#yeah......... I'm rambling again sorry guys

[double--blind]

(SPOILERS) Andrew and plausible deniability, OR: mfer doesn't wanna be held accountable for his actions

This has been churning in my head for a while (I am mentally ill 🥴), but a large part of the driving force behind Andy and his actions is his aversion to blame. He sorta shares this w/Ashley (she's got quite a few rants abt how things aren't her fault), but I believe Andrew takes it just a step further.

I've seen many say this before, but from the start of the game, you'll notice that even beyond normal moral quandaries, Andrew's first objection to any horrific action Ashley proposes is usually a variance of "what if we get caught?". He objects not bc her ideas are ethically repugnant, but bc they could be found out as having done them, and he knows rationally that others know they're bad. This goes as far back as childhood with the Nina incident. He fears punishment and the threat of prison more than he apparently worries about what his crimes might mean for him as a person or what they might mean for the people that might be affected by them (save him and Ashley). This doesn't mean he doesn't feel guilt or have nightmares abt them, but they're not his first priority. Trouble's a pain to deal with, and the dude's low-energy.

In fact, most of his guilt seems largely self-centered. Like, no exaggeration: if it isn't about either him or Ashley (which is, in a way, lowkey also about him), then he couldn't really care less. Do you recall him ever expressing worry or remorse on Nina's behalf? Mourning her? We think Ashley's the one w/empathy issues, but Andrew's in the same boat imo. Self-preservation and self-interest is all that's keeping him seemingly amiable enough for polite society, bc for the most part, he really couldn't be bothered.

In his dreams, the victims of their murders are just bodies: interchangeable, holding no more meaning beyond the fact that they're dead. Any corpse's limb will do to replace the one Ashley cooked—never mind that they may be from different people—bc they're all the same to him. Even Julia, sitting in her dorm room surrounded by evidence of Ashley's harassment, gets no sympathy from Andrew. For the most part, he elects to ignore it all, and regards Julia herself with a detached sorta nostalgia tinged in no small part with apathy.

img txt: You'll never see her again. And the fact that it doesn't really bother you, bothers you.

(The only things of notable worth from her were the colored pencils on her desk, which he promptly takes from her to give to Leyley instead, and isn't that just some crazy symbolism right there?)

His fear of punishment goes hand-in-hand with his desperate pursuit of plausible deniability. Everything he does, he does under certain self-imposed conditions. If it's Ashley's idea and he argues back, it doesn't matter in the end if he goes along with it, bc it was Ashley's idea in the first place. He's just there to make sure she doesn't get them in trouble, bc she needs him, bc he's gotta take care of her. Even if it's not her idea at all (e.g., killing the closet warden, killing the lady in room 302), it's still her fault, bc he did it for her, bc everything he does, he does for her.

Ashley's a manipulative, evil lil possessive gremlin w/a soul as black as tar, and Andy's a doormat, but don't think for a second that part of him doesn't use that dynamic a little to keep from reflecting on what he is. He suffocates under it, but he also relies on it. If there's any sort of plausible deniability available, he'll take it and run with it.

The truth of the matter is that they're both deeply toxic, warped individuals. The difference is that Ashley's owned up to it and quite frankly doesn't care. Andrew hasn't. He's the "normal" one.

Now, for the funky incest part (what we're all here for babyyyyy)—

We've all seen the flavor text abt the bed-sharing by now, right?

img txt: Oh yeah, you tooootally have nightmares as often as you claim.

We know for a fact that aside from some light teasing, maybe, Ashley would have no problem whatsoever with sharing a bed w/Andrew. Heck, she'll coax him into bed (demo) or climb onto the couch with him (ep 2) w/o any prompting from him whatsoever, just bc she feels like it. Andrew, apparently, can't do the same. He doesn't allow himself this intimacy of his own choosing, so he has to lie and pretend to get it if he wants it. He's greedy for her, too, but he can't let himself show it.

If something is sufficiently too intimate in his eyes, beyond anything he can excuse away for some reason or another, then he'll stop himself from doing it. Just like how he wouldn't let himself succumb to the urge of pulling Ashley into his arms to make her smile, but is willing to give her a hug when she asks for it in front of their parents.

He insists on the extra expense of two beds, and then cites his nightmares and panic attacks as the driving force behind crawling into bed w/her, bc then it isn't really his fault now, is it? He tried to stay away, after all. He did! He just didn't have a choice!

Lol

Andrew can't admit to wanting this—buries those feelings and thoughts as deep as he can so they fester and bleed, the repressed idiot—so he gives Ashley all the power to decide how close they get. It's in Ashley's hands. He's free of that hassle.

Which is why the post-sex vision, and Ashley's reaction to it, is so dangerous. @csg-iii made a good point about it in my last post:

img txt: I think the biggest point about "11" is that Andrew asks/begs Ashley for reassurance that it will never happen ("never say never"). It's a subtle admission that if she really wants it to happen, he knows he won't be able to resist his own urges. His only ""hope"" of avoiding going there is if Ashley doesn't want it.

Andrew, in absolving himself of this choice and putting it in Ashley's hands, shoots himself in the foot, bc what if Ashley goes the whole mile? Then the only real thing keeping his desires unrealized was the fact that they had never been voiced as an option before.

He doesn't want to think of himself as someone who'd bone his own sister. Forget being a cannibal, demon summoner, or a murderer; those titles were foisted upon him. This is too close to something real that he carries inside him; this isn't anything Ashley's buried in him, but rather something of his own invention. Something he'll definitely have to take responsibility for.

[chiricat]

ryomina demons are winning

[temeyes]

pfp change!! ft an actual doodle of myself gaspppp!!

[formerheroeswhoquittoolate]

hi do you think sam is normal about the fact that matt died (on what was supposed to be his watch. by the way) and then came back as a fucking catholic priest. like. this guy watched his community get torn apart by a religious leader. aforementioned religious leader told him to kill a guy, got really pissed when he didn't, and threw him and his mom and their entire community under the bus when the beast came to take back its stolen power. he doesn't trust religion. he definitely doesn't trust religious authorities.

and now, you know. his quasi-father died (very nearly by the sword sam was given. by the way.) and came back as a religious authority. he actively works in the catholic church. he's a priest. that has to be uniquely shitty for sam. your dad figure is back from the dead (that you probably should have been there to save him from in the first place) and he's not a lawyer anymore but a guy in the exact same position of authority as the one you became blindspot to work against. the one that tried to make you into a murderer. the one that got your mom killed. oh and he doesn't remember you. crazy.

[astrxealis]

if i do "?" in text i'm genuinely tilting my head like a dog if i do "!!" my eyes are sparkling and i am figuratively wagging my tail if i am IN ALL CAPS i'm screaming from the top of a mountain with all the power i can with love and the strength of RAGHHH within me

[hakusins]

just wanted to say that i hit 300+ followers a long time ago and i just want to say 🥺🥺🥺 thank you !!!!!!! honestly i'm so grateful for all of you, especially as i just yap about different things that you may or may not be into! HBREFHJERBF

i actually do plan on doing an event to celebrate it!! but im so busy ;;A;;; thankfully though, i only have 4 more deadlines for the year and i'll prob start the event somewhere around july and hopefully by then there'd be more!!!!

but right now with like 3 hours of sleep in my system, all i can say now is thank you and i hope you guys continue to support me for a long time 🥺 i'm having a lot of fun here with you all!

[nervocat]

man.

[moopermoment]

alright, i think i'm going to close drawing requests for now. maybe i'll open them back up at some point but i'm going to keep them closed for now.

[pluralgang-practitioners]

Hello! Do you& know of any pagan-umbrella deities that're plural or could have domain over plurality in any way? We're looking for someone to devote to, someone we can ask and thank for good fortune/etc related to multiplicity functions and such. We collectively identify as a Chaos witch so technically we could search for one across the multiverse but we'd really prefer one from this world. Thank you!

So I'll preface this first by saying this kind of isn't my wheelhouse. Most of our system works with entities that are able to communicate within the system (as participant in daily life) or are derived from our exomemories (like Narty from the innerworld). We tend to avoid working with externally sourced entities as a stopgap to keep them from messing around with our system (either on purpose or not). It gets real weird real fast when you start introjecting Gods.

Now, that being said, we are interested in the theory behind worship. Say, "in what aspects is [x] God worshiped in? Why?" Again: we're coming at this question with the big ass pin of "we don't technically work with external entities for this kind of stuff." Your mileage will vary here.

So, since we can't give y'all any specific deities to do research on, instead we'll say this: when you're looking for a deity that is plural or could reasonably have domain over plurality:

Do you consider epithets and the fragmentary nature of Divinity to be plural? In other words; if Divinity can be worshiped in many diverse aspects, some of which may be broadly different in scope or temperament, is that plural to you? Are there elements of the world which you gravitate towards and see yourselves in (ex: relating to the Moon because of its ever-changing yet ever-same faces)? If any of this is "yeah" then:

What are some core ideas you hold true about your plurality? The goals of your worship might offer you a starting point to kick off of here. Real reductive examples here but: say you view this goal as primarily one of Health, so you might investigate the Divine associated with Health/Healing/etc.; but if you view the goal as primarily one dealing with, say, spirit work (this is the most relevant example I could think of since we have a lot of dead people in our system), you might try to work with the Divine associated with Death/Grief/etc.

If approaching Divinity associated with plurality in the world, then consider how that might affect your path. Are you going to approach the Divine from one aspect alone, or do you intend to work with the broader strokes of that Deity? Understand that your goals may guide you a bit better here, but from what little I know about Chaos witchcraft (very little), y'all probably know quite a bit about throwing things at the wall and finding what sticks as opposed to what stinks.

If none of the above appeal to you, meanwhile, the search for plurality in the Divine might be a little messy and complicated. It's hard to pin down examples of Gods that you could definitively label "plural," because sometimes that comes down to UPG, as well as what you might be looking for as plural. The only example coming to mind right now is Janus, the Roman God of Boundaries (forgive me if that's a bit reductive). But that said, the answer also might not be obvious if you're looking for a very strict definition of plurality in the Divine.

Uh, anyways, I'm sure other people in the witchblr and pluralgang spaces could chime in better than we can, considering our lack of expertise here.

-Heitaros (he/him)

[silverselfshippingchaos]

r.une is so awesome! he's the kindest guy ever and I always drop by the thieves guild whenever I'm not doing anything just to hear his pretty voice

[scrawnytreedemon]

How to write Main Character: Make them feel unique,make them feel different but also familiar. Like you can see them everywhere at the same time nowhere

Or we can go the easy road and make one with God complex

I feel like ppl don't really make good main characters anymore. They feel the same these days

Ehhh???

Honestly, people do make good main characters, you just have to look. Usually easier to find in non-YA novels, in my experience. They tend to feel more like fleshed-out *people* with their own life-experience than vessels for the reader to insert themselves into,

Which, ironically enough, makes it easier for me to relate to them, even if we are otherwise very different people. If you make your character a person, then inevitably, some of those experiences line up.

If anything, trying to walk that tightrope of having your character just "unique" enough to be interesting while still "relatable" enough as to appeal to as many people as possible is where things can get muddy and you end up failing either way.

I think it tends to affect some genres more than others, but at the end of the day... It really isn't as bad of an issue as people make it out to be. Like, yeah. Mediocre literature exists. Things tend to be mid more than they are especially good or bad.

And I think that's fine.

Plus, tastes vary. There's no doubt alot of stuff I love that people will look at and say is subpar. There is no objective way of looking at fiction-- We all come in with our own biases.

I'm going offtopic. Hope the first half of this reply made sense. Apologies if I've completely misunderstood your point.

I dunno, I just hear these complaints, and it makes me think of alot of those shitty writing guides that I used to eat up (often made by amateur writers themselves), which were very insistent on finding the "right" way to write and ruthlessly mocking anything "bad."

I don't think that's what you were going for, at all, but I still think it's very generalising, and I'm not sure what to make of it?

[kelin-is-writing]

it's sunday, my fucking ankles and knees hurts like bitches AND i still gotta go to work until 12pm 🙂

[noxtivagus]

once again i implore you to listen to ffxiv ost 🙏

[lostrealities0]

I honestly have never understood why this line is so hated. I have seen people use it to villainize Ford. I would like to say that I agree with all of your points. It was completely wrong for him to project his relationship with his brother onto Dipper. He definitely has convinced himself that his and Stan's relationship has always been bad.

We don't know much about how it was in the past. However, it seems that they were always grouped together as a pair. It was always Stan and Ford. Additionally, Stan gives off codependency vibes during the incident, while at the same time, Ford seems very independent. He has zero issues with the prospect of going to a university across the country.

I believe that this dynamic probably caused some issues. While I doubt teenage Ford thought of their relationship as suffocating, I'm sure he got annoyed and/or frustrated at times. He was never seen as his own person; he was just part of a pair. Stan probably loved it, maybe even encouraged it. Remember, it is not wrong to want to be your own person!

Again, I'm not saying that it was right in any way for Ford to say this. At least not to Dipper. This is very much a conversation he needs to have with Stan. What I'm trying to say is that I believe that there is a valid basis and some truth behind that statement and shouldn't be judged point blank.

I think so much about Ford's line "And isn't it suffocating?" when Dipper says he's never been away from Mabel. Side barring how insane it is to project onto a twelve yr old boy, I think it really shows how Ford's perception of his and Stan's relationship has perverted over the forty years they were apart. We know they were close at Mabel and Dipper's age. But Ford's convinced himself that it was always bad, that his brother always had poor intent for him, always held him back, because if that's wrong, if his brother really did make a mistake, then it means he doubted the brother that loved him and he loved in turn.

[cursed-child-autumncookie]

Sorry if this is weird to say or anything but like. Shout out to the Siffrin horny bloggers you guys make great content AND are really like. Idk how to word it but you're like. Changing and deconstructing a lot of the maybe not the best/most educated views I as an allo had on asexuality and teaching me a lot of the nuances and different types and ways of like. BEING ace and showing me the spectrum there. I might not always get it and be confused sometimes but I do try my best to at least LEARN and be respectful and you guys have been really nice and welcoming and I really appreciate that so like. Thank you genuinely for that keep doing what you're doing over there <3

[nervocat]

I wanna write platonic Saiki-K stuff so badly but idk if anyone would fucking READ IT!!!!!