so overwrought?..), becomes a narrative symbol of his thoughtfulness.

The difference here is that, while Ellen is important to Thomas, this importance only extends insofar as she is his wife. He sees her as a responsibility, but never as herself; and, ultimately, he never actually considers her a factor that could conceivably affect his - or anyone's - decision-making. He plans their life without even asking what she wants from it, he neglects her emotional needs, and he leaves her like a sitting duck during the hunt, without a weapon or anyone to guard her. She continuously slips his mind, utterly inconsequential beyond whatever their surrounding society defines as her role and value; and Thomas, tragically, is unable to overcome this ingrained, rigid set of rules.

This is an essential aspect of his character - because, as stated previously, the plot wouldn't happen without it. If Thomas took Ellen's wants into consideration, he wouldn't have been so hell-bent on chasing a promotion, and he wouldn't have left her right after their honeymoon to go to another country, especially if she begged him to stay. If he knew her better, he would've picked up on the plan she made with Von Franz - or she would've told him!.. Most certainly, if he saw any real personhood in her, he wouldn't have dreamed of leaving her unarmed and undefended.

Nosferatu is about Ellen's continued systemic dehumanization. The point of the story is that every single human character contributes to it on some level, despite whatever love and best intentions they might have for her. It's about the inherent monstrousness of being othered by humanity, and Thomas is - inherently, narratively, crucially - human.

[redhoodinternaldialectical]

"Murder is Werewolves" - Batman

I don't got the SPOONS to do this thought train justice, I have seriously been trying to write this thing for MONTHS so just, idk, have this half baked skeletal outline of the essay I guess:

I don't believe that Batman's no-kill rule is primarily about rehabilitation or second chances.

His refusal to believe that Cassandra could have killed someone when she was eight years old because "how could a killer understand my commitment not to kill" is absolute fucking MOON LOGIC from a rehabilitationist standpoint. No jury on the planet would think for even a second that she could reasonably be held accountable for her actions in that situation! Her past cannot condemn her to being incapable of valuing human life under a rehabilitation centering framework. However, Batman's reasoning makes perfect sense if he believes that killing is a spiritually/morally corrupting act which permanently and fundamentally changes a person, and that corruption can never be fully undone.

Dick Grayson killing the Joker is treated both narratively and by Batman as an unequivocally WIN for the Joker. The Joker won by turning Nightwing into a killer. Note that this is during a comic in which the Joker transforming people was a major theme! Batman didn't revive the Joker because the Joker deserved to live; he revived the Joker to lift the burden on Dick.

His appeal to Stephanie when she tried to kill her dad is that she shouldn't ruin her own life. He gives no defense of Cluemaster's actual life. Granted this is a rhetorical strategy moment and should be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but it fits in the pattern.

When Jason becomes a willful killer, he essentially disowns him, never treats him with full trust ever again, and... Well, we can stop here for Bruce's sake. Bottom line is that his actions towards Jason do not lead me to believe that he thinks Jason can become a better person without having his autonomy taken from him, either partially or fully.

The Joker is, for better or worse, the ultimate symbol and vessel of pure, irredeemable evil in DC comics now. He hasn't been just another crook in a long time. He will never get better, he will only get worse. If you take it to be true that the Joker will not or can not rehabilitate, then there's no rehabilitationist argument against killing him.

Batman does not seem to consider it a possibly that he'll rehabilitate. Batman at several points seems to think that the Joker dying in a manner no one could have prevented would be good. Yet Batman fully believes that if he killed the Joker, he himself would become irredeemable.

Batman's own form of justice (putting people into the hospital and then prison) is fucking brutal and clearly not rehabilitative. He disrespects the most basic human rights of all criminals on a regular basis. It is genuinely really, really weird from a rehabilitationist standpoint that his only uncrossable line is killing... But it makes perfect sense if he cares more about not corrupting himself with the act of killing than the actual ethical results of any individual decision to kill or not kill.

In the real world cops are all bastards because they are too violent to criminals, even when that violence doesn't lead to death. Prison is a wildly evil thing to do to another human being, and you don't use it to steal away massive portions of a person's life if your goal is to rehabilitate them. In the comic world, Batman is said to be necessary because the corrupt cops are too nice to criminals and keep letting them out of jail. I don't know how to write a connector sentence there so like I hope you can see why this bothers me so damn much! That's just not forgiveness vibes there Batman!!

I want to make special note here of the transformative aspect. You don't simply commit a single act when you kill, no, you become a killer, like you might become a werewolf.

The narrative supports this a lot!

Why did Supes go evil during Injustice? He killed the Joker. Why did Bruce become the Batman Who Laughs? Bruce killed the Joker. Why was Jason Todd close to becoming a new Joker during Three Jokers? Because he killed people, to include the Joker.

Even if these notions of redemption being impossible aren't the whole of his reasoning (people never have only one reason for doing what they do) it is a distinct through-line pattern in his actions and reasoning, and it is directly at odds with notions of rehabilitation, redemption, and second chances.

So why does he give so many killers second chances?

Firstly because this doesn't apply to all versions of Batman. Some writers explicitly incorporate rehabilitation and forgiveness into his actions. You will be able to provide me with examples of this other through-line pattern if you go looking for them. The nature of comics is to be inconsistent.

Secondly the existence of that other pattern does not negate the existence of this one. People and characters are complex, and perfectly capable of holding two patterns of belief within themselves, even when they conflict to this degree. You can absolutely synthesize these two ideas into a single messy Batman philosophical vibescape.

Finally and most importantly to this essay: he has mercy on killers the same way that werewolf hunters sometimes have mercy on someone who is clearly struggling against their monsterous nature, especially if they were turned in exceptional circumstances or against their will. They understand that they are sick, damned beasts, cursed to always be fighting against themselves and the evil they harbor within. It is vitally kind to help them fight themselves by curtailing their autonomy in helpful ways and providing them with chances to do some good to make up for their eternal moral deficiency.

I think in many comics Batman views killers as lost souls. Battered and tormented monsters who must be pitied and given mercy wherever possible. (The connections to mental health, addiction, and rampant, horrifying ableism towards people struggling with both is unavoidable, but addressing it is sadly outside of the scope of this essay.)

Above all, the greatest care possible must be taken to never, ever let yourself become one of them, because once you have transformed the beast will forever be within you growing stronger.

To Batman, it is the most noble burden, the highest mercy, the most important commandment: Thou shalt suffer the monsters to live.

[oneatlatime]

I was thinking about city of Walls and Secrets again (because when I don't like things I want to know WHY) and it occurred to me how much power Iroh has amassed, just by being nice.

We've seen Iroh being nice to strangers, often in situations where he can't receive anything in return for his good manners, since the beginning of the show. I've usually written those occurrences off as Iroh smoothing over for Zuko's awkwardness or awfulness (think him interfering between Zuko and the ship's crew in The Storm), or as simply Iroh being a polite person. I don't think he was lying when he told Toph - while showing Toph - that he enjoys sitting down for tea with new people. He is sociable by nature, and if Azula's comment about him being a tea-loving kook is accurate in Zuko Alone (which is up for debate - she did a lot of lying and/or repeating what the adults around her think as her own opinions that episode), then he's always been a sociable creature. This seems to be a fundamental aspect of Iroh's personality.

So whenever I've seen Iroh being nice to strangers, I've never suspected that it had a purpose beyond the short term (cover for his nephew), or as Iroh being Iroh. But I think he's playing the long game with niceness. Let me explain:

When you're hiding under a false identity while posing as a refugee in a city that probably has a ridiculously large bounty on your real identity's head (and rightfully so), you'd think the smart thing to do would be to keep a low profile. And Zuko and Iroh are doing that! Sort of. They're staying in the lower ring, but they are working customer-facing jobs. And more importantly, a true attempt at lying low would include reproducing the awful tea that was being served at the tea shop before they were hired. But Iroh won't let bad tea stand.

I made a joke in my write up of the Tales of Ba Sing Se that it was a good thing that Iroh came to people's attention as the person who makes the "best tea in the city," because he was going to attract attention one way or another, and being a good teamaker is both less suspicious and more of a currency than just being a nice guy who stops babies from crying and compassionately redirects muggers. But now that I've thought about it for a bit, I think he was going to attract attention one way or the other because he has, all this time, been attempting to attract attention. It's not just his personality, it's not just him cleaning up after Zuko, it's him consciously attempting to build connections. It's a 'nice two birds with one stone' type situation that he can attract this attention while being paid to make tea.

Here's the thing: all these times that Iroh has been polite in situations where there could be no payoff for being so, I think he has been casting seeds. And City of Walls and Secrets is the first episode where we see the seeds of his politeness and (seemingly counterintuitive for keeping a low profile) network building bear fruit.

Jet accuses Zuko and Iroh of being firebenders. He's absolutely right. Given that Zuko and Iroh are members of the Fire Nation royal family, you could argue that they're the most firebenders a firebender could be. But Iroh has been being relentlessly polite to customers, and serving the guards such good tea that they declare he makes the "best tea in the city." Rather than playing it safe and letting people overlook him, he has given people a reason to like him. So the customers, the guards, even his boss, come to his defence when Jet accuses him. The guards are not going to let a man who keeps them fed, keeps them in tea, and keeps them company, be maligned.

Here's the other thing about these seeds of politeness that Iroh casts: they protect Zuko in the long term as much as the do in the short term. Sometimes Iroh's politeness is just covering for a single remark from his nephew, which I always view in the short term as smoothing over offence. But Iroh being polite also goes a long way to protecting Zuko from Jet's accusations. Lest we forget, Zuko steals a guard's swords, at least participates in the destruction of the tea shop's table, and at least participates in the disorderly conduct outside the tea shop. If the law were fair, half of the consequences heaped on Jet would fall on Zuko. And (this is speculation) I would argue that if Iroh had kept his head down and played at being a refugee rather than everyone's friend, Zuko at least would have lost his job for destroying some of those tables. But the goodwill Iroh has generated with customers, guards, and his boss stretches to cover Zuko too. Which is handy, because Zuko is not looking like he's in a place where he can expend much mental energy on anything beyond taking it one day at a time at the moment.

Iroh knows there is power in being nice. The incident with Jet shows that being nice can carry more power than being truthful. A lot of that is down to presentation; Jet didn't exactly endear himself, and frankly season 1 Jet would have been ashamed of season 2 Jet's lack of charm, but that's a post for another day.

All this makes me think two things: first, I wonder if any of the other one-episode characters that Iroh has tossed a throwaway polite comment to are going to come back. Second, Iroh is playing a somewhat risky game by attracting attention; so far it's paid off. I wonder if there will come a point where it causes trouble instead.

[dailyadventureprompts]

Tableskills: Creating Dread

I've often had a lot of problems telling scary stories at my table, whether it be in d&d or other horror focused games. I personally don't get scared easily, especially around "traditionally horrifying" things so it's hard for me to recreate that experience in others. Likewise, you can't just port horror movie iconography into tabletop and expect it to evoke genuine fear: I've already spoken of being bored out of my mind during the zombie apocalypse, and my few trips into ravenloft have all been filled with similar levels of limp and derivative grimdark.

It took me a long time (and a lot of video essays about films I'd never watched) to realize that in terms of an experience fear is a lot like a joke, in that it requires multiple steps of setup and payoff. Dread is that setup, it's the rising tension in a scene that makes the revelation worth it, the slow and literal rising of a rollercoaster before the drop. It's way easier to inspire dread in your party than it is to scare them apropos of nothing, which has the added flexibility of letting you choose just the right time to deliver the frights.

TLDR: You start with one of the basic human fears (guide to that below) to emotionally prime your players and introduce it to your party in a initially non-threataning manor. Then you introduce a more severe version of it in a way that has stakes but is not overwhelmingly scary just yet. You wait until they're neck deep in this second scenario before throwing in some kind of twist that forces them to confront their discomfort head on.

More advice (and spoilers for The Magnus Archives) below the cut.

Before we go any farther it's vitally important that you learn your party's limits and triggers before a game begins. A lot of ttrpg content can be downright horrifying without even trying to be, so it's critical you know how everyone in your party is going to react to something before you go into it. Whether or not you're running an actual horror game or just wanting to add some tension to an otherwise heroic romp, you and your group need to be on the same page about this, and discuss safety systems from session 0 onwards.

The Fundamental Fears: It may seem a bit basic but one of the greatest tools to help me understand different aspects of horror was the taxonomy invented by Jonathan Sims of The Magnus Archives podcast. He breaks down fear into different thematic and emotional through lines, each given a snappy name and iconography that's so memorable that I often joke it's the queer-horror version of pokemon types or hogwarts houses. If we start with a basic understanding of WHY people find things scary we learn just what dials we need turn in order to build dread in our players.

Implementation: Each of these examples is like a colour we can paint a scene or encounter with, flavouring it just so to tickle a particular, primal part of our party's brains. You don't have to do much, just something along the lines of "the upcoming cave tunnel is getting a little too close for comfort" or "the all-too thin walkway creaks under your weight ", or "what you don't see is the movement at the edge of the room". Once the seed is planted your party's' minds will do most of the work: humans are social, pattern seeking creatures, and the hint of danger to one member of the group will lay the groundwork of fear in all the rest.

The trick here is not to over commit, which is the mistake most ttrpgs make with horror: actually showing the monster, putting the party into a dangerous situation, that’s the finisher, the  punchline of the joke. It’s also a release valve on all the pressure you’ve been hard at work building.

There’s nothing all that scary about fighting a level-appropriate number of skeletons, but forcing your party to creep through a series of dark, cobweb infested catacombs with the THREAT of being attacked by undead? That’s going to have them climbing the walls.

Let narration and bad dice rolls be your main tools here, driving home the discomfort, the risk, the looming threat.

Surprise: Now that you’ve got your party marinating in dread, what you want to do to really scare them is to throw a curve ball. Go back to that list and find another fear which either compliments or contrasts the original one you set up, and have it lurking juuuust out of reach ready to pop up at a moment of perfect tension like a jack in the box. The party is climbing down a slick interior of an underdark cavern, bottom nowhere in sight? They expect to to fall, but what they couldn't possibly expect is for a giant arm to reach out of the darkness and pull one of them down. Have the party figured out that there's a shapeshifter that's infiltrated the rebel meeting and is killing their allies? They suspect suspicion and lies but what they don't expect is for the rebel base to suddenly be on FIRE forcing them to run.

My expert advice is to lightly tease this second threat LONG before you introduce the initial scare. Your players will think you're a genius for doing what amounts to a little extra work, and curse themselves for not paying more attention.

Restraint: Less is more when it comes to scares, as if you do this trick too often your players are going to be inured to it. Try to do it maybe once an adventure, or dungeon level. Scares hit so much harder when the party isn't expecting them. If you're specifically playing in a "horror" game, it's a good idea to introduce a few false scares, or make multiple encounters part of the same bait and switch scare tactic: If we're going into the filthy gross sewer with mould and rot and rats and the like, you'll get more punch if the final challenge isn't corruption based, but is instead some new threat that we could have never prepared for.

Art