#again i haven't read it in a while

[funkle420]

severance kinda reminds me of what Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut could've been if it was a lot better and more interesting

[demaparbat-hp]

Time lost meaning when crossing the frozen landscapes of the South Pole. Snow on ice on water. A beautiful place made of stillness and void. Endless. Barren. Dangerous. This was her land, and it threatened to swallow him whole.

Amarok guides all lost souls through her landscape. Zuko becomes one of them in For the Spirits Chapter X: Following Your Form (read here!).

She of the Way of Things is a huntress, so the Prince becomes prey, whether he knows it or not. Led to the end of the world, betrayed at a cliffhanger...what's meant to happen now?

[pigeonclaw]

you don't have to grieve alone

[shadowduel]

all i wanna do is untie all your knots, dissolve all your thoughts

[fatuismooches]

HII!! so...I was re-reading fabulam diu oblitus and a question came to my mind: What happened to Foxttore and the dottolings? Did they count as a segment and was eliminated as well? Or did they remain in the lab while Reader and Dottore are...?

Foxttore and the pufflings were not deleted by Omega as they are just a failed experiment, and weren't even made the same way the segments are. So, at the very least, you'll always have the creatures with you. Naturally, they get even more clingy after the lab becomes dreadfully empty. Even though they were... less than amiable with Dottore's segments, they still did care about them in some manner. Constantly stealing their treats and tearing holes in their clothes did build some relationship with them. But more importantly, you're oh so sad over the loss of your lovers and son. What else is there to do other than remain at your side?

After you and Dottore die, Foxttore remains in the lab for a while, unaware of the situation. Despite how it seems, it has more patience than you give it credit for. The creature waits and waits and waits for his favorite people to return. But it's hard to miss the racket that the lab turns into at the news. You and Dottore were gone. Foxttore didn't want to believe it at first. He still waited for you for ages and ages, perhaps hoping it was just an elaborate scheme. It's not until after the final battle finishes that some agents feel a sense of duty to take care of your pets and try to capture the creatures.

The abandoned abomination and the pufflings are taken in by an agent you favored. It's not the same as you, but in a way, it's someone you left your mark on. He has a spot where he buried some of your items, so he can return to them when he misses you. But time goes on, and the now forgotten experiments wander from place to place. Perhaps one day, the creatures will be lucky enough to meet the two of you again, and then they will feel at home once more.

[casscainmainly]

can you dive more into bruce’s dislike of cass’ femininity?

Sure!! To preface this, gender and Cass is a really nuanced topic that has a lot of interpretations, all equally valid. This is just my own interpretation, and is mainly situated in early Batgirl (2000). I also recommend reading my gender and sexuality posts for Cass' persepctive on her relationship with gender. But since I've gotten a couple questions about it, I'll cover specifically Bruce's evolving opinions on Cass' gender here.

Beginning

From Batgirl #1, Puckett establishes Bruce's view of Cass: she is like him. Both Barbara and Bruce (and Cass herself) acknowledge this, and it allows Bruce to understand Cass in a way Babs doesn't. This isn't gendered yet, but the seed (that Horrocks will pull on) is there - Bruce closely associates Cass with himself, meaning he focuses on the ways they're similar and ignores the ways they're different.

This similarity is comforting not just for Bruce, but for Cass as well. They are equals - they have similar fighting abilities, philosophies against killing, ways of expressing themselves, etc. She doesn't have to hold back, not with him. Both of them wanted her to be 'like him'.

Bruce does not want Cass being taken "away from [him]". "You want me to think she's like you," he tells David Cain in #5. His biggest fear is Cass being like someone else, and not like him.

The Threat of Stephanie Brown

This recurring motto - 'you're not like them, you're like me' - crops up again when Bruce talks about Stephanie in #38. I've discussed how this makes Cass think she lacks something in femininity, but for Bruce this is him drawing a line between Steph and Cass. Steph is a 'girl', treated like one by Bruce: incompetent, not to be taken seriously, belittled. But because Cass is 'like Bruce,' she can "never" be like Stephanie. Cass being like Stephanie challenges not only Bruce's views of both women, but also his own highly cherished belief that him and Cass are the same.

Steph's feminine presence threatens Bruce and Cass' relationship, kicking off a series of issues where Bruce desperately tries to suppress Cass' gender and sexuality.

Vacation

When Cass encounters Tai'Darshan (a boy love interest) and lets him go, Bruce agrees to send Babs and Cass on a vacation. His motivations are extremely murky: Babs implies it was a set-up to get Cass into action again (justified by a panel of Bruce evilly smirking), but a panel right after has Bruce looking sad:

From #40: "You don't really give a damn about Cassandra, do you?" The juxtaposition between these two panels - one with Bruce (sans mask) smirking, and the other with Batman brooding - suggests he does care about Cass, but he struggles with how. For the first time he's realising that Cass isn't like him, that she's a girl with all that girlhood entails, and it frightens him. The cowl (Batgirl) allows him to ignore what's underneath, but Cass is coming through more and more.

But when Babs mentions Kon, the struggle goes out the window.

Thi anger is funny in a girldad way, but it goes to show how much he cannot stand the thought of Cass exploring her sexuality. It's not just that he doesn't want his little girl to date - it's that somehow, Cass embodying her girlhood will separate her from him forever.

Loss

Babs explicitly points out Bruce's feelings in #42. Though she couches it in non-gendered terms ("school, a job"), it's no coincidence that it's specifically a gendered thing - "falling in love" (with a boy, Kon and/or Tai) - that Bruce is reacting to. So far Bruce has threatened Cass away from Stephanie (her first female friend), Tai/Kon (love interests), and has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction in Babs (Cass' mother figure). He tries to limit any relationships that allow Cass either feminine solidarity or expressions of her femininity.

Bruce sees girl!Cass as fundamentally opposed to Batgirl!Cass. Batgirl is like him - Cass is not. She's "distracted. Unfocused. Unreliable..." That last adjective is super interesting, because it frames Cass' explorations of gender as an insult against him. Cass becoming more girl-like is making her "unreliable" to Bruce, making her harder to trust.

"If you've got better things to do than being Batgirl, Cass, just say so." This can be read as an ultimatum, but also as a genuine question. He's asking if she wants to be like him (Batgirl), or go her own way (Cass). When she picks Batgirl, he tells her "no more trips to Kansas." To be like him, she must give up her explorations of gender/sexuality.

Firing

In the aftermath of a trip to Tai's hometown (during which he dies), Cass grows increasingly distant to Bruce.

Bruce finally realises that Cass is not like him - that her differences, most vitally expressed in her girlhood, means she needs something different from him. "She no longer tells us what she's doing..." Bruce still associates Cass exploring her gender as disloyalty to him and his symbol, but this time he acknowledges that maybe that disloyalty is a good thing.

Then we have maybe the most interesting part:

Bruce's "I wouldn't know" is a response to Babs' second dialogue, but it's interesting to read his words as also a response to the first. Because Bruce wouldn't know what it's like to give into hormones, to "have sex, take wild risks, misbehave". Of course he's had sex, but his life is so consumed by his mission that Bruce has limited opportunities to explore his gender. In a way, Bruce's repression of Cass' femininity reflects his repression of his own gender exploration.

The Fight

In #50, Cass and Bruce get into a fight, during which Babs questions whether Cass is trying to "kill" or "kiss" Bruce. In the broader context of their gender struggles, this fight is the culmination of Cass and Bruce figuring out their gender expressions and sexualities. I'm reading this not as a romantic kiss, but as a symbol of sexual release - of defying sexual and gendered repression.

Bruce finally explicitly asks Cass who's she loyal to, and Cass points to the Bat. For Bruce, this choice symbolises that Cass is still loyal to Batgirl/Batman, but also her own person; he finally understands how Cass is like him, but also unlike him, and that her (gender) difference doesn't make her any less able to wear the symbol.

This fight is often analysed from Cass' perspective, but it was clearly important to Bruce, too. It was the turning point in his treatment and understanding of Cass - after this point, their relationship never hits the same lows again, and Bruce starts treating her like her own person (cultiminating in the Batgirl (2008) adoption). In Gabrych's run, Bruce leaves Cass alone and doesn't stop her from searching for Shiva, a huge difference from the way he previously handled her feminine relationships and soul-searching.

Ending

So I guess to say Bruce hated Cass' femininity (which I wrote in a previous post) is an oversimplification; it's not purely misogyny (though that was a part of it), but his longing for her to be exactly like him that caused him to try to repress her gender/sexuality. Her femininity was a marker of difference, a sign she was not completely subsumed in him and his symbol. However, Horrocks' run also shows how Bruce changes and grows, learning to accept Cass as his wonderful daughter.

I hope that answers your question!!

[vanitasaurus]

EL DIABLO

inspired by @shyphilosophersublime's post about that funky bass being alive YAY! :]

[doshiart]

🧪 idiots guide to office crushes 🧪 by @mmmichyyy

[warmfuzzyanimal]

Hello everyone, I really don't like asking for it, but it's undeniable that me and my housemates could use some help. We live in a very conservative area, and all of us are visibly queer. We're trying to raise funds to move somewhere safer, but the only way I can earn income safely is through art, as I've been threatened or put in harm's way due to my apparent trans-ness at every place I've worked at. My roommates face similar tribulations, living in the public eye here is simply unsustainable. There's more info on the going-ons of our situation in the gofundme, but if you can't afford to donate, sharing this post, my commission post, or the gofundme on my other social medias does so much in the way of getting us out of here.

if you'd rather donate directly, my paypal and kofi.

We are extremely appreciative of any help we can get, shares makes a huge difference.

AND, for your time, an image of our cat, Mr Mayor, who you would also be benefiting.

Thank you.

[nixotinix]

Your local warlock smitten menace is here to request john constantine 🙏

-@mucousnnembrane

GRABS YOU AND SHAKES YOU ive been waiting for somebody to request john constantine i love john constantine he's like teenage dirtbag meets midlife crisis

DC character requests are still open! feel free to keep 'em comin' people :D

[averaillisa]

Love, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah- 🐰💘

[vixvigil]

using this post to respond to tags on a reblogged post that themselves were a response to my tags, because my rambling was far too long for that format and i don't want to be a menace in op's notes

unless you want to read circular rambling about the elusive nature of body horror, ignore this

the post:

my tags:

#i don’t want to obfuscate the very real and important point here#about both the societal and individual perceptions of disability and illness#but at the same time. imo you could say this about pretty much all body horror#because fundamentally you can’t really draw a line between something purely conceptual#and something starkly real when it comes to horror. bodily or otherwise#the reality is grossly fantastical and the fantasy is morbidly grounded#it’s the interplay between the two that makes horror effective#the boundary is removed. there is no difference#the reality of the body is frequently horrific. so any fantastical exploration is automatically grounded in something#someone will always have a connecting lived experience#one persons body horror will always be another persons mundanity#there’s undoubtedly an examination to make of the everyday experiences of disabled people being broadly and carelessly labelled body horror#and of the very real damage that that does#but at the same time. there will always be overlap because you cannot separate body horror as a genre from the reality of the body#body horror and mundanity are not mutually exclusive#horror at large is a genre reliant on framing and perception#the horror is in the eye of the beholder#and reality. mundanity. is much the same#i think i'm losing the thread of what i'm saying#and that's without even touching on the relationship between the individual perception of horror and the cultural perception of horror#god. horror is so crazy#whatever. maybe i’ll come back to it sometime#my perspective of this is undoubtedly skewed somewhat by my own lived experiences of 'body horror'#but yeah. great post op 👍#hope its clear that all this is intended as a continuation and not as a contradiction#text

@nakiteers tags:

#< prev#not really a refute of what you said but more an alternative reading of OPs text and societal issues#i hear you and thats valid#but imo. it feels like OP was more talking about when people TW body horror on like... people with prosthetics#ive seen TW body horror comments on that one tiktok perso with a glass eye prosthetic#if your really unlucky you can even see them on educational vids on periods#endometriosis isnt body horror its just a treatable condition that causes pain and problems#i feel the line /has/ to be “is incredibly grotesque and unnatural” bc otherwise you get people with bad acne being tagged as bodyhorror#there has to be a line somewhere. its not grey on both ends#my worse body horror experience was an improper IV saline drip into my muscle which caused a bump that stuck around for a day#and it was so viscerally disturbing that i still struggle with IVs because i have this sneaking suspicion that#my skin will warp around the liquid and stay there. its not logical but its in my brain now#but i dont think things like that should be labeled as horror#personal feelings and societal/ community labels are worlds apart#that guy who died from radiation slowly? thats body horror to pretty much everyone#pregnancy? thats body horror to me but i will fight on the side that that shouldnt be labeled horror publicly#if its a thing that happens on the daily it needs education and care; not stigma and avoidance bc its “horror”#cancer sucks but calling it “body horror” is going to make educational content come across very differently.#and some people might just say “i dont like horror/i cant handle horror” and then purposely avoid learning about others#vent in tags

i agree! honestly i was more-so revelling in the spiral of thought that the post sent me into, than directly and specifically exploring the post itself and the point it makes, because when i tried to draw that all important line in my head, i was unable to do so without contradicting the premise of the original post, the premise that I absolutely agree with, and i found that fascinating.

especially when i then tried to use my own experiences to rationalise and ground things in a concrete situation and found that that only complicated things more.

i’ve lived through gradually losing 80% of my skin; for over a year more of my body was open wound than not. i've had full body radiation burns on top of those open wounds when a treatment to help regrow my skin went wrong. i’ve experienced itching so profound that it lead me to partially skin my own hand twice before the age 18. i’ve lived with nerve endings so fucked by longstanding wounds that water felt like acid. i’ve spent months, feverish, wrapped in a blood-soaked sheet finding comfort in imagining being burned alive, because that was the only way i could imagine an end to the pain and the itching—at the very least it would’ve been over quicker.

it lasted for so long, and i grew so accustomed to looking at my body and seeing only wounds, that even now seeing skin on my body feels unfamiliar to me. i’d forgotten what i looked like with skin. to this day it surprises me sometimes when i catch a glimpse of myself in a mirror and see skin in place of wound.

is that body horror? to someone, probably. to many? maybe, who's to say. to me? i’m not sure.

it was certainly horrific, but it was also mundane. it was my everyday life for a period. i was used to it. following the original post to the letter, is calling that scenario body horror therefore wrong? after all, it was just how i was living. that's where my initial tags were coming from in regards to horror and mundanity not being mutually exclusive.

if we abstract it, ignore the perspective mundanity of the situation, could the state of my body at the time be considered ‘body horror’? I'm not sure there’s necessarily a concise or constant answer to that either.

my body was almost entirely open wounds; warnings are often out on pictures of alarming injuries, does it become wrong to do that if the wound is longstanding? or, if not dictated, perhaps by context?

of course, context always matters, but is the line we’re talking about here more dependent on the context than content? because in my mind that’s an entirely separate line. in this situation if the line is contextual it is no longer concrete, and thus ceases to function.

to continue we must find another Known factor within the situation. so it goes:

i know that, when i could wear clothes again, i was careful about how i dressed for a long time, how much of myself I covered. i was almost permanently bandaged, i wore turtlenecks, long sleeves, gloves through summer etc, both for my own mental comfort and for the comfort of others. i knew i had the potential to make people uncomfortable, that the state of my body was unusual, alarming, and, to some, potentially horrific. should i have had to worry about the perception of others? maybe, maybe not. regardless, most people do not enjoy seeing open wounds, the response is visceral, and i don’t think that’s ever going to change.

for years after i was still careful, and remain so, to a degree, because of the scarring i’m left with. i'm lucky, a lot of my scarring isn’t hugely visible. in most larger areas it’s more of a textural shift, a change in the way the hair grows, a shadow, etc—nothing that would be particularly alarming to most people—and most of the scarring that was once more starkly visible has faded significantly over time, but i'm still mindful of them situationally.

is it odd that i consider myself, and am considered by others, ‘lucky’ because my scarring is less immediately visible than it could’ve been? certainly it says something about the way we view scars. so is scarring horrific? does it depend on the severity? can scars be considered body horror?

i don’t think my scarring is body horror, nor do i think scarring in general is, nevertheless i can understand being disturbed by what it represents.

so, still using my situation as an example, if a body more wound than skin can, depending on context, be considered body horror, but that same body healed, covered in the resulting scars cannot, does that mean the line between ‘potentially body horror’ and ‘definitely not body horror’ is dependent on how healed the wound is? because that presents its own issue, as the healing process obviously isn't binary. so what is it dependent on? must the wound still be wet?

the more you try to draw a line the less you're able to. i don't have a good answer. i just find it interesting to think about.

in my initial tags i did definitely lean-in to considering fictional and fantastical body horror and how that connects to reality, as opposed to remaining exclusively within the realm how people view and interact with others, but i think the dilemma remains whether or not art and fiction are considered at all.

while, again, i agree with both the original post and your tags, the subject can't escape the underlying central conflict: that 'body horror' cannot really be explicitly defined.

the defining factor you mention of being 'incredibly grotesque and unnatural', while seemingly straightforward and sensible, renders all real situations and states of the body as incapable of being considered body horror, as everything in reality is part of nature, and thus natural. but of course, plenty of things in life can be considered body horror; you mention dying of radiation poisoning – certainly a classic example of something pretty much universally considered 'body horror' – but it's still natural phenomenon, so while undeniably grotesque, it would still be excluded by that definition.

so, if we cannot use 'unnatural' as a defining factor, what do we use in it's place? anomalous? abnormal? twisted? odd? warped? peculiar? brutal? bizarre? each possible substitute comes with it's own issues, its own contradictions.

body horror escapes definition. we know it, we feel it, but we can't really put any meaningful constraints on it without excluding things that we think are body horror, or including things that we think are not. hence my original, very simplistic, 'anti-conclusion' of sorts, that the horror is in the eye of the beholder. which admittedly is less of an answer to the underlying philosophical quandary of where and how to draw the line, than an acceptance of the impossibility of doing so.

the original post is true and the point it makes is correct and worth learning from and acting upon. extrapolating from its premise, to action it we must draw a line, but by it's very nature (and even the conceit of the post) the line cannot be drawn. yet this contradiction does not negate the reality of the original sentiment.

the real coherent, useful takeaway is simply what remains at the heart of it: oh my god can everyone please just be normal about disabled people and their bodies please i'm begging

[fromtheseventhhell]

"It's normal for siblings to fight" Okay well it's not normal to be extremely classist and look down on your sister for being non-conforming. Or to go to the woman who ordered the death of your pet to tell her about your father's plans, when he specifically warned you against doing so, because you want to marry the boy you saw attack your sister and her friend (contributing partially to said father's death and your sister being unable to escape on the ship he chartered). Or to think of your sibling as unsatisfactory in comparison to another when you believe her to be dead. I notice that none of the "Sansa and Arya are going to reunite and instantly have no issues" crowd ever acknowledge any of this, which makes it seem like they don't actually believe what they say about their relationship being normal and easily reconciled. People wanting them to have no issues simply because they're siblings is another example of how fandom likes to flatten complex characters and relationships. They get reduced to being bickering siblings when their conflict runs deeper than that. If the author is telling you that they have "deep issues" to work out [X], I don't understand being so adamant about ignoring said issues. I also get the sense it's about ignoring the capacity for a certain character to be flawed, but that isn't going to change the fact that her "slip of the tongue" is very likely to be revealed and a source of further conflict 🤷🏾‍♀️

[after-nine-at-the-oasis]

Everyone say hi to and welcome the new blorbos: a bunch of ghosts yet again, but this time they're high schoolers :D xD

It's School Spirits 🥳🥳🥰👏!! My lovelies <3 it is SO GOOD!!

[pineapplefulfillseveryneed]

I'm so grateful For the love that we share I'll never take it for granted That you're always there And when I think about the world And what is going on It makes me even more thankful That you're still around And I've been waiting all my life For someone I could stand And you're the only one so far Who could understand And what I'm feelin' in my heart Feelin' in my soul I couldn't ever hope to tell you I'm sure you must know

- Sparks // Let's Make Love

[dxxtruction]

I sort of divorce Armand from the larger moral implications of the trail, and what I mean by that is - while he still falls at fault for all of them, and further had a morally special position to prevent it that he takes on additional fault for - his primary concerns are actually divorced from anything that's even going on. In other words, to get at understanding Armand I sort of have to take on his own position. He's rather self possessed and his only actual goal is to ensure he has stable 'love' (even if it can never be real or reciprocated without high control obligations/fear/threat/or lies both to himself and other(s)).

"I did not see your love lasting as long" = he sees the coven as a source of love. Which he'd accept, even in a debased position, if it meant a consistent stability in knowing he is 'loved' (if a fucked up idea of it).

So, if the coven wants to do this whole production he doesn't care how it goes, or what its implications even are, or would achieve, so long as he gets what he's after. (Meaning Claudia is little to no object to him in this, but to the coven they (C, L, and M), and the racist and public humiliation done onto them, are the primary objective.) He appeases this objective to get at and earn his own, rather than it coming from himself, or his own beliefs. Of which are only self serving, and morally bankrupt to begin with (generally he's moral, as he has certain values about being good, but he's extremely okay with doing amoral, and violent things if it serves his own interests). Since his objectives only extend to Louis, Claudia is killed. He never loved her in any way, and saw her as worthless for it, so she's killed.

Armand probably would've preferred, though, that she run off with Madeleine and Louis stay with him, but because he has such strong objectives about maintaining 'love' at all costs he gives to the covens wishes to earn it from them. (At least this is the impression I get from how he looks so defeated and sad by it, like he's not gloating in this).

He ties literally all his worth an existence onto others need and desire of him, and so puts himself in an awkward position where he believes he's nothing if he can't have someone to possess or to alternatively possess him (Thank you Marius de fucking Romanus /s). This idea about worth naturally gets projected onto everyone else, (again fucking thank you you actual prick). And the more worthless you are to the world to him the more he doesn't think you deserve to live, or there is a point to your existence.

The ideal of a worthy person to him is Marius (eugh yeuck), and the things Marius imbued into him as things which are valuable or which make him valuable. (Success, sex, beauty, intelligence, devout servitude, etc.)

This whole thing is why I'm also of the opinion he let Lestat do it (and/or he planned for it) so, come time for things, he has/could give himself a choice (however unworthy of it he is) between Louis and the coven. He's after his own self worth, and the image of this self worth is torn between the two.

"Who am I Louis?"

The only way he'd personally think he'd be worthy of it from Louis, I'd say, is if he was already fully divorced from all the implications so didn't see himself as responsible for them. Moreover, he was probably under legitimate threat by the coven, however shallow of one it may look to be, which would further cement this idea. Even if he did come to realize his own guilt and shame about it, maybe even recognize how at fault for it he was (hence later hiding in lies about it). As events were proceeding he'd effectively removed blame off himself, and remained innocent by his own mental framing of being helpless to prevent anything (perhaps unconsciously).

But anyway, he casts himself as helpless and this achieves unwarranted sympathy from Louis, and further, convincing the coven they're in control (he's using the tactic of a child crying), so he can come out on top of whatever choice he then ends up with. What's a bit interesting is that (I hope I'm remembering this right) he encourages Louis to leave again right before he goes to tear everything down. So this either implies he wants to give Louis a choice still, to go free, or had already chosen the coven over him. If it's the former I think that's important, because it shows he does see others have some inherent value outside himself. But (sadly) can't apply that same understanding to himself. (Which, again, might mean this idea he was helpless isn't deliberate. He's just screwed up like that, consistently under an impression that he just is. Which is the biggest lie there is perhaps, but given his life, something I can deeply understand, even relate, to where it comes from).

As a disclaimer this is just an explanation I've come to, as it makes sense to me, explaining partly as well his further abusive behaviors, and is not me trying to agree with his position. He doesn't deserve forgiveness in all this, and is at fault for everything he is shown to be doing or simultaneously not doing.