thirdwifeofriversong

[thirdwifeofriversong]

we were ROBBED

(Another story in the case of 10, 11 and 12)

[thirdwifeofriversong]

spoilers for Memory from the Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold

So if you’re in the middle of the series, don’t read this post.  OK, so Miles was fired for (among other things) concealing a medical condition that put himself, his subordinates, and (through that) the Imperium in danger. 

Now…. Illyan has to have known he was getting sick. The earliest one Galeni saw (memo with the wrong date) maybe he never even knew; maybe his secretary corrected it without informing him.  And maybe the second one (requesting a report he’d already received) he dismissed as too small to be a concern, although for Illyan forgetting even that small a detail was probably a warning sign worthy of a check-up. But by the third one (memo with the wrong date addressed to Galeni’s predecessor about a topic out of date, which he then forgot he asked for), this was a clear situation, and Illyan had enough evidence to know it even if Galeni didn’t – especially since it’s exceedingly likely that there were warning signs that happened when Galeni wasn’t around. Now I’m not saying he should have immediately put himself on medical leave or anything. But he did have a clear responsibility to warn Haroche that he might need to take medical leave shortly, and Haroche should be prepared for that. And to inform Gregor of that possibility.   In short, he concealed a medical condition that – to a much greater extent – put himself, his subordinates, and the Imperium in danger.  I can’t believe I’ve never seen that parallel before, and now that I have it I don’t know what to do with it.

[thirdwifeofriversong]

I feel like we need a refresher on Watsonian vs Doylist perspectives in media analysis. When you have a question about a piece of media - about a potential plot hole or error, about a dubious costuming decision, about a character suddenly acting out of character -

A Watsonian answer is one that positions itself within the fictional world.

A Doylist answer is one that positions itself within the real world.

Meaning: if Watson says something that isn't true, one explanation is that Watson made a mistake. Another explanation is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made a mistake.

Watsonian explanations are implicitly charitable. You are implicitly buying into the notion that there is a good in-world reason for what you're seeing on screen or on the page. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie all the time because they're from a desert culture!")

Doylist explanations are pragmatic. You are acknowledging that the fiction is shaped by real-world forces, like the creators' personal taste, their biases, the pressures they might be under from managers or editors, or the limits of their expertise. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie because somebody thought they'd sell more units that way.")

Watsonian explanations tend to be imaginative but naive. Seeking a Watsonian explanation for a problem within a narrative is inherently pleasure-seeking: you don't want your suspension of disbelief to be broken, and you're willing to put in the leg work to prevent it. Looking for a Watsonian answer can make for a fun game! But it can quickly stray into making excuses for lazy or biased storytelling, or cynical and greedy executives.

Doylist explanations are very often accurate, but they're not much fun. They should supersede efforts to provide a Watsonian explanation where actual harm is being done: "This character is being depicted in a racist way because the creators have a racist bias.'" Or: "The lore changed because management fired all of the writers from last season because they didn't want to pay then residuals."

Doylism also runs the risk of becoming trite, when applied to lower stakes discrepancies. Yes, it's possible that this character acted strangely in this episode because this episode had a different writer, but that isn't interesting, and it terminates conversation.

I think a lot of conversations about media would go a lot more smoothly, and everyone would have a lot more fun, if people were just clearer about whether they are looking to engage in Watsonian or Doylist analysis. How many arguments could be prevented by just saying, "No, Doylist you're probably right, but it's more fun to imagine there's a Watsonian reason for this, so that's what I'm doing." Or, "From a Watsonian POV that explanation makes sense, but I'm going with the Doylist view here because the creator's intentions leave a bad taste in my mouth that I can't ignore."

Idk, just keep those terms in your pocket? And if you start to get mad at somebody for their analysis, take a second to see if what they're saying makes more sense from the other side of the Watsonian/Doylist divide.

[thirdwifeofriversong]

Self Care by Katie Green (author of Lighter Than My Shadow)

[thirdwifeofriversong]

I turn 30 next month so here’s what I learned in my 20s:

—don’t work for startups, they’re always one ‘innovative idea’ away adding ‘sell your kidneys on the black market’ to your job description.

—keeping a collection of basic OTC medicine on you will save your life one day. I recommend Advil, Imodium, and TUMS.

—those little single-use glasses cleaning wipes are 1000% worth the money

—overly self-depreciating jokes just make people uncomfortable, wean yourself off of them

—you can buy dehydrated mini marshmallows in bulk online and they’re a godsend for hot cocoa

—people don’t care if you have fidget toys on your desk they just want to play with them

—try to go to bed BEFORE the existential ennui kicks in

[thirdwifeofriversong]

adults: oh silly children with no responsibilities no real trauma no life experience no worries and yet oh so dramatic about nothing

also adults: oh thank fucking GOD i am not in school anymore, i had another nightmare i was THERE again, i woke up in a cold sweat bc i didn't study for my TEST-there's nothing not anything like the sweet relief of realizing that you actually don't have one and you won't have one in a very very long time, i still remember what the hallways smell like, i graduated years ago but i don't feel safe yet

[thirdwifeofriversong]

i was 100% sure this song would end up in my top 5 spotify wrapped songs, but apparently not??! number 7? heartbroken

me, trying to keep the teeniest tiniest bit of sanity intact less than 24 hours after watching the carriage scene, listening to a string cover of Mr. Worldwide on repeat at my grown-ass job until I can go home and rewatch😭

[thirdwifeofriversong]

You know what? It’s fucking hard trying to get better. It’s exhausting managing doctors appointments, doing daily PT exercises, eating better, trying to exercise, trying to meditate, and doing ADL’s. I have had a bad crash per week trying to juggle and do all of the above.

It’s easier and less acutely painful to just coast and not actively work on ‘getting better’. Is the work worth it? I don’t know yet.

But to people who’ve tried and given up, to those who don’t even bother - you still deserve care and compassion.

[thirdwifeofriversong]

Are we not gonna talk about the fact that Sacha said, at Chicago Tardis this year, that “The Master’s sex scene with the Doctor” was cut when asked if any content was cut from his episodes? 😭👀

[thirdwifeofriversong]

i hate that we’re (at least in the us/most western countries that i’ve been to) expected to sit in chairs “normally” (knees 90° and feet touching the floor). i’ve had a tailbone injury for a couple years and sitting cross-legged makes me not be in pain and when i go to a restaurant or am working in an office or in a public place, i just want to sit how it doesn’t HURT but apparently that’s not SoCiAlLy aCcEpTaBlE (sometimes i do it anyway though)

can we normalize sitting however we want, fuck “proper”? please? i know i’m not the only one who feels this way

also low-key bisexual erasure to not let people sit in chairs however tf they want (coming from a bi+ person)

[thirdwifeofriversong]

Romanticism-inspired fantasy.

Joining inprnt’s print sale through the weekend 💜

[thirdwifeofriversong]

Yet another Stargate/Riordanverse Comparison

So I've gone on about how Percy Jackson could either be baby Jack O'Neill or baby Daniel Jackson (or, canonically his long-lost nephew or something), but it just hit me out of the blue that I've been overlooking another great parallel: Percy as baby John Sheppard

Not only are they both sassy af and massive dorks, but they're also both highly intelligent (John passed the Mensa test, remember) yet seem to be under the mistaken impression that they're dumb. Like Percy with Annabeth, John usually defers to a female counterpart he sees as the "smart one" or the "competent one" (Elizabeth, Teyla, Sam, all of the above, take your pick). But like Percy, he's just as smart and competent, just in a different way (pure of heart, sound of mind, but dumb of ass - that's both of their characters in a nutshell). In SGA we obviously don't get to hear John's inner monologue but I bet you anything it sounds a lot like a grown-up version of Percy sarcastically commentating on all the chaos, especially when he has to deal with sleazy authority figures. In addition, he has a habit of lobbing snarky comebacks at most of the enemies he encounters, which is peak Percy behavior. He also seems to be in a constant state of frustrated internal brooding, which is once again peak Percy behavior, especially in the later books. After some consideration, I actually think that out of the three options Percy would be most likely to grow up to be like John. Yes, even more so than Jack. They both have snark and the trauma-informed brooding tendencies, but something about John's particular manifestation of that actually feels a bit more Percy than Jack to me for some reason. The perpetual "done with everyone's bullshit" expression, the constant deadpan asides that just sound like he's Somehow Even More Tired Than Jack O'Neill™ , the visible confusion towards most of what's happening around him or what his friends are saying, and the "idk what I'm doing 99% of the time but I'm surprisingly good in a crisis and I'm a natural leader that people follow for some reason" - it all feels very much like how adult Percy would behave, and Percy's already more than halfway there as a teenager, tbh. Also they both have some latent power/special attribute (Percy being a demigod/John having the ATA gene) that comes to light rather abruptly, thrusting them into a previously unknown world where apparently everyone and everything wants to kill them. And one last thing: befriending a life-sucking alien and saying "I'm sorry for shooting everyone!" are absolutely things Percy would do (idk what the context of the latter would be but it'd probably be something ridiculous)

[thirdwifeofriversong]

i saw this:

and thought it would be fun to actually work that out. so

^^^ every doctor who episode in chronological order

(pls let me know if theres any mistakes! i got most of the info from the tardis wiki so idk if its 100% accurate)

btw!!! the episodes are ordered by where they go FIRST in the episode :) (PLEASE STOP TELLING ME TO PUT UNEARTHLY CHILD FIRST THEYRE IN 1963 FIRS TPLEASEEEEEYEGEHFEHFYUFHGEUYS)

[thirdwifeofriversong]

one of my favorite parts about Percy being Obviously Bi™ is he doesn't universally describe one gender as attractive. Like he doesn't just say all girls are cute and guys are just okay or whatever or vice versa. No, he has specific girls he finds pretty and specific guys he finds pretty, and he voices that opinion.

For example - Clarisse? Thalia? Meh. Even Silena, who is canonically very pretty, Percy is relatively neutral on. But Annabeth? Rachel? Calypso? 100%. And based on differences in descriptions like that we can tell when Percy is attracted to somebody versus isn't. He calls everybody else in Beckendorf's cabin ugly and then waxes poetic about how hot Beckendorf is specifically. He'll describe most guys as just "eh" with plain physical descriptors but every time he sees Luke he feels the need to specify that Luke is extremely hot while being very evil and how much he hates Luke's stupid very very pretty face. love that for you Percy. great work.

[thirdwifeofriversong]

we should all stop trying to justify rhys being a good person or cassian being a good person and instead just accept that they all kinda suck as people and we should just choose our fav criminal to stan

[thirdwifeofriversong]

Disney's unconventional "Cinderella" (1950) (long)

Having watched most of the many adaptations of Cinderella, I've come to realize what a unique adaptation Disney's 1950 animated classic really is. Unlike Snow White, which only had a few stage and screen adaptations before Disney produced its groundbreaking film, Cinderella had already been adapted many times before Disney's turn came, and Disney's version makes a surprising number of departures from the standard Cinderella "formula." It was definitely a fresh, creative Cinderella when it made its debut, and it arguably still is. Yet because it's become so familiar in pop culture, and today so often serves as our childhood introduction to the tale, it's easy to overlook its inventive storytelling choices. The 2015 live action remake uses several classic Cinderella adaptation tropes that the original 1950 film actually subverts!

Here's a list of the often-overlooked ways in which Disney's Cinderella stands out from earlier adaptations, and from many later ones too.

Cinderella herself. Disney's Cinderella isn't a traditional Cinderella in personality. The "traditional" portrayal of Cinderella, seen in virtually every adaptation before Disney's and several afterwards too, is the portrayal I call "The Waif": a very young, fragile, melancholy girl, dressed in pathetic rags and smudged with ashes, who makes the audience want to rescue her and who wins the Prince's heart with her wide-eyed innocence and artless charm. But whether chiefly to set her apart from earlier screen Cinderellas or from Disney's earlier delicate ingenue Snow White, Disney's Cinderella is none of those things. She comes across as older, or at least more sophisticated. Nor is she waif-like, but instead combines down-to-earth warmth with ladylike dignity, even at her lowliest. She doesn't sit in the ashes ("Cinderella" is her real name in this version), and her servants' dress is humble yet clean and only slightly tattered. She's gentle and kind, yes, but also intelligent, practical, playful, sometimes sarcastic, philosophical, optimistic, genuinely cheerful when she's with her animal friends, and yet angrier and stronger-willed than virtually all earlier Cinderellas. She doesn't beg to go to the ball, but asserts her right to go, and then sets to work fixing up an old dress of her mother's for herself. Only her stepfamily's sabotage, first by keeping her too busy to finish the dress, and then by destroying it after the mice and birds finish it for her, prevents her from taking herself to the ball without a Fairy Godmother. To this day, she stands out as a complex, unique Cinderella, which pop culture too often forgets.

Lady Tremaine. Some critics today complain that Disney makes Cinderella's stepmother a total monster instead of giving her "nuance" and call her portrayal "sexist." But can't we agree that her sheer cruelty enhances the film's dramatic power? And compared to earlier portrayals of Cinderella's Stepmother, it definitely makes her stand out. In most pre-Disney Cinderellas and many after, the Stepmother is a pompous, vain comic antagonist. Once again, Disney was innovative by portraying Lady Tremaine as a dignified, manipulative, and truly sinister villain, who takes quietly sadistic pleasure in abusing Cinderella and will stop at nothing to prevent her from going to the ball or marrying the Prince. As far as I know, she's also the first Stepmother to realize before the slipper-fitting that Cinderella was the lady at the ball and to take action to prevent her from being found. That's a commonplace plot device in more recent adaptations, but in 1950 it was a creative twist!

The mice and other animals. Viewers debate whether Cinderella's mouse friends, Jaq, Gus, et al, and their misadventures evading Lucifer the Cat are a welcome addition or take away too much screen time from Cinderella herself. But there's no denying that the presence of the mice and birds is an inventive storytelling choice, which makes Disney's Cinderella stand out! And I can provide a long list of reasons why they're more than just "filler." (1) They add liveliness, humor, and appeal for younger children. (2) They gave the animators an outlet for the type of character animation they did best, rather than binding them to the harder work of animating realistic humans. (3) They give Cinderella someone to talk to besides her stepfamily. (4) They give her a way to demonstrate her kindness. (5) The struggles of the mice with Lucifer parallel Cinderella's abuse by her stepfamily, and Cinderella's undying optimism not only keeps her from despair, but inspires them too. (6) They arguably provide a further reason why Cinderella stays with her stepfamily – not only does she have nowhere to go, but an entire community of small sentient creatures relies on her for food and protection. (7) They reward Cinderella for her kindness. From the start, her friendship with the mice and birds makes her life easier to bear, both by easing her loneliness and because they do helpful deeds for her, like mending and cleaning her clothes. They fix up her mother's dress for her to wear to the ball – only the stepfamily's last-minute cruelty requires the Fairy Godmother to step in. And in the end, they're directly responsible for Cinderella's happy ending by freeing her from her locked room. They do all these things because Cinderella has protected them, fed them, made them clothes, and been their friend. Therefore, Cinderella's good fortune never feels "just handed" to her: her kindness directly earns it.

The Fairy Godmother. It's always varied between illustrators whether Cinderella's Fairy Godmother is portrayed as a grandmotherly old woman or as youthful, regal, and beautiful, but screen and stage adaptations before the Disney version virtually always took the "youthful, regal, beautiful" approach. That is, when they didn't change her into a wise, fatherly male magician-advisor, as in several opera adaptations! At any rate, seriousness and dignity were the norm for this character in most adaptations from the 19th century through the 1940s. Making her a sweet, comforting, grandmotherly figure, with a comically and adorably absent mind, was another of Disney's fresh choices.

Cinderella's entrance at the ball. We all know the classic image of Cinderella's entrance from other adaptations. Cinderella appears at the top of the grand staircase that leads down to the ballroom, and a hush falls over the assembly, as not only the Prince, but all the guests and members of the court are amazed by the unknown lady's beauty and magnificent dress. Even in versions without a staircase, Cinderella captivates the room the moment she enters. Adaptations both before and after Disney's, including Disney's own 2015 live action remake, play her entrance this way. But the 1950 animated classic subverts it! The grand staircase leads up to the ballroom, not down to it, and Cinderella's entrance isn't a triumph at first, but a vulnerable moment as she makes her way up the stairs alone, dwarfed by the splendor around her. Then, when she reaches the ballroom, no one notices her at first, because the other ladies are being presented to the Prince and all eyes are on him. But then the Prince notices her in the shadowy background as she quietly marvels at her surroundings, and leaves his post to approach her and invite her to dance. Only then does the rest of the assembly notice her, because she's the one the Prince has singled out. It's more understated and it feels more realistic than the traditional entrance, as well as more clearly symbolic of Cinderella's venturing above her station, then both literally and figuratively being led out of the shadows by the Prince's unexpected attention.

The slipper-fitting plan. Over the years, it's been fairly popular to mock the idea of using the glass slipper to find the Prince's love, as if there were no chance it would fit anyone else. Disney's version is creative by having the slipper-fitting search be the comical, hot-blooded King's idea, not the Prince's, and making it clear that it's not, nor is it meant to be, a foolproof plan to find Cinderella. The Duke points out that the slipper could fit any number of girls, but the King doesn't care if they find the right girl or not: he just wants to hold his son to his pledge to marry "the girl who fits this slipper" and force him to marry the first one who fits it. This also means that Disney doesn't do what most adaptations do and have the Prince conduct the search himself, but follows the original Perrault tale by having a gentleman, in this case the Grand Duke, do it instead. This prevents audiences from mocking the Prince for relying on the slipper instead of knowing his beloved's face.

Cinderella breaking free and asking to try on the slipper. Even though in Perrault's original tale, Cinderella asks to try on the slipper, she almost never does in adaptations. In most versions other than Disney's, including Disney's own 2015 remake, Cinderella's presence in the house (and/or the fact that she has the other slipper) is either discovered by accident or revealed by Cinderella's allies, not by Cinderella's own initiative. In some versions, she even tries to hide from the Prince and/or the search party, either out of fear of her stepfamily or because she feels unworthy of the Prince in her rags. But not Disney's animated Cinderella! First of all, she has an assertive emotional breakthrough when she calls on her dog Bruno to chase Lucifer away and free Gus to slip her the key to her locked room. Earlier on, she urges Bruno to try to get along with Lucifer, lest the stepfamily not allow him to sleep in the house – it's clear that Bruno represents her own rebellious side, and in that scene she's really talking about herself, revealing that she tolerates her stepfamily's abuse so she won't lose her own "nice warm bed" and be homeless. But in the climactic scene, when she finally sees a way out, she gives up playing nice and seizes her chance. First she unleashes Bruno on Lucifer, and then she runs downstairs and directly asks to try on the slipper, not caring how her stepfamily will react, or what the Grand Duke will think of her shabby dress, or whether the audience will accuse her of gold-digging or not. This isn't a common breakthrough in other Cinderella adaptations, but it fits perfectly (like a glass slipper, you might say) with the Disney Cinderella's stronger-willed and more self-assured characterization.

"I have the other slipper." We can probably all safely assume that when audiences first saw Disney's Cinderella in 1950, they all expected Cinderella to try on the glass slipper she lost, with her identity revealed by its perfect fit. They never would have expected Lady Tremaine to trip the footman and break the glass slipper... only for Cinderella to calmly reveal that she has the other one. It's yet another clever and unexpected twist, not seen in any other version. Not even Disney's own 2015 remake.

Disney's Cinderella deserves far more credit than it gets for being unique among the myriad versions of the tale, especially compared to the versions that came before it.

[thirdwifeofriversong]

i know im supremely late to the party but what the fuck do you mean we would have had an explanation behind the little piano melody Wylan plays in episode three. you mean to tell me that there would have been a wylan centric episode. that we wouldve had matthias calling wylan a lamb. we wouldve had jesper getting jealous and confessing his love. we wouldve had a goddamn backstory to his piano tune. and netflix fucking cancelled it? im so pissed im gonna go bite something