#Case Study Analysis

[marketxcel]

Case Study: Unveiling the Features That Influence Air Conditioner Purchases

Explore our comprehensive case study delving into the key features that drive consumer decisions when purchasing air conditioners. Discover what makes a difference in this cooling industry analysis.

[edlucavalden]

Mithrun and non-visible disability

Yk, I've never seen people talk about this, but Mithrun is a very accurate depiction of having a non visible illness

I'd like to interpret mithrun's bastard origin to be an allegory for an invisible disability (I'd argue its neurodivergance, but it could be anything); An aspect of yourself that you are born with (in this case; born from) that is seen as inferior but it is not obvious.

He's even lucky—since that part of him is that of benefit. His infidelity gave him silver eyes and sharp ears after all (if you can catch the metaphor). from the outside, He's just a normal person, a person worth respecting because he's fits the standard.

However, he knows he does not fit the standard. it's just a lie. He hates himself—so, so much bc of that. It causes him to over-compensate through complete perfectionism and a high sense of self pride. He has to keep a big image in order to protect himself. it's the only thing that can get him loved.

However, that superficial ego gives him terrible imposter syndrome. He knows he doesn't deserve it, but he wants to. like everyone, he craves love and safety. So, he looks down at everyone, hyperfocused at their flaws (he can't be inferior if everyone is worse, right?) whatever it takes to prove himself that he deserves love.

He knows he's weak, but he has to show to everyone that he's strong because any slight sight of weakness would be detrimental since he knows that his humanity is conditional.

He knows that if he shows the truth and how he doesn't actually fit the status quo, he will be ostracized and rejected.

He knows—because his brother is proof of that.

Obrin's disability is obviously visible; Shown through his physical characteristics (his frailness and the lack of family traits). However, his discrimination may be due to this visible disability. he isn't nessesarily ostracized for those traits. His features aren't the (main) reason why he's perceived as inferior in the social hierarchy. it's instead because he's rumored to be a bastard child. This is why he hates his brother so much.

Obrins physical characteristics are just "symptoms" that perpetuate their prejudice towards infidelity (if were going by the disability allegory, think; this person is too sensitive, it must be bc of the autism...). By doing so, his brother indirectly taught him to hide that part of himself.

He hates Obrin because he is the physical manifestation of what will happen to him if his infidelity (disability) is revealed. He is the same plane as his brother after all, The only difference is that he's fortunate enough to be able to hide it.

It's very interesting how his hatred to Obrin isn't because he's genuinely bigoted and ignorant towards him, but because of his own personal internalized ablelism just projected. (It's ironic how contrary it is; he hates his brother because he sees him as equal) very much paralleling visible and nonvisible disability in intimate familial relationships.

The fact mithrun is the bastard child, not him. Imagine the burdening guilt and shame that comes with the knowledge that he could (or should) be one in his place.

He's constantly paranoid of thoughts that he's not good enough. That's why he was so upset when he was sent to the canaries or when he saw Obrin and Sultha together.

Because those are signs that Obrin is better than him and he could not forgive that (how can someone like him, completely ostracized from society, and be so content...?). And that sign proves his paranoia of not being good enough are correct.

mithrun's insecurities, fears, and behavior very much parallel that of being a high masking disabled person.

Hes is a flawed disabled character, but one you can also sympathize with.

He isn't a perfect victim. He delves on how a disabiled person who's so intrenched in a heavily ableist and bigoted society can be a victim to its bigotry and be taken advantage of (The demon. I didn't touch on that topic, as much as i would love an essay about how the demon preyed on mithruns vulnerability regarding his own disability but unfortunately, that might be too triggering for me lawl!) while also actively participating in it and perpetuate said beliefs

And that means so much to me

[pali-and-proud]

He must be mad at me. Yes. That's why he kept me out of this story. He must be mad at me, and it cannot be because I skipped out on the last story. No, he must be mad at me because I kiss too well and so we have to pretend nothing happened at all and it's the only way he won't be mad at me. I will not communicate this with anyone. I'm doing great.

[xxplastic-cubexx]

cant stop thinkin bout charles and erik readin together on the couch but instead of reading with him charles is listening to eriks thoughts while he reads. Live mind commentary ……..

[existingtm]

I think one of the reasons I'm absolutely insane about Jun Mochizuki's work is because she's the only person I've seen do a perfect execution of the "abused becomes the abuser" trope.

All of the characters in Pandora Heart and Vanitas no Carte are incredibly morally complex. They're heart wrenching, relatable, endearing, aggravating, and endlessly flawed.

MochiJun puts us in the uncomfortable position of confronting that victims can be perpetrators, that those who are hurt can hurt others, that sometimes, people you love are bad, and sometimes you love bad people.

Abuse is never justified; it's handled by different characters in a variety of ways. It's repressed, reciprocated, passed on, and stopped. MochiJun shows victims become awful people, not inherently because they were abused, but because of who they are as people and how that shapes the way they deal with abuse.

She shows victims as the complex people they are beyond victimhood. There are characters who are just and kind after facing abuse, and ones who are twisted and cruel. Most delightfully, she brings us characters who are both.

The heroes of her stories choose love, gentleness, compassion, and mercy. She shows that our choices matter, that our relationships are integral to who we are.

I think of how some of the characters, in spite of these forgiving traits, are not required to forgive their abusers in order to be seen as virtuous figures. They're allowed to stand their ground, even if it's violent to do so.

I think of how, at the same time, some characters are loved despite being abusive, because a tender character sees more in them than evil. Because abuse comes from people, and people are endlessly complex.

I think of how the heroes of the story tear themselves apart for the violence they inflict, and are shown the most painful love in return. How that love often comes in the form of calling them out on their bullshit.

I love the love in Pandora Hearts and in Vanitas no Carte because it's painfully human in the face of horrors beyond mortal comprehension.

I love the flaws in the characters because they're painfully human despite some of these characters' otherworldly natures.

Jun Mochizuki doesn't show us the abused becoming abusers to give us the idea that abuse is an unstoppable cycle, but rather to show that it is stoppable. To show that people have a choice in who they become. And that's one of the most wonderful and terrible things about people.

[biblicalhorror]

Okayyyyy yeah also let's talk about Tammy. I didn't know how I felt about her for awhile because she did very much feel like the Disposable Black Girlfriend, but I'm seeing people saying she's an "abuser" or God forbid "just as bad as Kevin" and that's just. Not at all true.

Yes, Tammy is controlling. She doesn't seem to really like Patty for who she is, and kind of seems to want to change her into someone else instead. HOWEVER, I think we need to look at the whole character to understand WHY she's like that. I don't think she's controlling Patty for personal gain or for the sake of manipulating her. I think she's lonely and desperate for companionship, which leads to her ignoring/pushing past the obvious incompatibility in her relationship with Patty.

Here's what we know about Tammy:

1. She seems to be the only black person in the Worcester social circle. She also mentions frequently how she's surrounded entirely by white men at work.

2. She is also the only openly lgbt person in the area, other than Patty, who is still not exactly out and proud.

3. She describes her entire job as "making excuses for" and "cleaning up after" the men at her job, particularly her partner (whose name I am unfortunately forgetting, does anyone remember?), who even had her plant evidence for him on at least one occasion.

4. Despite being very competent and good at her job, the white men around her keep failing upwards (she mentions a few times that people beneath her keep getting promoted) while she remains stagnant in her career. There doesn't seem to be any explanation for this other than the fact that she is a black lesbian in an extremely white, conservative community.

Basically, Tammy seems like someone who has been taught (like many black women) that she will have to work much harder than everyone else to get ahead in any capacity. She is also likely very, very lonely. She doesn't seem to have any friends outside of work, which isn't surprising given the above. It seems like she doesn't exactly have a ton of prospects, dating-wise, other than Patty. In my opinion, it's really no wonder that she clung to Patty so desperately and immediately and tried to forcibly mold her into someone who could be compatible. She's tough, smart, organized, direct, manipulative, no-nonsense and controlling because, well, she had to be. And she ends up trying to "rein in" Patty because, in her mind, what's the other option? She ends up alone, surrounded by men who force her to cover for their antics and don't care if she lives or dies.

I'm not saying her behavior is healthy. But it comes from an entirely different place than Kevin's abuse, or Chuck's, or even Neil's. And it's also not uncommon. In real life, I know many queer women (specifically small-town lesbians) who end up in relationship dynamics just like that over and over again because they start dating someone who doesn't quite fit, and they compensate for it by trying to force a connection instead of accepting loneliness and isolation. I have a lot of sympathy for Tammy. And I wish the show had taken more care to establish the abuse she faced from her coworkers off-camera.

[sabo-torao]

Small disclaimer before you head in: this whole post will be referencing the TCB translation. I know VIZ handled the exchange I'm discussing differently, but I couldn't find anyone who talked about the original version and as a result I don't really know who is closer to the original meaning. In any case, the "analysis" should still stand. Whether Dragon was commenting Sabo's firmness or admiring his resolution, Sabo's still putting on a mask, and that's the point I'm trying to break down. Enjoy!

This very specific interaction between Dragon and Sabo in chapter 1083 has always stuck out to me.

"My, you really are unshakeable."

which is an appropriate response to what Sabo said, of course. What kind of sensitive person reacts that way to the death of an innocent, right?

Even so, I can't help but compare the thing Sabo said to his actual, genuine reaction to King Kobra's death.

He's devastated.

Sabo brokenly screams Kobra's name, and his expression is one of full despair; he never thought about killing Kobra, let alone letting him die. On the contrary, he actively tried to save him.

Kobra told him to just let him go, that he was dead weight and he shouldn't be concerned about him, but Sabo straight up refused. In fact, Kobra's actions read way more as a sacrifice than an inevitable death; the king let himself die, knowing that this way Sabo could flee and reach Vivi and Luffy safely.

On the Lulusian ship, we see Sabo think about Kobra's last words to him and actively trying not to cry (and failing).

That's not an unshakable man. He's suffering, he's grieving. He realizes he failed his very own mission of saving the king and lets the meaning behind Kobra's actions and words sink in.

It really puts his former reaction into perspective.

Sabo's firmness, seriousness and coldness in front of Dragon and Ivankov are nothing but a façade. He acknowledges that what he's about to say might come off as harsh, and that, even if he does feel sorry for Kobra, the tragedy doesn't weigh him down thanks to the results it brought, but it all sounds like he's reassuring himself more than actually showing his indifference.

Hell, he even drinks his glass of wine right after having said that "he doesn't really care". How can anyone take his words seriously?

And we've been knowing Sabo is inclined to do this sort of thing since Dressrosa; he acted all cool and composed in front of Luffy but the second Koala called him on the Den Den Mushi he was weeping, having a hard time believing that his little brother didn't punch him or hate him for being alive all along. He even denied he was crying!

All because Sabo hates being seen as vulnerable, especially in front of the people he thinks he has to be strong for (Luffy, Dragon, etc). It's something I think goes back to how his parents treated him, since they scolded him for, y'know, having emotions and being a normal kid in need of love, but i digress.

I once saw someone describing Sabo as a very cold person in comparison to his brothers, even going as far as to say that Sabo doesn't care if people die if it means achieving the Revolutionary Army's goals (using this very interaction as proof), which couldn't be further away from the truth.

Bonney even says outright that it's weird seeing a "radical revolutionary" act so friendly when Sabo helps her out. Why would he do this if all he ever did was for "The Cause"?

Yes, Sabo is ruthless, rude, violent at times, and his friendly demeanor could be seen as a little more volatile than that of his brothers', but he's not heartless. He's not a "meanings to an end" guy, he proves it time and time and time again, and it's disheartening seeing people label him as such.

Sabo is kind. He may not be as warm as Ace and Luffy, but he is fundamentally a good person. A generous, kind, caring, sensitive person.

No matter how hard he tries to hide it.

[necrotic-nephilim]

@profandomhopper i was going to reblog the original post this comment was left on but i felt it divorced itself from the original topic so much, you get your own post for giving me delightful permission to ramble about this. buckle in people this is long.

so, DC is a big fandom that expanses a lot of different types of content, and like anything, is subject to crossovers. the obvious ones like Marvel are for the reason of being a similar and equally popular superhero world, so it's easy to transpose the worlds onto each other and overlap the characters. both of these worlds deal with multiverses and endless, endless heroes. it makes sense and there's no real stretch to think Batman and Spider-Man could co-exist. i mean, there have been canon crossover comics. and even some more random crossovers like White Collar have pretty easy to trace origins, being an actor in WC was a popular Dick fancast back in the day so there was some bleeding over that led to a well-loved niche crossover space.

but Danny Phantom and Miraculous Ladybug are where it gets interesting. because at a surface, MLB sort of makes sense. it's a superhero world, you're following a teen girl superhero and sure the mechanics are pretty contained, but the crossover should make sense. but when you compare it to the crossover numbers of other superhero media like say My Hero Academia, Ladybug takes the *crown* with such a bizarre popularity. and of course, DP feels like it makes even less sense. sure, you *could* lump it into at the very least, superhero-adjacent media, but it's not a true hero world like MLB or DC is.

but, the thing to always understand about DC, *especially* the Batfamily (which is where the crossover content propagates the most) is this: a *very* good chunk of fans don't interact with the comics. i would venture to say even most Batfamily fans don't read the comics and actively talk about it. we've all read a very fandom big Batfam fanfic where the author's note mentions the writer has never touched a comic in their life. typically, these fans are either cobbling together their understanding from fandom content, or by frankensteining unrelated DC adaptations to understand each character. you take Bruce from Batman: TAS, you take Dick from the animated Young Justice, you take Jason from Batman: Under The Red Hood animated movie, you take Damian from the DCAMU Batman vs Robin, and you read some fandom metas to fill in the rest and well, you've got some sort of an understanding of these characters. read enough incorrect quotes, some genfic, a couple of character metas, and boom, you understand the Batfamily fandom enough to start creating your own content. and of course now. now you have Wayne Family Adventures so it's even *easier*. a pretty easy to pick up webtoon that's filling in all the gaps for you. but i've been in this fandom long enough to remember before we had WFA and even then, this was still a common, if not the most popular way, to ween yourself into the DC fandom space. you cherry-picked the canon you liked and then plunged into the depths of fanon.

i'm not here to make in depth commentary on if i think this is a good or bad thing. trust me i have that commentary in my head, but that would need it's own post. i'm very split on it and my feelings are complicated. my feelings on WFA are even *more* complicated. because oftentimes, the attitude expressed by these fans who are frankensteining this version of the Batfamily/DC world they have in their head is they don't *want* to read the comics. the comics don't contain the content they're after. and to an extent, i understand that. if you're looking for light-hearted vibes of the Batfamily all getting along and having the occasional hurt/comfort moments but in the end, they hug and make up, you're right. largely, you won't find that in canon. of course there are so many comics to recommend for Batfamily interactions, but you have to get specific. you'll find them interacting in small groups, Tim and Dick bonding here, Duke and Cass bonding there, but largely, the comics don't care to balance the ridiculously large cast they've given themselves. but fandom does. it's easy to toss them all in a blender and ignore the parts you don't like. the default argument to ignoring the comics or writing something OOC is always "well the comics are OOC and inconsistent too" which, while a flawed argument that massively misunderstand how comics work as a medium, isn't an entirely incorrect one. you could serve on a silver platter to these fans, an easy and accessible way to get into comics and they wouldn't be interested. it's not what they're here for. fandom is always character-driven above all else. it's driven by character relationships and dynamics. if someone wants to consume content where Tim idolized and stalked Jason as 'his Robin' and now is trying to help him rehabilitate and they're super complicated but have this long epic forgiveness arc, why *would* they read the comics? because they're sure as shit not going to find that dynamic in the comics. it's laughably OOC and not canon at all, but that doesn't matter. what matters is the sandbox. most Batfamily fans care *far* more about the sandbox canon gives them than the actual canon itself. feel how you feel about that, this really isn't being negative toward that attitude, but it is a common attitude.

so, you have Batfamily fans playing in the sandbox and building their own narrative. common fandom headcanons are so common, you could practically write a guide on how the fanon Batfamily works with how consistent people are about it. or you could just read WFA, which is practically the new manifesto of it. even now, with this sudden spike in people talking about canon accuracy and "actually this happening in the comics", they don't actually care about the comics, just what they can cherry-pick for fodder. (even if they rob it of so much context they're just as OOC as they were before. see specifically: the recent phenomena with Tim Drake going from the woobified weakest member of the Batfam who everyone needs to save constantly and he's the smart boy but he's also the one with a sad tragic neglectful past who gets overlooked being the way Batfamily fandom played with Tim for years. but recently, people seem to be pushing this idea of a ridiculously badass Tim, Tim who *totally* has a kill count because of his actions in RR (2009) if you take them completely out of context, Tim who bested Ra's and is even more badass than Jason and he's the 17 yr old CEO of Wayne Industries being cool and flawless it becoming the new fandom zeitgeist. neither of these versions of Tim are canon, and the second fundamentally misunderstands his arc in RR (2009) but the shift has undeniably happened and it's been fascinating to watch. the same thing happened with people suddenly deciding Jason isn't the "angry violent Robin", he was a sunshine sweet boy who was perfect as Robin. neither of these are true, but the second feels more transgressive and new to fandom from cherry-picked panels.) the point is largely, Batfamily fans would rather build their own canon than play with the actual canon.

and then, you have Danny Phantom. i'm not into DP and have no interest to get into it, but what i know about it via fandom osmosis is this: DP fans sort of also don't give a fuck about canon. once again, the canon of DP is a sandbox, not a rulebook. the concepts and the characters are the draw, not the plot itself. i've seen DP posts explaining characters who are essentially OCs, but have become so dominant in the fandom via fandom osmosis. there are concepts and ideas about how Danny's powers work and potential concepts with his ghost nature that either aren't in canon or only happened once in canon and fans decided to expand on that and doesn't care about it's own in-universe logic. i've seen a lot of DP fans also express they haven't seen the show and they don't have plans to see the show. because the show is just some children's cartoon with some inconsistencies and a simple plot, as you'd expect from CN. the show isn't the point. no one cares about it's plot, they care about it's characters. they care about pushing the concept of half ghost boy to a logical extreme and seeing what you can get out of that. can you make it weird and fucked up. how much can you highlight on his trauma and body horror. what identity crisis can you give him and how can you build his interactions with other characters in his world around that and also make those characters fun and unique on their own. sure, the skeleton of canon is there, but the meat lies all in the fanon.

Miraculous Ladybug also exists in this similar vein. the characters, the concepts, those hold intrigue. and not even mentioning the fact the original concept for this show was supposed to be aimed to an older audience, so you can see the bones of something a bit more mature and nuanced under this typical, villain of the week magical girl transformation show. the show itself is a bit shallow and that's not a *bad* thing, it's just the medium it exists within being aimed towards children. but the concepts of a teen girl who's basically a sort of chosen one, a boy who doesn't know his father is the big bad of the show, and their weird identity porn love... square thing. those dynamics are *so* complicated and such a fun sandbox to play in with character-driven fandom.

so, at the core, you have three fandoms that care more about the culturally accepted fanon than the canon, with a good chunk of people often not even consuming the original canon content. and well, DC is an *easy* world to transpose just about anything onto. a boy who's half ghost and fighting supernatural threats? that makes sense, DC has ghost heroes like Deadman already. a girl who has this magical item that gives her animal themed superpowers? i mean that's practically the same thing as Vixen's Totem so that one makes sense too. they fit in pretty easy, no needing to change the world to accommodate them. and of course, if you're a fan of *one* fandom where you don't care for the canon content and only like the fandom sandbox, chances are, you'll get drawn in pretty easily to another fandom with similar mechanics. if you can teach yourself the DP fandom rules/concepts, you can teach yourself the Batfamily fandom rules/concepts. and well, since there's so much crossover in fandom members, why not write the fanfiction? crossover fics will always exist, but with such a shared member base, you have a really big boom.

it's why the characters you see DP interact with in DC are *always* characters who are far more driven by fanon than canon. Danny and John Constantine is a *massive* concept. for people who don't read Hellblazer comics. my poor partner, @divine-dominion has lamented to me pretty often about finding DP content in the Hellblazer tag that is essentially turning Constantine into an OC. because whatever version of Constantine is being written about isn't one bit comics accurate, and really, isn't trying to be. and the same thing happens with Shazam. you watch Young Justice and understand him well enough, you get drawn in by the character concept that you just run with it. people put their favorite blorbos in the same place because hey, wouldn't ghost boy be pretty cool in a city like *Gotham*. how would Batman even react to him. and then, the shipping. because ages for the Batfamily can be easily hand-waved and moved around based on where you plop Danny into the timeline, you have your pick of the litter with him, and same with Ladybug. of course there are the most popular ships but largely, the world is your oyster.

i don't think this is the worst thing in the world for either fandom. it's not hard to filter out the crossover tags and scroll past content i don't like. and sure, i see the appeal of making your blorbos from two different places meet. i've got my drafts *full* of DC/MHA crossover ideas because well, i like them both and think that would be cool. i think my only gripe with it is when DP or MLB crossover content seeps it's way into the wrong tags. using the above example, if you're writing about Danny and Constantine but there's zero content of the actual Hellblazer comics, i don't think you need the Hellblazer tag, just the Constantine character tag. tbh i wish this extended onto Ao3 and people utilized fandom tags better. if you're writing Batfamily fanfiction that is very clearly and obviously WFA driven in characterization and concepts, i would far prefer those fics be tagged with the WFA fandom tag rather than the Batman (comics) fandom tag. because well, you're not writing about the Batman comics. and there's nothing wrong with that, but it helps if you don't confuse yourself for content striving to interact with canon more. (this especially extends to Young Justice, by the way. if you're writing for the Young Justice tv show please, please stop using the Young Justice (comics) fandom tag. i'm at my wit's end- /lh)

the whole thing is fascinating. i've got zero interest in entering DP or MLB as fandoms because that's not my speed, but witnessing it as an outsider is my favorite pastime. i see a *lot* of posts going around the DC x DP space that are helping explain to people who's who, what's what, and understanding the canon/fanon of both of these properties so others can better enter the space. which is not something you'd need in a fandom driven only by it's canon content, but it is sweet watching others try to help newbies enter the space. it's a very inviting fandom space, i think, whether you lament it's existence or not. they're just sitting in their corner with their blorbos, and i gotta respect that. the posts explaining the Batfamily to DP fans are always fun for me to read, even if i disagree with some of the characterizations in them because it helps shine a light on what the fans of this crossover regard as "important" enough about each fandom to be worth including those sorts of primers. very fascinating stuff.

[briebysabs]

The recent chapter has reinforced what I’ve been screaming about Noé from day one. If you will not take anything else from Noé Archiviste, take this. To analyze him you are required to understand that Noé is disconnected from everything.

He is disconnected from himself, his past, the world, and reality. And this isn’t simply from being sheltered (though that plays a significant role). Because of this, he offers an honest, open and “pure” view of a situation. Even without going into the psychological rabbit hole mochijun executed in Pandora Hearts, you can see Noe’s lines/scenes are chosen with calculation and are very layered. A minor example, him getting lost all the time. It makes for a funny gag but it feeds into the point I’m making here. Conceptually, Noé is a floating balloon, hovering over the world. He can give you the best perspective because he’s not on the ground. That is why Noé sees himself as too strong or untouchable. Because he believes he is in a different world from anyone else. And I think this is something many people can relate to. But then it becomes complicated when Noé chooses to be unaware. Noé knows treating Dante and his companions like shit is wrong. But the gears turned in his head, people that he likes are doing something harmful. And he picks the option that won’t make him dwell on it: it’s an accident. Oh perhaps they didn’t know their names.

Noé depends on toxic optimism. From this we’ve seen it, several times throughout the story, turn into utter delusion. This is why some ppl, including myself, get Jack vibes from him. If you know you know, that man invented the word delusional. In order to keep himself together, to distract himself from his own self-loathing and loneliness, he has clung onto this thinking like a lifeline. Noe and Vanitas are very similar but chose different ways of coping which is a reason he is able to reach him. It’s easier to focus and believe in the beauty of everything else than looking at your own reflection. It’s easier to proclaim that the world is beautiful than to say that it wronged you and you feel so different and so you hate yourself.

Which is why I believe Noé will be the final antagonist, anti-hero whatever the fuck. Not bc it’ll be a cool twist, the writing is on the wall. This is the logical destination of his character. Will he be saved at the end? Probably but who fucking knows mochijun. Noé is going be confronted with so many harsh truths and Vanitas dying is the biggest one. It is set in stone, an event that is fated to happen no matter what Noé does. Whether he’s time-looping this shit or living on alone. Vanitas’ death is the biggest reality Noé cannot escape from. And thus, that will break him. He will try to remain in his dreams, memories, and delusions. But eventually....you’re going to wake up.

[aficionadoenthusiast]

i could point out the beautiful parallels between nico's crush on percy, the crush he developed due to childhood trauma and intense hero worship and hung onto even after he thought his hero betrayed him, and annabeth's crush on luke, the crush she developed due to childhood trauma and hero worship and held onto even after her hero betrayed her, and how both of their crushes are commentary on their upbringings, nico's being how grief and internalized homophobia caused him to latch onto the beautiful hero that saved his life, annabeth's being how growing up neglected and unwanted caused her to latch onto the first person who showed her any attention and how that attachment only strengthened in their shared grief, and how those parallels extended to show how their respective attachments left them vulnerable to manipulation yet ended up not joining the dark side, ironically in part because of percy, either because of the crush (nico) or in spite of the crush (annabeth), and how those crushes contributed to their overall character arcs, nico's being to learn to let go: of grudges, grief, and his own self-hatred as a two part climax on that one page of boo and the cocoa puffs in tsats with will being the catalyst to making him see his own worth, annabeth's being to learn what real, healthy love looks like (a spot of irony: percy taught her this, which is contrasted with her typically being the person to teach him stuff) in contrast to what she ultimately got with luke which was manipulation, because luke, also being a neglected kid, never learned what healthy love looks like, but you guys are not ready to hear that so instead i'll just try not to cry at the hypocrisy of the pjo fandom's obsession with nico's crush on percy while refusing to see annabeth's crush on luke as anything more than a disgusting mistake

[sun-undone]

okay continuing my case study of vanitas rewatch, i need to gush about the scene where noe drinks domi's blood in the carriage cause it is WILD

i mean first off, it's very clear on a rewatch that noe is thinking about louis when he is drinking from domi, which really sums up the tragedy of noe and domi's relationship, especially from domi's pov. cause she KNOWS, doesn't she? she has such a complex about her being the one to survive instead of louis, only made worse by her knowledge of just how much noe misses him and continues to suffer years later because of his death. she knows that noe wants her blood not because of any romantic or lustful feelings he has for her in particular, but because 1) she reminds him of louis, and 2) he doesn't have to face the burden of his power with her. not only does noe bring up domi "smelling good" RIGHT AFTER she mentions what happened to louis, but we even get a flash of louis tempting noe with his blood after domi asks if he craves HER blood, both of which really highlight noe's true object of desire in this scene. with that, knowing how the other blood drinking scenes are framed after this, it's striking how subdued this one is, and i do think it's because of those complicated feelings of unrequited love and regret and grief between noe and domi.

we only see domi's face as the actual drinking happens, and she does look like she's enjoying herself, but her body is tense, and there is no blush on her cheeks. on a first watch, this scene seemed incredibly sensual (and it still kind of is in a way) but taken in context with the other blood drinking scenes and with full knowledge of noe and domi's relationship??? it's SO detached and cold and even depressing. the focus is clearly on domi and her desire to be wanted by noe, which once again, becomes so much deeper on a rewatch because i genuinely believe that a lot of domi's apparent attraction to noe is simply because of her own guilt and self-hatred and desire to help noe deal with his grief. do i think she loves noe? ABSOLUTELY. as a brother! it's literally canon that she started dressing and presenting herself more like louis after his death BECAUSE OF HOW SAD NOE WAS, so i don't think it's a stretch to think that she would still have an urge to fulfill that role with noe by being sort of a stand-in for louis during this intimate moment. she knows that noe and louis had a "more than friends" kind of relationship, even if they never got the chance to explore it, so in her mind, allowing noe to drink from her (an inherently sexual act as framed in this anime) is a way for him to have a taste (pun intended) of what could've been. she knows she's being used, that blood drinking is supposed to feel better than this for both parties, but her own survivor's guilt and deep affection for noe are so strong that she's decided it's worth it.

AND THEN, as if that wasn't enough analysis, there's the fucking cut to vanitas outside the door. at the beginning of the scene, it's clear that he's lurking because he wants to know what he's in for when they get to the ball and how wary he needs to be of domi. and it could've just ended there! that one cut to vanitas as domi and noe are talking about him already told us something about his character: that he's much more cunning and calculated than he has presented himself so far. it's also important that he hears domi reference noe's guilt about "what happened years ago". that could've been it!!! but NO. they cut BACK to him once the blood drinking has started so we can see his face as he listens to the gasps of domi and noe. and it feels SO. INCREDIBLY. LONELY. that shot of him sitting against the wall with the slash of moonlight cutting into the shadows and all the purples and blues around him cannot evoke anything else but loneliness in my mind. they even go so far as to give us a close-up of his expression too, just in case we missed his sulking the first time. and he could move further away from the door!!!! but he doesn't!!!!! there's some part of him that is fascinated by the intimacy of the act, so he continues being a freaky little voyeur.

now obviously i'm gonna read this through the vanoe lens, so i find it incredibly pointed that this scene happens in the same episode as vanitas offering his blood to jeanne. CLEARLY, the two scenes are linked, right???? they're meant to be paralleled???? so since domi is a stand-in for someone else, it stands to reason that maybe jeanne could be a stand-in for someone else, too? perhaps the one vampire who vanitas can NEVER let drink from him, as per his self-imposed, self-destructive restriction? he can't have noe, so he'll use jeanne instead as a safer avenue for exploring whatever romantic or sexual feelings that are supposed to arise from blood drinking. and even if you don't read it as a vanoe thing, i think there's still something to be said for vanitas yearning for SOME form of intimacy that won't hurt him but also won't lay him bare. he lost (slash destroyed?) the only family he ever had and set upon this quest to save his soul under the guise of saving others, acting as if he doesn't have a care in the world, but he is DEEPLY lonely and scarred by what has been done to him as well as what he himself has done. even if he's not using jeanne as a conscious stand-in for noe in this episode, noe still represents the raw vulnerability that he is petrified of and also somewhere, deep inside of him, he desires more than anything else.

once i get to that scene i'll probably do another analysis properly comparing and contrasting it with the carriage scene cause i'm sure there's a ton to say there

EDIT after rewatching episode 5: okay i think i put a bit too much emphasis on domi not having pure romantic feelings for noe and i just think it's important to add that i don't think that's entirely true. she clearly had a crush on him when they were kids, and i think those feelings got irreparably twisted when louis died and domi found out the truth about their family choosing her over him. does she probably still have romantic feelings for noe and not see him as just a brother? yes i think so, but that desire can't be separated from the very complicated guilt and self-loathing she feels for herself as well as her belief that noe probably wishes that she had died in louis' place cause noe loved him more romantically than he loved her. the layers of tragedy really never end do they

[marketxcel]

Shaping Perceptions: Brand Positioning in Wealth Management

Explore our case study on brand perception and strategic positioning for a prominent wealth management company. Witness the art of building trust and value in financial services.

[cirrus-grey]

Interesting tidbit from this Wikipedia article in light of today's episode (emphasis mine) :

Much of Newton's writing on alchemy may have been lost in a fire in his laboratory, so the true extent of his work in this area may have been larger than is currently known. Newton also suffered a nervous breakdown during his period of alchemical work.

Newton's writings suggest that one of the main goals of his alchemy may have been the discovery of the philosopher's stone (a material believed to turn base metals into gold), and perhaps to a lesser extent, the discovery of the highly coveted Elixir of Life. Newton reportedly believed that a Diana's Tree, an alchemical demonstration producing a dendritic "growth" of silver from solution, was evidence that metals "possessed a sort of life."

[enlitment]

Some Julius Caesar x The Danton Case Parallels to Celebrate the Ides of March, Frev Style 🔪🥳

Firstly, both Przybyszewska’s Danton Case and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar are obviously (excellent!) tragedies that are set in a dying republic on the brink of collapse.

Here are some other interesting parallels I was able to trace:

1. Brutus and Robespierre:

Both of them are driven to execute an important figure even though they initially do not want to do it. They are both conflicted but feel like they have no other choice and have to commit the violent act for the good of the republic.

They are also arguably quite alike in terms of character: you have the „noble Brutus“ and then Robespierre, who is consistently referred to as „the Incorruptible“. Both are seen by others as selfless and committed to the good of the state (the people in the crowd very much emphasise this fact in both of the plays, I do have the receipts)

There is even the scene in which Brutus chastises Cassius for taking bribes, which plays into the idea of him as being (literally) “incorruptible” as well. And vice versa, traces of Brutus’ famed stoicism can then certainly be found in Maximilien.

2. Cassius and Saint-Just:

Both are characters who convince the protagonists (Brutus/Robespierre) to go along the violent act while not necessarily being portrayed as antagonists (at least Saint-Just definitely can't be seen as one in Przybyszewska’s play).

There are also parallels in the close relationship between Brutus and Cassius and Robespierre and Saint-Just, where they are very much portrayed as each other’s closest confidants. Of course, this idea can easily be pushed even further if one wishes to read between the lines. (There is no Camille Desmoulins in Shakespeare though)

3. Manipulating the Crowd:

I'm perhaps the most fascinated by how both Brutus and Mark Antony as well as Robespierre and Danton have the necessary rhetorical skills to manipulate the crowd of commoners (Robespierre being able to “play the crowd like an organ” very much came to my mind when I was reading Act 3 Scene 2 of the Shakespeare’s play).

Both Shakespeare and Przybyszewska portray “the court of public opinion” and how it can easily be manipulated - how opinions can be changed in the matter of minutes - in a way that is genuinely fascinating.

Specifically, the similarity between A3S2 in which people first listen to Brutus only to be immediately swayed by Mark Antony’s speech shortly after and the scene in the court in which Danton manipulates the crowd were in fact so similar in some respects that it was borderline uncanny.

The problem arises when looking for a mirror to Danton’s character in Shakespeare’s play.

4. The Case for Danton x Caesar:

It is Caesar who gets killed for being perceived as a danger to the republic

Both Caesar and Danton are portrayed as being very much beloved by the common people

Also, the idea of Danton being immortal is expressed at the end of Przybyszewka’s play, and while he does not come back literally as a ghost like Ceasar does, Robespierre nonetheless explains to Saint-Just that Danton’s spirit never truly dies.

5. The Case for Danton x Mark Antony:

If we see Danton and Robespierre as foils, Mark Antony makes more sense as a parallel to Danton (even though he does not die), since both Robespierre and Brutus as the classic ascetic/stoic archetype while Danton and Mark Antony’s are well-known for their appetite for drinking, women (or, you know, people, in the case of Mark Antony) , and the pleasures of life overall.

Both are also severely underestimated by their enemies at first, yet they prove to be quite cunning and are able to use their words skilfully to win over the public

Overall, reading both of the plays – especially the parts about manipulating the Roman public and the citizens of Paris just with the power of words – really makes me wonder if Przybyszewska read Shakespeare’s play and used it as a source of inspiration. It would make sense, especially given how the parallel between the French Republic and the Roman Republic was well-established long before her time (even, somewhat tragically, by the revolutionaries themselves).

I promise I think about Przybyszewska's and Shakespeare’s play and the Roman Republic along with the French Revolution a totally normal amount of time & that it definitely does not consume my every waking thought that should be very much going towards the exam preparation.

[pebbles-scatter]

i wish i could post my full roger doofenshmirtz analysis. but i cant. because of woke.

[vero-niche]

So fascinated by the fact you see Vanitas as someone who 'has outstanding morals but an unpleasant personality' because I see him as someone who 'has questionable morals but a charming, fun personality.' This goes to show I'm right about it being subjective lol

dgdhhdhdjghdhdg thats amazing actually.

(well, this reply got long - and spoilery - so. my reasoning under the cut to those interested <3 )

i think hes the second option because every character in vnc notes on how vanitas is insufferable and just. unpleasant to be around lmao. he may be fun to watch for us, but everybody strongly dislikes him for a good while after meeting him (and its by design - vanitas wants to be "free" after all. so he lays it extra heavy on making sure nobody will like him). only once they see through his many many self-defense layers (noé's line of "you are lying about lying" in the tower), thats when they start to like him.

meanwhile he's the one absolutely hell bent on curing vampires (supposedly to track down who corrupted Luna but like. he doesnt have to cure them to do that?). he rigidly refuses to give up his hard earned autonomy + values consent so extremely he drugs himself to not be able to give consent and fight to the death for it if needed. subsequently, when he wanted to make sure jeanne hates him he did the thing he would've hated the most (ep3) (unaware that that was jeanne's parents mating ritual essentially lmao). they were violating him in the lab but still volunteered for more to save misha from death. he claims to "hate everyone equally" but still treats the dhams with the dignity they dont get from basically anywhere else. he repeatedly advises noé when he gets into a moral conflict (most notably with astolfo).

the list goes on but i think you get it 😄 hes a very skilled actor in the process of dying for his morals, essetially.