#Long-Form Analysis

[aroaceleovaldez]

I was reading a post about CoTG and I realized: Rick has seemingly started to write every character pairing with the exact same dynamic, and he's not good at writing that dynamic and it doesn't make sense for 90% of the characters he writes it for.

It's that very specific dynamic of one half of the pair who is almost aggressive to the other party - "teasing" them constantly/insulting them, affectionately punching/judo flipping/maiming/etc, seemingly almost always exasperated with the other - and said other party usually just accepts this treatment or blanketly views it fondly, and may generally be framed as more incompetent than their partner and a little bit of a doormat (particularly relating to being insulted/teased/etc by their partner).

We start seeing this dynamic in HoO with Percy and Annabeth, as a sort of semi-inconsistent twist on their rivals-to-friends-to-lovers dynamic from the first series. Then the dynamic pattern develops further with Leo and Calypso. Then Magnus and Alex. Then Nico and Will, particularly in TSATS. And now in CoTG, it's Percy and Annabeth again but even more in this direction.

I know people have talked about Nico and Will's relationship over the series rapidly being shoehorned into Percabeth Two™, and it's extremely apparent in TSATS that Rick's doing it on purpose (including directly quoting Percabeth scenes but minorly tweaking them to be Solangelo). But recognizing it as an overarching trend in Rick's later books honestly reminds me a lot of how Rick started trying to apply the "Percy Formula" so-to-speak to nearly every protagonist in HoO (and then try to replicate similar character archetypes with Magnus and Apollo's narrations - moreso Magnus in being jaded and sarcastic, very much trying to be first series Percy. He only sounds unique because Rick failed at making him Percy 2. Apollo is more akin to later-series Percy characterization of being goofy and incompetent. Apollo [and Zeus] even got retconned to give Apollo a more similar backstory to Percy's). Rick seems to have decided that he thinks the audience wants this specific dynamic but 10 times over, except he's not good at writing it the first time because it's a bastardization of the time he did a different thing okay.

And Rick also seems aware of that too! Because he retconned Calypso and Leo at the end of TOA, probably because he realized how absolutely awful it was reading when they were written with that dynamic of Calypso just functionally hating Leo and constantly being aggressive towards him! The only time Rick's actually made the dynamic even semi-successful was with Magnus and Alex, because it actually fits within their characters, their dynamics with each other, and their environment. Alex beheading Magnus on the regular works out fine because there are no repercussions to that in Valhalla, Magnus will be fine, so it does genuinely come off as humorous. And Alex has been effectively established to be abrasive at times but have her genuine feelings shine through regularly, and that meshes well with Magnus' jaded-and-aloof-but-quietly-very-empathetic character. And Magnus has been established to, yes, not be great at combat, particularly compared to Alex. They are the only time that flavor of dynamic in that form was effective and cohesive.

Percabeth is no longer rivals-to-friends-to-lovers badasses on equal levels with shaky pasts who finally found some form of permanence with one another. Now it's super smart doting and affectionately aggressive girlfriend and her silly goofy 50%-of-the-time incompetent boyfriend who she judo flips/pushes off cliffs/etc - but affectionately~! Solangelo is trying to riff off of the early series "Poseidon & Athena are enemies" dynamic that Percabeth had but with Apollo & Hades being "opposites" but learning to accept each other, except it ends up with Will just coming off as a huge asshole and Nico being retconned to a complete doormat about it - when prior to that those characterizations would be completely contrary to their established characters (even just from TOA!). Calypso in HoO gets retconned from her PJO characterization to being snooty and aggressive, and Leo's false persona gets merged into his just normal personality except he just also becomes a doormat but more goofy than Nico with occasional haha-dark/depression-humor! Which Nico also got. Which was also a bastardized Percy trait that got redistributed.

It's exhausting. Rick write more than one relationship dynamic you can do it I promise

[meamiki]

Happy Anniversary In Stars and Time!! Have some Friend Quest based drawings :D

(These have specific quote picks related to them! And there's also a long ramble on why I like those specific quotes below if interested)

(And by long, I mean roughly 2k+ words of proper ramble total, so be warned before clicking keep reading this link right here to the rb!!)

[detectivemiku]

has shinichi ever been in danger? like has he ever been kidnapped, harmed, or had his life threatened? because obviously 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘯 has, but what about shinichi?

this line that ran says here implies that he hasn't ever been "in real trouble" before, but if he had been kidnapped or injured, surely she would be aware and not say this?

here conan is entirely caught off guard. clearly he isn't used to being unable to defend himself against a culprit.

if we look through all of shinichi's cases pre-conan, there's only two that could be considered "dangerous"

the first time he meets kaitou kid, he threatens ran and shinichi. obviously WE know that there's no danger, as kid would never hurt innocent people, especially not his own nephew.

the second time is the new york case. shinichi is actively pursuing a serial killer, but here vermouth isn't directly threatening him, she only makes a move to harm ran, not shinichi. and by the time she does point her gun at him, shinichi is confident she won't hurt him.

now if we look at current timeline shinichi

this is the only time (that I can find) where someone puts specifically shinichi in danger, not conan. no one else actively tries to harm him as a high school detective.

now, we don't actually see a lot from shinichi's first childhood, so the evidence is limited. but I don't think he is seriously harmed or threated until conan, there just aren't many opportunities for it to have happened.

while shinichi solves many cases, I think people forget that he mainly works as a 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 of the police, in which he's called in to cases that the police have already worked on, and in theory is as safe and secure as possible. there's not really room for someone to attack or gain the upper hand against shinichi in these scenarios.

obviously this doesn't account for any cases shinichi ran into on his own, we all know how much of a murder magnet conan is. but the thing is, that's 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘯. I don't believe shinichi was a murder magnet at all.

the biggest evidence is in shinichi's first case. it's obvious he and megure don't regularly cross paths at this point, and considering shinichi spends most of his time in megure's district, if he were to run into crime, they should be familiar with each other.

another point: ran isn't used to gruesome crime scenes. in the current time in the series, ran would not be nearly this shocked to see someone beheaded, and that's all happened in just six months. considering how shinichi spends most of his free time with ran, if he attracted crime in his year of being a high school detective, surly she would have been present and had time to get used to murder scenes like this.

the police are always surprised to see shinichi already at a crime scene, and there's no joke about him being a "shinagami." you'd think if shinichi had the same track record as conan for stumbling onto cases, the police would react in a similar way to how they treat kogoro and conan. all of his current day cases the officers show surprise and delight when shinichi shows up, which could be more surprise to see him at all, but the same is true for that first roller coaster murder.

now what megure says here in the aquarium case 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 be interrupted as "of course you're at the crime scene, like always." but I think he means "of course you'd be the only person described as a cocky young fellow."

I really think the very first time shinichi is ever in any danger from his detective work is at the very beginning with gin and vodka. it explains why he's so self assured and cocky, and doesn't have any restraint for running into danger. conan is way more cautious and paranoid than shinichi because he 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 danger first-hand now. shinichi never had any reason to be worried about his own safety because he's never faced any negative consequences until conan.

[thecryptidbard]

ALSO can we talk about Hetty’s reaction after Flower tells her “You’re a good friend”???

Think about where she was at this point last year—having also just revealed a massive secret, one that almost irrevocably ruined one of her oldest friendships. She’d admitted in Ghost Court that friends were not something she’d ever had in life—something she hasalso just reiterated moments ago to Sam and Isaac, that one of the reasons she felt so trapped and alone and without options at the end of her life was because she had no friends.

Think about how far we’ve seen her come; in season one, it’s huge growth for her that after Jay’s possession, she admits to the other ghosts that she missed them. Or season two, how in a very un-Hetty move she’s willing to swallow her pride and apologize to Nigel (even though she’s sure she isn’t in the wrong!) for the sake of saving her friendship with Isaac. Or even earlier this season, how closely she’s clinging to Alberta in so many of the episodes, because she’s so grateful she got her friend back after being so close to losing her that she doesn’t even want to be physically separated from her.

And then now, she’s just once again revealed a secret she’s kept for well over a hundred years, in order to save Flower. She’s kept this part of herself from everyone for so long, and the very second she sees that Flower is securely out of the hole, she turns her back to everyone to gather herself and then bolts.

Isaac and Sam make her see that, yes objectively she has people here for her now like she never had in life, but Flower coming in and thanking her is when she actually gets to see and experience the reality of how different her existence is now. “You’re a good friend,” she says, and it might be the first time someone has ever said that to her. And Hetty just looks up at Flower so surprised in that moment, and so heartbreakingly hopeful, because I genuinely think that until right then, she really hadn’t considered it like that before; she just knew that Flower was in trouble and that she had to help her whatever the personal cost, because not saving her wasn’t even an option.

So much of the ghosts’ relationships, especially early on, were transactional, and, especially in Hetty’s case, built around enforcing particular power dynamics: accruing a wealth of back rubs, extorting Pete’s TV time before signing Elias’s contract, or any of the countless occasions she brought up her status as ‘lady of the house’. So the fact that she makes this sacrifice that feels like a loss of power to her is in and of itself big; but Flower acknowledging that, and making sure Hetty herself sees it too, by calling her a good friend—it’s a whole different level of meaningful.

She doesn’t just thank Hetty. She makes sure that she sees what her actions mean to her. And Hetty is so taken aback by it, because Flower saying this to her and meaning it is a gift she was absolutely unprepared for; a “good friend” is not something Hetty has ever known herself to be, up until now. But she very badly wants for it to be true.

[agenericplaceholdername]

Nadakhan, Arrakore, and the Rules of Wishing

Have we been wrong all along?

[This post began as a response to this post by @cboffshore, but ended up getting much longer than I anticipated. I'd recommend reading that post first, since I think it's a perfectly reasonable way to explain the discrepancies between DRS3 and Skybound, and a lot of this post's logic and conclusions are fairly similar, just expanded on.]

In the 6th episode of Ninjago: Dragons Rising's third season, "Fallen Wishes," Arrakore the Djinn grants several wishes to our protagonists Nya and Sora, including, but not limited to:

Striking a Dragonian with lightning

Turning a Dragonian's bones into jelly

Interestingly enough, both of these wishes were made by Nya, who had already made two wishes from Arrakore in Season 1 of Dragons Rising (wishing the removal of the Howlers chasing her and Sora and wishing to find one of the Dragon Energy cores). Why is this important? Well, let's look at the rules of wishing as established in Ninjago's 6th season, Skybound:

You cannot wish for love (Nadakhan, "Infamous")

You cannot wish for death (Nadakhan, "Infamous")

You cannot wish for more wishes (Clouse, "Infamous")

You have a maximum of three wishes (Clouse, "Infamous," confirmed by Nadakhan in "Misfortune Rising")

You cannot wish to harm others (Captain Soto, "Enkrypted")

If a Djinn is in earshot, they must grant any wish they hear (Lloyd, "Wishmasters")

As established above, Nya has already violated rules 4 and 5 by making four wishes and wishing to harm others, and Arrakore makes no objection. Not only that, but rule 6 is also broken in "Fallen Wishes" when Arrakore refuses to grant Dareth's and Rox's wishes, outright stating that he can refuse to grant wishes for any reason.

Here is a theory to explain this discrepancy: only rules 1 and 2 are real. The rest were invented or propagated by Nadakhan for his own benefit. Why do I believe this? Let's look at each rule at a time:

I don't think you can wish for love. I have two reasons for this. The easiest is that we hear from Nadakhan that you can't wish for love. Given that he is a Djinn and therefore a decent (though imperfect) source and we have no evidence to the contrary, it's probably okay to take it as a fact. Second is that the ending of Skybound becomes extremely disturbing if Jay successfully wishes for love by wishing for Nya to take his hand. I do not like the implication that her subsequent love for him is due to magic mind control, and this is my head canon, so I'm rejecting it. Besides, as Pythor says in "The Corridor of Elders," "magic has its rules," and I think this is a fine rule.

I don't think you can wish for death. Again, we hear this one from Nadakhan upon release. Despite Nya wishing for two things that should kill a Dragonian (lightning strike and jelly bones), these wishes do not kill the Dragonians they affect. While people have been known to survive lightning strikes (and I have no reason to believe Dragonians are less resilient than humans), surviving the transformation of one's bones into jelly seems doubtful. Maybe Arrakore is choosing not to kill that Dragonian out of kindness, but I think it's totally reasonable that he also just couldn't kill the Dragonian and some wish magic is also keeping it alive. I'm less convinced of this one, since Arrakore does get rid of the Howlers in Season 1, but a) I'm not sure if those things were even "alive" to begin with and b) he doesn't necessarily kill them, he just carries out the wish for them "to be gone"

A wish for more wishes is nonsensical if you have unlimited wishes, which is what the rules in Dragons Rising Season 3 imply. Instead, Nadakhan may have just created this artificial restriction to make sure anyone who came to him to have their wishes granted was put under stress, increasing their chances of a mistake.

You do not have a maximum of three wishes. Interestingly enough, prior to "Misfortune Rising," when Nadakhan reminds Kai that he has one wish left, the three wishes restriction is only stated by Clouse when brushing off Nadakhan by saying, "I know the rules." It's very possible that this "rule" come from stories about genies (that is what Clouse calls Nadakhan when Clouse releases him) and Nadakhan is simply using those stories to his advantage, again placing pressure on his victims. Given that a Djinn can refuse to grant wishes, a wish limit can be enforced by a Djinn if they so choose (they refuse to grant any fourth, fifth, etc wishes) but they are not magically bound by it.

You can wish to harm others. At no point does Nadakhan say he can't harm others -- that restriction is stated by Captain Soto when explaining why you can't wish a Djinn into a teapot. I don't think I need to explain why it would be beneficial for Nadakhan to invent a rule that says no one can wish him away. He could just choose to not grant a harmful wish anyway, so to an outside observer, there's no distinction between a genuine magical rule and a choice by Nadakhan. Besides, since this rule comes from Soto, it could mean that Nadakhan didn't even have the gall to make this one up -- if Djinn are meant to get rid of things like Howlers, then maybe harming others isn't just something Djinn can do but are supposed to do.

Djinn do not have to grant every wish they hear. This is easily the hardest rule to justify in the context of Skybound because a core part of "Wishmasters" relies on the idea that Nadakhan has to grant every wish he hears + the entire plan to defeat him relies on that as well. If Nadakhan could deny a wish, then why not deny Jay's last wish? On the other hand, if Djinn must grant every wish they hear, then the events of "Fallen Wishes" don't hold up. Could I explain this away by saying that this rule applies exclusively to Djinn royalty as some sort of tradeoff for the fact that they are capable of or have the potential for infinite wishes? Sure -- but making that concession arguably defeats the point of this whole exercise. Let's square the circle with one set of rules: all Djinn can, in normal circumstances, reject wishes. This does not apply to Djinn who are imprisoned by Rox's magic pyramid timepiece or afflicted by Tiger Widow venom (yes, the Tiger Widow thing is a copout to explain Jay's wish, but this is my headcanon)*. Nadakhan chooses to grant every wish he hears or at the very least, make it seem like he is. If Nadakhan is a victim of wishes, unable to control what other people use them for, then that furthers his own drive to make wishes for himself, while putting the onus on the wisher to be careful -- that means more pressure and ironically a greater chance of messing up. Plus, Nadakhan loves a challenge (notably not simply striking all the Ninja with the Sword of Souls when he wanted to catch them) so trying to grant every wish he can while twisting them as much as he can probably gives him some fun.

But why have this theory? Wouldn't it be much easier to just say that Djinn have different rules (as I hinted at in 6. and has been confirmed by Doc Wyatt on Bluesky)? And how am I building off the original discussion? Well, aside from providing an answer to how the wishing rules are seemingly different in DRS3 from Skybound without resorting to creator posts on a social media platform through a clearly delineated new set of rules, there are also three things that have bugged me about Skybound that are actually resolved by this theory. It was the resolution of these “plotholes” (I’m sure you could find an equally contorted way to resolve them using Skybound alone, but I’ve never seen a satisfying answer) that inspired me to actually write this post:

Zane's wishes are explained. In Skybound, Zane's first wish is that for his wishes, Nadakhan won't "twist [his] words, nor find a loophole [emphasis mine], but understand the true intentions of the words that [he] speak[s] and carry out their will as [he's] thoroughly instructed." Zane then wishes that any harm done to him is done to Nadakhan tenfold. Nadakhan immediately responds by finding a loophole and doing harm to PIXAL (and emotional harm to Zane) by deleting her. He claims he understood Zane "perfectly" and then grants Zane's third wish to "make it all go away" by trapping him inside the Sword of Souls. That is, Nadakhan, in violation of Zane's first wish, found a loophole in his second and twisted the third to make a vague wish into a specific one to trap him in a sword. This doesn't make sense if Nadakhan had to grant Zane's first wish -- but I posit he didn't and just said he did. There's no physical evidence that Nadakhan is bound to Zane's wish, and he didn't even say, "Your wish is yours to keep" upon hearing it.

Clancee's first wish is explained. According to Captain Soto, you can't wish to harm others and wishing a Djinn into a teapot counts as harming another. However, Clancee wishes Lloyd and Cole into the Sword of Souls. If a Djinn can grant wishes to harm others, this wish is fully explained. You don't even need Dragons Rising to prove this one -- at no point does Nadakhan mention this restriction.

Jay's last wish is explained.** Jay's last wish is arguably two wishes: one for Nya to have taken his hand and one for no one to have ever found Nadakhan's teapot. Since Jay already made two wishes, this would violate the "no more than three wishes" rule, but if that rule didn't exist, then there would be no problem.

Do I really believe this? I think Occam's Razor probably points to different rules for different Djinn. When I first watched DRS3, that was my first thought: a Djinn Prince has more rules on his wishes as the tradeoff for being able to grant infinite wishes for himself upon marriage. Or maybe the Merge changed Djinn rules. But it's not unreasonable that Nadakhan is a liar, and if that's the case, all these rules are called into question. I'm still inclined to believe Nadakhan until proven wrong since his rules were almost certainly meant to be seen as real by Skybound's creators (which is why I kept rules 1 and 2) but once a rule is shown to be broken, I wouldn't call it a retcon or say its necessary to establish two system of rules to explain away any discrepancies.

Feel free to trap me in the Teapot of Tyrahn if you disagree!

-----------------------------------------

*While Zane and Clancee’s wishes might have some explanation, I have never seen a solid explanation as to why Nadakhan grants Jay's last wish in the manner that he does. It is super easy to twist (Nadakhan could make it so no one, including Soto, ever found the teapot) and the closest thing we have to an explanation in season, that it was "from the heart," is barely a rule we can point to. Wouldn't Zane's wish be from the heart, as he made it right after the apparent death of his love in response to his grief over her loss? Yet Nadakhan twists that too (unless Zane really wanted to be in the Sword of Souls, which I doubt). "Fallen Wishes" introduces the idea that Djinn can be forced to obey wishes using magic or technology, so why not some venom from a fictional creature that already has a unique effect (it is "the only way" to slow a Djinn down)? For all we know, that’s part of how Soto was able to beat him. We never learn exactly how Nadakhan went into the teapot besides the fact that Tiger Widow venom was needed.

**I wrote a post last year about Jay's final wish and it actually doesn't contradict this theory at all.

[rustedleopard]

I feel like if Chujin was still alive during the events of Undertale Yellow, his and Clover's relationship would be incredibly rocky. Pacifist!Clover could bring him around to tolerating them (after all, they have that sort of effect on everyone), but it would be more in a "this human is the only 'good' human" manner than a "maybe I should reevaluate my opinions on humans overall because you can't judge an entire group based off (very biased) stories and one bad experience." Even then, that opinion would be subject to change should Clover ever get frustrated or behave "too aggressively" or act in any manner that isn't perfectly docile. If Clover ends up attacking a monster then it's "humans are just as horrible as they were in the war stories, I should've known better" regardless of the circumstances that could've pushed Clover to fight. Suffocating expectations and endless demands for patience when he wouldn't ask the same of a fellow monster.

And heaven forbid he ever meet Clover on a No Mercy Run...

[chibishortdeath]

I just realized that I have a TON of picmix gifs I haven’t shown yet : O. Lydie’s gets to be her own separate post because I love her she’s so bestie and I’m very proud of this one :3.

[balkanlila]

colette is a bob dylan character and i am bob dylan's approach to said character, which is really a synonym for the whole world

[xxnghtclls]

Why Sukuna looks different in every panel

I wanna thank the anon, who doubted my underbite theory and made me make a post with every Sukuna panel we have, cause now I have an idea, why Gege might‘ve drawn him different every time!

Analysis under the cut:

I kept asking myself: why are his eyebrows changing between short and long? Until it dawned on me: He might be in different ages in every pic we have of him!

I remembered grandpa Itadori. Look at his eyebrows! So it could be that Sukuna is also a literal grandpa in this panel! We don‘t know how long he lived before he commited Sokushinbutsu. Maybe he lived a long and bloody life.

I already thought on wednesday that he kinda looks young in the 237 panel anyway. Maybe his body took a younger form as well, since he was in Megumi‘s body before? We don‘t know how the switch really worked for now though, but if we‘re assuming that he‘s younger there, it could also explain why his mask looks so different in every panel. It could‘ve merged with his face more and more over time!

[ofthehands]

I think another, often overlooked aspect of Drayton’s parenting that would have been detrimental to his brothers and formative for them is his inconsistency. It’s probably less discussed because it’s more subtle and inconsistent parenting isn’t necessarily abusive, but I think it is worth considering/ exploring with these characters. 

Heads up for discussion of abuse/ unhealthy family dynamics. 

Drayton is shown to be a very inconsistent man, primarily in the first film but in the second as well. He’s sadistic in the scene where he has Sally in the truck with him, stabbing her with the broom handle for fun, and in the dinner scene at points, where he seems to be enjoying his brother’s antics- then he abruptly turns and snaps at them, telling them not to “torture the poor girl”. He’s fine with the family living in filth- he doesn’t complain about things like the room with the chicken in it being covered in feathers or the rotting flesh and taxidermy around them or the corpses they keep in the house- until he turns and snaps at Bubba for not having pride in his home and beats him for breaking the door. He talks on and on about how family comes first, and insists his brothers live by this- with their near worship of Grandpa and lack of outside connections and his anger at Bubba for his perceived relationship with Stretch, but at the same time he isn’t supportive of his brothers and only very rarely indulges them in their interests or listens to them. And while it’s a goofy scene, because of the nature of TCM2, Drayton does ultimately commit murder-suicide, taking out nearly his entire family with him- without any visible concern as to whether or not Chop Top will be present when it happens, leaving him behind. 

All of this makes sense with what we know about Drayton’s character- he’s inconsistent because he’s in conflict with himself. Drayton goes back and forth about being sadistic towards Sally because he likes it, but feels ashamed about that. In Chainsaw Confidential, Gunnar Hansen said that Hooper wanted to get across that, “[Drayton] seems to enjoy torturing her and, at the same time, to be afraid that the torture will produce some terrible reaction with which he will be unable to cope” in the dinner scene, and Hansen describes him as afraid of his own sadistic desires. He also probably cares and doesn’t care about the house because of his own waxing and waning lucidity. He’s also shown to be the most lucid of the Sawyers- running multiple businesses and interacting mostly normally with strangers, but at the same time his priorities and perceptions of the world are shown to be skewed in odd ways. He runs back in to turn the lights off with a hostage in his truck, he misunderstands Bubba’s infatuation with Stretch as her coming on to his little brother, and he thinks Lefty was sent by another catering business and could be payed off despite witnessing evidence of dozens of murders and witnessing their attempted murder of Stretch right at that moment. 

But, no matter what’s going on in his head, his inconsistency is going to create a very confusing and disorienting environment for his little brothers to grow up in. Consistency is very important in parenting- especially in children’s formative years. The younger Sawyers would have, in this time, dealt with both whatever changes took their parents out of the picture, and Drayton’s erratic behavior. Children with inconsistent parents are often more easily agitated, more anxious, and struggle more with regulating their emotions and behaviors than their peers. They have also been shown to have difficulty with self-doubt, self-esteem issues, and inconsistency in extreme cases can even impact a young person’s development of their identity.  Which, when coupled with the physical and verbal abuse they clearly endured, really didn’t give the younger Sawyers much of a chance. Much of this is very evident in the twins- they’re both easily agitated and seem to struggle with emotional and behavioral regulation. Bubba shows it too, but in different ways. He’s often anxious and seems to doubt himself when he’s left alone- as shown in the scene after he kills Jerry when he’s panicking and unsure of what to do. Bubba also, very famously, has identity issues that are explained in depth in Chainsaw Confidential and brought up in interviews. 

Of course there are aspects of these characters that explain these traits and behaviors- the brothers’ different disabilities coming to mind quickly- but I think even in situations where the primary reasoning for the behavior is something else, the impacts of Drayton’s inconsistent parenting style could come into play by exacerbating their existing issues. It also undoubtedly causes and worsens tension between Drayton and his brothers. With how inconsistent Drayton is, his brothers likely don’t know what behaviors will get them punished and what won’t- because it varies. Of course, there are some sure-fire ways to get punished, like disobeying something Drayton tells them directly- for instance Nubbins leaving behind Bubba and going to the graveyard. But other things, like Bubba cutting through the door in pursuit of Sally are more variable. Clearly Drayton wanted Bubba to catch all the kids no matter what- Bubba only manages to escape a beating after convincing Drayton he did. But, then in spite of the importance of letting no one get away, and Drayton’s general lack of care for their home- Drayton gets angry with Bubba for not taking pride in his home and starts berating him for that instead. This seems to be frustrating for Nubbins, who snaps at Drayton when he tries to stop them from tormenting Sally- saying he never lets them have any fun- and it seems to be frightening for Bubba- who cowers and tries to explain himself almost the moment Drayton walks through the door.Ultimately, Drayton’s inconsistent parenting style compounds on the problems the Sawyers have, entrenching them further and further in unhealthy behaviors and worsening the effects of his abuse. 

It’s sad, really, and more likely than not a manifestation of the cycle of abuse continuing its way down the Sawyer line. I don’t think its much of a reach to conclude that Drayton parents the way he does because that’s what he knows/ what he experienced to some degree. I’m not sure where to end this exactly. I wanna do some properly sourced and in depth analysis of them in the future, but tonight is not that night. I just had this idea in my head and needed to write it all down before it escaped me. I just think it’s sorrowful and fascinating the way that they never even had a chance.  

Source below is a study/ analysis of the effects of consistency in parenting I found useful when writing this. There’s a lot more literature on this, but this one condenses it pretty well. 

[thebirdandhersong]

gearing up to write university essays again is so out of this world to me

[minne-cerbinna]

I think quite often of the optional little dialogue tree that one can get about Yaevinn in TW2 with an imported save if one sides with Iorveth, and particularly of just how Iorveth describes Yaevinn

The dialogue prompt "I once knew another Scoia'tael - Yaevinn." will lead to the following exchange:

GERALT: I once met another Scoia'tael leader.

IORVETH: Yaevinn. I knew him. He had beautiful dreams and desperately wanted me to share them. Asked the same of you, I heard.

GERALT: You know a lot about me.

IORVETH: I try to know as much as I can - about everyone.

They'll elaborate a little further in this dialogue about how they both agree with Yaevinn's reasons and the fact that Yaevinn "saw combat and killing as poetry" which Iorveth deems unrealistic because "war is prose, with no place for beauty" (how poetic).

But the interesting part to me is the statement that Yaevinn had "beautiful dreams" and how he was this grand idealist, because this seems to be in contradiction with Yaevinn's characterisation. In his novel appearance, he argues against Toruviel's idealism as he proposes shooting the unarmed messenger. In TW1, Geralt refers to him in his journal as being "disillusioned", as well as being "a cynic and a pragmatist", neither of which seem to hold with Iorveth's account. While this can be credited to the fact that it's possible that Iorveth's past-tense statement of "I knew him" means that he hasn't seen Yaevinn in some time rather than, or at least in addition to, the implied death. He has perhaps not seen him since the Second Northern War, where they were both in the Vrihedd brigade, and Yaevinn could have grown more cynical since the Scoia'tael were betrayed by Dol Blathanna, his earliest characterisation is that of the novel canon, and he does not present a particular idealism that would reflect the notion that he is a dreamer.

It can be taken as a choice of characterisation, because for all that Yaevinn is disillusioned, he does have his hopes and desires for the future and his plans at Vizima, just as Iorveth has his hopes for Saskia and Vergen. He has these dreams, even if he tenders them close to his chest and puts the practical aspects first before he allows himself to have this hope. And I think that is a really interesting interpretation, to have this juxtaposition, that he can be both disillusioned and a dreamer, and that he chose a scant few, Iorveth, and then Geralt, to share in those precious dreams.

The notion of Yaevinn having these "beautiful dreams" is also very pertinent to his TW1 characterisation, I think, because there are optional dialogues in which Yaevinn tells the accounts of how he once lived among humans and believed in assimilation, that the humans would accept the elves if given enough time, only to be persecuted and harassed at length until he finally accepted that there was no place for him there, that there could be no assimilation, only annihilation. And even though he knows it is a hopeless fight, he still proceeds onward. He knows his people are dying, and he knows that if they do not act quickly, they will be well and truly doomed to extinction, but he is still trying to fight. That is, in and of itself, an expression of a dream for a better future, even if he thinks it hopeless, or, as Iorveth criticises, unrealistic.

Serious character analysis aside, I think that the absolute funniest interpretation of this dialogue is that it is not to be taken literally about Yaevinn's idealism or lack thereof, but rather as a euphemism -- taking "beautiful dreams" as a euphemism for queer romantic interest; hence "he had beautiful dreams and desperately wanted me to share them" is something like "he likes men and asked me to be his lover", "I hear he asked the same of you" thenceforth meaning something like "were you also his lover/do you also like men" (and the response "you know a lot about me" therefore indicating that he is correct in his judgement). There's like a whole rebellion going on but Iorveth is just checking out his options, y'know.

[yuonna]

If you didn’t know before, Furina displays her Pneuma (white) form out to other people during her role as Archon, and her Ousia (black) form during displays of her actual self.

The interesting thing about this is that Furina took inspiration from Focalors.

Both have long, split hair and more white in their colour scheme.

There’s no doubt about it that Furina’s Pneuma form is something to display to others, but I’ve come to realise that it’s also a display of femininity.

In Furina’s Pneuma form, she does a curtsy in her elemental skill. She does a bow in both her Pneuma and Ousia forms after a string of normal attacks, yet she never curtsies in her Ousia form. Curtsying is typically reserved for women and girls, and bowing for boys and men.

It’s also worthy to note that Furina has long hair (typically seen as feminine) in her Pneuma, short hair (typically seen as masculine) in her Ousia.

With these little details, I’ve come to a conclusion that Furina pushed herself to be more feminine for others in her public Pneuma form. For her to be androgynous, but acceptably so to others by displaying more traits and behaviours associated with femininity. She was seeking their approval and didn’t want to ‘rock the boat’ as to say.

[fullscoreshenanigans]

Your analyses are the best. They are so fun to read and I over think everything afterwarrs

Thank you!

For analyses above my level, I highly recommend checking out these if you haven't already read them:

The two chapters of Kei Toda's Reading The Promised Neverland with a British/American Literature Scholar (2020) that have been translated into English by fans (Chapter 2: Religion by @thathilomgirl & @0hana0fubuki0 | Chapter 3: Gender by @1000sunnygo)

Anime Feminist's "Emma’s Choice: The gender-norm nightmare at the heart of The Promised Neverland" article (2018) (good follow-up to Toda's chapter on gender)

Jackson P. Brown's "Thoughts on… The Promised Neverland, and Black Women in Manga" (2018) blog post and Zeria's video essay/blog post (2019) on Krone's depiction

Jairus Taylor's "The Unfulfilled Potential of The Promised Neverland Anime" (2021) which made me more open to the idea of a remake of S1

For tumblr posts (some of these I'm linking through my blog because I either had a minor link addition or think the OP's/prev's tags deserve to be seen and rebloggable, but you can just click through to the original post):

@puff-poff's exploration of the demon world's culture (Part 1 & Part 2)

@just-like-playing-tag's examination of the farm system, Emma character analysis launched by a minute change in S2e02, and mini-Isabella analysis regarding her treatment of Ray (along with her blog just being a wealth of knowledge in general)

@hylialeia's post on the series' handling of Norman's plan/the oppressed and oppressors

@avadescent's analysis of the S2 ED album art (Norman and Emma are perpendicular; Emma and Ray are parallel.)

@linkspooky has a lot of analyses from when the series was running but special mention to this analysis of Norman's character

@vobomon also has a lot but special mention to her Norman is autistic and Norman has PTSD posts

@goldiipond's "Ray is autistic" essay

@emmaspolaroid with some of the best Emma and Emma & Isabella meta in general

@nullaby's post on Isabella and Ray's relationship

[frenchkanna1808]

guys help my midori essay is currently 20000 words long

[lu-is-not-ok]

don't know if you have yet, but could you talk about Ya Śūnyatā Tad Rūpam?

Now, before I get into it, I'd like to make myself clear: my knowledge on Buddhism is extremely limited, so it's very likely that I'll miss some context around this E.G.O and Abnormality. I will try to research certain terms and ideas if they come up, but I am by no means an authority on these matters. Anyone more knowledgable on this subject is more than welcome to add onto this post in case I miss something.

With all that out of the way, let's dive under the cut for this shit.

Let's start with the Abnormality itself, My Form Empties. Now, it is immediately obvious that this Abno is heavily based in Buddhism, with the Abno itself taking on the form of a statue of Buddha that reveals a flesh-like interior when broken. Keep the idea of the stone exterior hiding the fleshy interior in mind.

In battle, My Form Empties makes use of two different Sin Affinities. Whenever it inflicts buffs and debuffs, it uses Lust Skills. On the other hand, whenever it inflicts Karma, it uses Wrath Skills.

The Skills that MFE uses to inflict Karma on both its enemies and allies are called Sluggard Waker and Compulsory Offering, both of which paint a very introduction to what this Abno wants. It giving Karma to others is seen as it Waking People Up and Forcing Them To Give It Offerings.

The latter is what caught my attention. From my brief research, Buddhism does have the concept of Offerings, however from my basic understanding they are much more bening than what MFE seems to want. In Buddhism, Offerings are usually made out of simple objects such as candles, incense, flowers, food, drinks, and such; as well as the acts of giving, following morals, meditating, and practicing wisdom. These Offerings are meant to grant the person who gives them merit, which leads to better rebirth and progress towards the release from suffering. ...I think. I'm no expert, so if I'm wrong, please do correct me!

Anyway, the reason why I'm going so deep into this is because of the nature of Offerings that MFE seems to look for.

Let's briefly look at how the Karma status effect works during its fight: MFE uses skills to inflict Karma (implied to be Bad Karma specifically) on its enemies, but if the enemy wins the clash, it inflicts Karma on its allies instead. When a unit with Karma successfuly hits another unit, its Karma gets transferred onto that unit. If the stone exterior of MFE is broken, it inflicts more Karma on its own allies, and begins targetting them with its own skills. Karma causes whoever has it to take more damage, and when its count reaches 108, the unit will instantly die.

With all of that laid out like that, here's how I understand what's going on. The Offerings done for MFE have the same "purpose" as in actual Buddhism - that being gaining merit and good karma, mechanically represented by getting rid of the (bad) Karma status effect. However, it's the nature of these Offerings that is the red flag - MFE rewards violence with good karma, and punishes weakness and insubordination with bad karma.

My theory on what this means is this: MFE is not a representation of the actual Buddha... obviously. Rather, it's a fake, twisted idol that uses the image of Buddha and concepts associated with it to gather followers and make them do its bidding. Remember the whole thing with its stone, statue-like exterior hiding a fleshy interior? I believe that statue-like look is a mere facade, while the real MFE is the flesh hidden within.

Keep in mind this idea of a fake idol hiding underneath a stone-like mask for when we later discuss the themes.

Now, I want to take a look at the Skill MFE uses to kill whoever has the most (bad) Karma at that moment - Prajñāpāramitā.

From my, again, brief research, the word means "the Perfection of Wisdom" or "Transcendental Knowledge" when translated literally. It's this concept of a perfect way of seeing the nature of reality, a type of knowledge that looks past form, sensations, perceptions, and so on. Themes of emptiness and lack of self appear to be quite important to the concept.

So... what exactly does it mean for MFE to be using this form of transcendental knowledge to effectively punish those who collect too much Bad Karma? Well, there is a possible hint to what happens in the unused texts for its MD interaction. This unused text reads:

"You close your eyes and focus on the sound. What is it saying? This thing is uttering thoughts. Empty oneself by verbalizing one’s thoughts. Expel everything within so that nothing remains. That is the statue’s way of forgetting the self. You sense yourself disappearing as well."

I think this makes it quite clear. When someone in MFE's vicinity accumulates too much Bad Karma, it effectively tells them how to reach that transcendental knowledge. How to forget one's self. How to destroy everything inside until nothing but emptiness remains. And just like that, whoever was told that does as told, and disappears without a trace.

It's a twisted take on this idea, turning the concept of reaching spiritual awakening through kindness and good deeds, into one of dangerous forbidden knowledge forced onto whoever this false idol deems its opposition.

Now, let's take a brief look at the names of the Lust Skills and Passives, and what they may mean.

Expound Sutras (grants Attack Power to allies) - the act of presenting or explaining sutras, aka scriptures. Could be interpreted as MFE presents its rules and scriptures as a way to bolster its followers' resolve.

Mahāsrī (gives Protection to target) - seems to be a reference to Lakshmi, a Hindu goddess of prosperity among other things.

Svāhā (gives Damage Up to target) - seems to be a reference to Svaha, the Hindu goddess of sacrifices.

The above two skills are interesting, as they reference Hinduism rather than Buddhism. My interpretation of that is that MFE, as a false idol, is "borrowing" the visages of other deities to give blessings, once again enforcing this idea of using facades of true god-like beings to exert power over others.

Dhyāna (inflicts Power Down and halves debuffs on self, also the name of the passive giving it 10 Protection) - a method of meditation that is meant to destroy states of mind that prevent the reaching of true awareness and detachment. Could be interpreted as MFE using this form of meditation to expel debuffs from itself, and instead inflicting them on its enemies, as well as it using it to protect itself from harm to its concentration.

Anatman (passive that activates when the interior is exposed) - a doctrine that claims nothing is truly unchanging or permanent. MFE entering this state of Anatman when its facade is broken could mean that the "true" nature of this false idol is one that is a lack of permanent self or essence, thus having to use the image of another figure to exert power. Keep that idea of one's nature being a lack of self in mind.

Nirmāna (passive that activates when the exterior recovers) - from my understanding, this refers to Nirmāṇakāya, the physical manifestation of Buddha. This seems to symbolize MFE returning to its facade, hiding its real identity under the visage of Buddha.

Okay, that was a lot. Let's take a look at the information we have on MFE from its Abno Logs and MD event.

From the Logs, we get a further confirmation that MFE's followers are obligated to protect it, and that when they fail, MFE starts punishing them. MFE is also outright called an idol of worship, and we learn that the "Karma" it uses manifests physically as a ring attached to those who accumulate it.

From the MD Event, we get to learn a few more things.

One - MFE uses mantras to verbalize its own thoughts to empty itself, further driving home that its true nature is one of emptiness, of lack of self or essence. We also learn that this chanting is not "joyous" and it's imbued with a "curse", once again twisting a concept tied to spiritual awakening in Buddhism into something much more negative.

Two - MFE is capable of judging people on whether they are "worthy" or not, as it denies giving up its ring if you fail the skill check. This further points to its judgemental and punishing demeanor towards its followers.

Three - The statue itself is described as "forever still", unmoving regardless of what happens around it. An unchanging self as a facade to an interior described as impermanent and empty.

Now, that was. A lot. If you made it this far, you are very brave and I'm proud of you. Let's actually lay out the themes My Form Empties touches upon.

The first theme I believe is important here is the idea of a false idol. This concept of something ungodly, fake, taking on the visage of a deity, of someone in power, to control others to do its bidding. In a broader sense, it's the concept of faking the position of authority for the sake of furthering one's goals.

The second theme I want to point out is the impermanence of essence, the lack of self. This idea of expelling everything within oneself, of forgetting one's self, so that one's true nature is simply emptiness. The concept of no true identity behind the mask, only nothingness.

Finally, the third theme I want to note is the idea of retribution. Of punishing acts that go against oneself. What goes around, comes around. That somewhat simplified concept of karma that is more common in western pop culture.

Alright, got all that?

Good. We can actually move on to the E.G.O itself now. (I'm sorry if you're at this point, I genuinely didn't want this analysis to be longer than Hex Nail's, but fuck man My Form Empties turned out to be a fascinating Abno to dig into.)

From my brief research, the phrase "Ya Śūnyatā Tad Rūpam" translates to "whatever emptiness there is, that is form", which seems to be a quote from the Heart Sutra (what MFE is inspired by).

During her Awakening attack, Outis says the following line: "Karma shall find its way back to you, and rest atop your head.", which is Incredibly Interesting. First of all, we have the theme of retribution in the form of Karma. This idea that the retribution of one's actions will inevitably come for whoever commited a wrongdoing. However, that's not all.

The phrasing of "rest atop your head", combined with the replacing of the khakkhara MFE uses with a more standard-looking blade brings to mind the story of the Sword of Damocles. A sword that hangs above the head of someone in power, reminding them that despite their great fortune, the cruelty they had to commit has put them in constant danger.

This is then combined with Outis performing an attack animation that heavily resembles that of MFE's Prajñāpāramitā attack, which we discussed earlier.

Now, there are two ways I believe this can be interpreted in.

One is Outis being the one seeking retribution. The other is Outis being the one on the recieving end of that retribution. From what we know of Outis's source, I believe we're dealing with the latter.

Outis has done something horrible in her past, which is extremely likely from the little bits we know of her thus far. This has caused a target to be put on her back, as it's not unreasonable to think either a specific person or whole factions are hoping she pays for what she's done, that retribution comes and punishes her for what she's done.

And she knows it. This way of being able to see her true reality, of knowing that she'll get what's coming to her sooner or later, this "forbidden knowledge", is a source of anxiety for her. Her Sword of Damocles, if you will.

Moving on, during her Corrosion attack, her dialogue line is "Fall silent… As if there were no suffering in the first place…", which is so fucking loaded that I don't know where to even begin.

This idea of ignoring suffering, of staying quiet despite obvious harm taking place. Is Outis here talking about the suffering of others? How she stayed silent as her actions caused immesurable harm to other people? Or is Outis here talking about her own suffering? How she has to stay silent and ignore her own pain to put on a brave, stone-faced mask?

The animation of the attack here is also interesting. While it still mimics MFE's Prajñāpāramitā attack, it's not actually directed against opponent. Outis directs the attack onto herself, causing her facade to fall away one by one. Clothes fall away, stone cracks, and what's revealed is the fleshy interior not unlike MFE's. This reveal of the emptiness within is what harms the opponent, rather than the blade itself.

Is this symbolic of Outis revealing that under her mask, under this facade of a military commander, there's no true identity beneath? That she truly is the Nobody she calls herself?

Let's get into the Sin Analysis part. If you are still here, I appreciate you, and I'm so sorry this is probably genuinely like twice as long as Hex Nail.

Ya Śūnyatā Tad Rūpam's Sin Affinity is Lust. It's a somewhat weird choice, but I think this ties back to MFE's first theme. By using this E.G.O, Outis takes on the emotional state of a false idol, of a fake authority, someone who puts on a facade to achieve something. The usage of Lust here could signify that that's the main motive for putting on this facade, for Outis to fulfill whatever goals she may have.

While it's possible that Lust Affinity here could imply some form of indulgence, I personally don't think that's really the case here. I believe that here Lust Affinity is meant to specifically represent the motive of fulfilling one's personal goals through the act that the E.G.O represents, that being becoming a false figure of authority.

Sin Resources-wise, Ya Śūnyatā Tad Rūpam requires equal amounts Lust, Sloth, and Pride.

Lust, like I mentioned when discussing the Affinity, likely represents Outis entering this state of mind to fulfill her own personal goal. I think the important part of Lust's usage here is the emphasis on these goals being personal. Whatever led her to take on this facade was likely something she deeply cared about.

Sloth here could represent a few things. One is the inaction in the face of suffering, this act of "falling silent" that Outis references in her Corrosion line. Another interpretation could be Outis's resignation to the inevitable retribution coming her way. She knows that Karma, this Sword of Damocles, is resting over her head, and yet she does nothing to change it. Perhaps she knows that there's nothing she can do, and has thus resigned herself to waiting for the moment that Sword finally drops.

Pride is, perhaps, the most obvious one of these three. To fall into this state of mind, to take on the false authority deception, Outis has to ignore the negative consequences for the sake of focusing on the benefits. She's doing this to fulfill her goals, regardless of the suffering it may bring to others, or the target it may put on her back afterwards.

And, to end it off, let's take a brief look at her Sin Resistances are. And, in all honesty, they seem quite fitting. In this emotional state of going back to decieving others, of putting on the facade of bravado and fake authority for the sake of her own goals, Outis is the most hurt by Sloth and Gloom. The reminder that she has resigned herself to the Karma coming for her, and the idea of dwelling on the fear and stress that inevitability causes her.

...God now that I'm back these really just keep getting longer huh. Sorry about that. If you got this far, congratulations. You get my gratitude and the knowledge that I spent like three hours on this whole post, researching Buddhism included. There's no obligation for you to share, but I would love to know how long this took for you to read.

I wish I could promise my next analyses won't be as long, but let's be honest there's no fucking way I can be sure of that.