#especially in the context of otherwise very good important information

[iwillmissourtalks]

Blending Dialogue

This started as a long string of discord messages but I think I have enough to say to make a real advice post lol

It’s easy to view dialogue & description as separate entities to be handled in chunks; but dialogue works best interspersed with a character’s opinions of whats being said + the accompanying body language of who is speaking. Description helps indicate who is talking and implies tone more subtly than just the character muttered/shouted/lied etc.

Ideally (most of the time), dialogue & description should be interwoven in the same paragraph. There are always exceptions, especially if you want to push emphasis — but we’ll get to that.

Broadly speaking there are a few basic positions for where I put dialogue & how I use them impacts the flow of the scene & the characterisation of who is talking + listening. Like with most things in writing, keeping an engaging rhythm/sentence structure is important and for dialogue formatting I avoid using the same position more than 2/3 times in a row.

Dialogue -> Description

“Hey! You’re not supposed to be here.” She turns to see security enter the room.

Essentially the default. Provides context to the dialogue & shows immediate reactions to it. Often good for stuff said impulsively by the POV character or if they’ve been caught by surprise.

The implication in the example is that the POV character was (mildly) surprised by the security guard & thus had to turn to see who had spoken. That she let them get through two sentences before turning probably means she isn’t particularly concerned about their presence.

Description -> Dialogue

Security steps into the room: “You’re not supposed to be here.”

Also a good default.

Excellent for buildup/analytical characters. Shows people are thinking about what they’re saying before they say it & serves to slow down the flow of the conversation.

Gives characters a chance to react physically to something before responding verbally.

In the example now, the POV character was already looking at where security appeared. She is not surprised & the guard doesn’t need to get her attention.

Dialogue -> Description -> Dialogue

“Hey!” Security rushes in. “You’re not supposed to be here.”

Breaks up the speech for readability when a character has a lot to say at once.

Allows characters to react physically to stuff being said & for the character speaking to knowingly adjust what they’re saying halfway through.

Often helps provide context if the later half of the dialogue would feel out of place without explanation.

In the example, the POV character is surprised & turns immediately when security says something to get her attention. The implied reaction is much faster because the information gained from her response is placed immediately after the first thing said.

Only Dialogue

“You’re not supposed to be here.”

Incredible for a reveal. I like to keep these short & surrounded by a chunk of setup description in other paragraphs.

The absence of description in the paragraph with the dialogue implies it’s both unexpected/impulsive & the reader has all the context they need.

Also very good if the conversation is happening too fast for the characters to really form any thoughts on it beyond what they’re saying.

The example implies the POV character has been caught unawares & whoever is speaking had no interest in forewarning. The drama! Anything could happen.

Only Description

Security rushes in and demands to know what she’s doing. Not giving them a chance to respond, she jumps out the window.

LOVE paraphrasing. Deeply underrated tool, if you’ve stuck on dialogue just don’t write it.

Very good for getting a result out of a scene that would otherwise be really long & ultimately not the focus of the story. You can just tell the reader what the resolution to a conversation was & how it affects things going forward.

And.. yeah! Those are the main ones. Obviously there is also Description -> Dialogue -> Description but I personally don’t like it very much. It’s often used to over-describe why something said is cool & dramatic when just letting the dialogue stand on it’s own probably does the job better. Not to say it can’t be used well I just personally prefer to take a new paragraph when spacing that kind of thing.

Interestingly I REALLY enjoy Description -> Dialogue -> Description -> Dialogue but only if it’s made up of extremely short sentences. There’s a fast, emotional feel to it that implies the character has something to think or do about each new thing being said.

[sunshine-zenith]

Okay but like. AU where Mary doesn’t actually learn Cas is an Angel until waaaaay later

Her first introduction to Cas involves Dean frantically getting her to lower her gun, Cas tearfully throwing himself at Dean like a widower reunited with their believed-dead spouse, Dean hugging Cas back just as tightly, and her giving them that Oh They Gay side eye. When Dean says Cas is an Angel, let’s be real given the context she has it probably sounds Super Married. Cas agreeing that he’s an Angel, not a hunter, could come off as “yeah I put up with so much shit for this guy,” especially when paired with his exasperated “no I don’t have a harp” — it just screams “we’ve been married so long that this isn’t even an inside joke it’s a double act and I’m a reluctant but committed participant.”

Also seriously, I know she was literally just resurrected by god’s sister, but “he’s an Angel —wings, harp, you know” sounds like spousely teasing, not a proper or coherent introduction to an entire species that until that moment you didn’t know where actually real or something you could tangibly interact with

When Sam and Dean are missing and Cas attempts to locate them and takes up hunting, Mary would chalk up his lack of success to the fact that he’s not a hunter — he’s a hunter’s husband. Mary herself has personal experience with this exact thing, given that John wasn’t raised a hunter either. As such, she’s either a little softer on her assumed son-in-law, or she projects hard onto him

Cas preferring to fight with a magic blade and not firearms? Not wise in their life, but again, he’s not actually a hunter. She tentatively brings up her concerns with Dean and he says he’s working on getting Cas to use a gun, but Cas is a stubborn asshole (he says with fondness), plus he’s damn good with that blade, so he’s fine in the meantime. She raises her eyebrow but leaves it for the time being

That time Cas kills Death for her and her sons? That’s just devoted husband/in-law behavior, especially given how emotional he gets after — look closely, Cas absolutely had very human tears in his eyes as he monologues about how important and special they are to him

That time Cas almost dies horribly and is saved by a demon? Everyone just doesn’t say “it’s specifically because he’s an Angel” here, at least not when she’s in ear shot, and if Crowley still calls him “choir boy” and such, well he’s a sarcastic demon, why should she worry about his weird quips, there are more important things to deal with. For all she knows, this is just a horrible curse that any of them could’ve gotten if they were stabbed with that blade

One time she tentatively asks Sam about Cas and Dean, specifically asking how long they’ve been together. Sam just laughs in Long Suffering Little Brother

Otherwise, Mary doesn’t really ask, not really wanting to push and frankly not doing so great with the whole My Babies Are Now Older Than Me And Everyone Else I Know Is Dead thing. If Cas is weird about technology or uses strange syntax or usually lets Dean finish his meals for him, she has very little to compare it to and very little brain space to spend on it anyway. She’s still processing that her son is old enough to be married in the first place, who cares if the guy he’s grossly in love with is a little strange. He seems nice enough, and she’s content leave it at that

As a result of her keeping her distance, with a pinch of contrived convenience here, she just straight up misses all the times Cas uses his Grace or references heaven or anything like that

Yes she still knows about the whole Lucifer-Kelly-Nephilim thing, but she could just mentally categorize Lucifer with Powerful Demon — given that she was killed by a powerful demon, she doesn’t really need a theology lesson to know that Satan having a baby is probably bad. Yes she still works with the MOL, but they’ve got her on such an information diet that no one pulls her aside to say “btw you know that non-human celestial being that hangs around with your barbarian sons is a non-human celestial being, right?”

She’s a hunter from a long line of hunters, and even if she makes questionable choices she’s smart and experienced. She just has a massive blind spot where Cas is because she assumes that he’s just her sweet if strange son-in-law that her son is obviously and painfully in love with, and nobody corrects her because they assume she already knows

She finds out by complete accident in the most mundane way possible — Cas lifting the Impala so Dean can do mechanic stuff underneath it, Cas using his Grace to heal someone’s papercut, Cas accidentally cutting himself with a kitchen knife and not reaching to the injury which disappears in 2.8 seconds anyway

She shoots him on the spot. He’s fine, of course, but everyone else collectively loses their shit

At no point is it actually clarified that Dean and Cas aren’t actually together. Instead Mary walks away mildly embarrassed that she had no idea her son-in-law wasn’t human

[elbiotipo]

I really hate when a story just doesn't explain where people get food from. Like, if it's high fantasy with a mythic vibe, it doesn't matter, because it's not supposed to match material reality, but in something more low fantasy or sci-fi or post-apocalyptic or whatever you need to explain how your world functions. I'm reading a fantasy novel where the main character gets sent to the Demon Realm for a bit, and even though the entire place is a barren wasteland with apparently no agriculture or animal husbundry, there're large mobile cities with markets with bread and meat and food and potions and etc.

Like, they specifically call out that there aren't many plants in the demon realm, and wood is exceptionally rare, and then just don't elaborate on where wheat comes from.

I think some people are disconnected or uninterested in wondering where things come from in their own life and so they don't apply this to their own writing. But there's also a sense that such things are "boring" or "distract from the story" when they are actually very important to setting up the atmosphere and plot. I mean, why do you have a "demon realm" if you just have markets and such? What's the difference between such a (supernatural?) realm and the material world?

Because this is something I've been also wondering especially with regards to "evil demons" in fantasy. As I understand them as a concept (informed by my own Western/Christian background of course), demons (and angels and everything in between above or below) are supernatural beings and so they don't physical subsistence, at least not in the way we do. They are also somewhat "above" human comprehension, so they don't exactly behave as human. So when you have demons living in the "material" world you have to wonder how that exactly works, if they do have the same needs and way of thinking as humans. And if they do, what does it mean in this context to treat them as entirely "evil" or "good".

(of course, the word "demon" here could mean a lot of things, for example, in East Asian fantasy sometimes it is used as a translation for concepts such as Yaoguai which I would rather say are "monsters", while there are many, many other categories and concepts of the general idea of "supernatural being", there's a lot of nuance here)

ANYWAYS, returning from that tangent. Your world can be as fantastical as you wish. But if there are human beings on it, or otherwise biological material beings, they have needs to be fullfilled beyond whatever quest or context they're on. They need to eat, to drink, to have shelter, to sleep and so on. And this does not mean that you should spend chapters on telling me how your characters eat or sleep, but it does mean that if you want to convince the reader that this is a world with people you should care about, you should write it as if it indeed was a world with people.

[katskitscat]

If they ever make a DLC for TOTK, I want them to add two or three cutscenes that have Queen Sonia in it.

(I gotta emphasize real quick. I'm not gonna claim that these are inherently good or would make everything better, they just would make me very happy to see. Even just one of these or something similar would make me pleased, because in the end what I crave is lore above all else.)

We learn from the Steles that Rauru was more of a fan of hunting then ruling, so to me that implies that he often left governing to Sonia.

1) One idea I had is a scene of Zelda learning to use her recall ability in Sonia's study. She is trying to make the small blade come back to the air when she sees Hyrulian tapestries of how Hyrule's monarchy was founded. One of marriage, one of alliance, one of conflict, one of coronation. Rauru and Sonia's wedding, their alliance with the other races of Hyrule, the war with the Gerudo, and then the crowing of Rauru and Sonia as king and queen.

The one I would use for this scene is a tapestry of Sonia securing their alliance under Rauru's reign with the Zora. While Rauru is front and center, it is Sonia's diplomacy that secured their support.

(This also helps give the opportunity to add more info about the ancient sages, especially the Zora sage who in this context might very well be the same Zora that Sonia made a alliance with)

Sonia is a priestess, possibly a diplomat, and likely was already a person of influence in hyrule before her marriage. So I would like to think that Zelda takes notice of this, and Sonia tells her that wars must be fought but that a good kingdom is built, or rebuilt, on strength, courage, and wisdom. All three depend on the monarchy's ability to make connections with their people.

Zelda takes on a more political apprenticeship of Sonia, being reminded of a broken kingdom and a Queenhood that is waiting for her back home.

2- It's my own personal feeling that Rauru was over confident and Mineru similarly resonating. As Zonai, I strongly believe that they were treated like Gods or positions of authority even in their infancy. The last of a mighty dynasty. I think it makes them blind to the present, especially because it looks like to me that Rauru and Mineru had very little interest in the past and is possibly enthralled by the future.

In the throne room tear memory where Ganon swears false allegiance (or even a new memory of their first meeting), I think that Rauru should accepts the oath but carelessly agitates the Gerudo by standing quickly after, staying some informal words to Ganon, and leaving. Ganon and his company probably viewed this as rude, like the swearing of a whole culture to his reign was not as important as his hunts. Like he is so above them and their conflict even tho a entire proud warrior race just bent the knee to him in defeat.

This is mostly fed by the claim Ganon makes in the game that Rauru is arrogant. Considering that Ganon doesn't actually hate Link in the games, and honestly seems to respect him or otherwise is amused by him despite having conflict, it kinda tells you he may have good reason for this claim.

This scenario gives Sonia the opportunity to mend some broken or miscommunicated social etiquette. She stayed seated despite Rauru leaving as the Gerudo bow their heads. She has a expression of disbelief and slightly annoyance, of which turns soft and sweet when addressing the Gerudo. She thanks them for their time, and orders her guards to take them to comfortable sleeping quarters where they can stay before they take the long road back to the desert. She says that she looks forward to their budding friendship as they turn to leave, of which a singular Gerudo woman, possibly the future sage, looks back to her before following her king out.

Zelda probably has been trying to tell him about the calamity Ganon in the past, but he brushes that off as a villain he, a powerful light bringing Zonai, can fight off. He speaks to her in a comforting tone her like she is a frightened child who is scared of a monster in her closet, despite Zelda having actually thrown hands with said closet monster for 100 years. I would imagine he does this rather gently, if he was completely delusional instead of slightly overzealous it wouldn't be the same Rauru. He has never seen anything like the calamity or the demon king yet, so of course he himself is probably the strongest thing he has ever known.

Zelda tries to tell Rauru that Ganon shares a aura and name with the beast that she trapped for 100 years, thought conflicted since her history books claim the Calamity had never had a host or it's own body. This uncertainty makes Rauru dismiss the theory that Ganon is more then just a fellow king. He prides himself on being a king who acts on certainty, which likely would Upset Zelda since she was forced to share a body with Calamity and could be theorized that a part of her Triforce energy being depleted because her own body was infected with Ganon's aura.

Sonia confronts him on his blunders, he does not listen very well and has forgotten that different gestures are interpreted differently by the other races. They have a slight argument, where Nintendo finally gives us the confirmation of a child that they share together. I strongly believe that it's a daughter that Sonia sent to train in light magic, being watched over by three ppl who I believe should be Sonia's sisters who all reside in the ancient goddess Shrines protected by the dragons. Sonia talks about her divine heritage, her ancestor being the goddess Hylia's reincarnation during the legendary Eras. She believes that Rauru coming to the shrine of the light god all those years ago was fated, their souls bound by the divine light of the goddess who gave them their gifts. (My personal belief is that the stones were created by the primordial goddesses when Hylia took a human form centuries ago, and protected by Hylia's descendants in a shrine forgotten by time. The sacred stones were in the possession of Sonia before they were given to the sages)

She urges him to think of the legacy that their daughter will inherit once she activated her powers, and to not think that just because Zelda exists that it means that their legacy is prosperous by fate alone. Rauru hears her and accepts her critique, and he hints that he is thankful for his queen to keep him on track. Sonia jokes that he better shape up, since Zonai out live Hylians she won't be there forever to steer him back on course (foreshadowing of her early death). In the back, we see Zelda but this is the appearance of Puppet Zelda.

3- the Last idea I had. Sonia's funeral. We should be given a opportunity to see more Hylian culture before Rauru had them temporality take the culture of Zonai. Sonia's funeral involves interring her body in a ancient crypt that can be revealed to be the time shrine that we start off in (being the only one that has a Hylia goddess statue) or a crypt that had collapsed on itself on the normal earth. The memory included Zelda being farther away from the ceremony, and watching as Sonia's sisters, Rauru, and a hidden 6 yr old daughter and heir bury the queen.

I like the idea that her grave has a stone slab statue on-top of it that looks like Sonia sleeping. The statue has a sundelion in its grasp.

I think it would help out more of a impact on the viewer about Sonia's end. If Link awakens all the bright bloom and shrines, he should not only get the ancient hero aspect but discover the hidden tomb of this queen. Better yet that it was once kept there as part of Sonia's own personal blessing, likely put in the crypt by her own daughter who may have been the first Zelda to fight the Calamity with the Legendary hero.

That's pretty much most of my thoughts for Sonia and the royal family. I love TOTK for what it is, but I understand that Nintendo is a game mechanic first kind of company instead of story driven one. I would love to see comics or even a dungeon mini series for this timeline of Zelda where the reward is knowledge about the Zonai and the workings of the goddess Hylia. (even tho the guy in charge of the game is saying he's exhausted everything for it, I personally think he's wrong and Nintendo needs to have him work with someone who prioritized story telling first.)

[illmoraineakoi]

Some Thoughts on the rest of AvA Season 3

You know, I'm a little bit baffled by how many episodes are left in Season 3.

It's supposedly set to run to episode 15, which means there are four more episodes in this season.

But I really don't understand what else could happen?

Victim has Chosen, Orange and Yellow. He has the means of summoning the Cursor. He also has the means of finding Alan's PC location too, via the memory scanner, if that's something he wanted.

He even has the means of containing the Cursor, with The Box.

For all intents and purposes, Victim is so close to achieving his goals.

Literally all of it, from Yellow summoning the Cursor, to Victim having a confrontation and fight with the Cursor, to Orange inevitably intervening and ruining his attempt at vengeance and saving the day, it can all be wrapped up in a single episode.

So...four?

Four more?

Something's not right. There's more we're missing. There's more that will happen. It's not going to be that straight forward.

Chosen is an integral part of this arc. And he's left far too many mysteries in his wake thus far.

Orange's origin and his connection to Chosen, too, has yet to be explained.

Which Alan has confirmed would be, at some point, quote, "explained in the story". (Thought to his credit, he did not specify when it would be, nor if it would be in S3. This was also a quote by DJ, not Alan's actual words, when DJ was asking about Orange and Chosen, for added context. Alan's response was "Uh-huh.", to the above quote.)

I do not think it's a coincidence that we received a MASSIVE lore dump on how the Outernet works, and the "green energy" along side it, in the episode immediately after Orange's powers became known. The green energy played a massive part in Victim's episode, symbolizing both the creation of life, but also the loss of it. Orange's powers are going to play a more significant role going forward.

Though it will be difficult to say if his reviving powers will play a role or not.

(I personally believe they will, because I don't understand why Mitsi would get a plush otherwise. Her role in Victim's story was very important yes, but...a plush? Alan's never done that before, made merch of canonically, permanently dead, only-appears-in-one-episode characters. It feels a little strange. Unless they were just banking, literally, on the audience's heartbreak and swift attachment to her character? People's desire to want to make her and their Victim plushes a set? That feels so disingenuous for Alan, though...So why?)

(I don't believe Mitsi's role is complete. That might just be the cope, admittedly.)

The new gap in TCO and TDL's story is also very suspicious. There must be a REASON that Alan decided to set the Newgrounds attack in 2011, upending most people's assumptions for how they spent their time after they escaped.

And therein lies a problem too: our assumptions. We know so very little about TCO and TDL's time after they escape until Showdown, and it's starting to feel like it's becoming a problem. Especially when things keep tying back to them.

It's intentional. Alan isn't rewriting the timeline for no reason. He's not casting doubt onto Chosen for no reason.

We are going to get more information on Chosen and Dark. The new gaps in the timeline and the ambiguity to their character arcs needs to be completed. Alan and his team have been very good at tying up those loose ends.

I firmly believe one of the four remaining episodes is going to be Chosen and Dark's 'extended'/'improved' backstory, an episode that is going to massively clarify both their characters like Victim's did.

Dark's strange absence from Victim's arc in particular is feeling very odd. Why is the narrative trying so hard to push Chosen as a main perpetrator for Victim's antagonist arc? Is it to set up his own expanded redemption arc better? Is it to fall in line with the theme of "actions have consequences"? Is it to forcefully beat it into the thick-headed fandom that Chosen is a morally grey character, a fact so many people seem to chose to just ignore because they like him?

But then why immediately show Dark after Agent has left, if we are supposed to focus on being upset at Chosen? Why is his appearance on that tank treated as a reveal?

What is there to reveal? We already knew he was there. Why was that important to show?

It's just so weird. By willfully hiding Dark, Alan is calling even greater attention to him. His absence is perplexing. So why?

Something is important about Dark. Dark is going to play a bigger role in what happens in the future than we might currently think.

Either he's being set up for the 'grand reveal' that he was the only one actually throwing attacks around during the Stick Page and Newgrounds attack (A weak reveal because people already think this, think that Chosen is being used a bait-and-switch) OR, and I really hate to be 'that person'-

He's being set up to come back.

I hate to be 'that person', because I've frankly gotten tired of people theorizing that Dark's going to return in Season 3. There was never any evidence for it, before. The arc, originally, had nothing to do with him. He had his arc in Season 2, and Alan being undecided in his fate didn't magically mean he'd pop back up in a brand new narrative with a brand new antagonist. Especially when, at first, it didn't seem like he was involved.

But there is evidence for it now. He is involved, at least a little. Dark is, by his absence and the complete lack of acknowledgement of his very existence by Victim, important to SOMETHING in this season.

Though in what way, I can only speculate. And those speculations sound like fanfics, fam, so they're going in a reblog.

There is also the issue of the Animator's character. Something huge needs to happen to redeem him in the eyes of the audience after what was revealed in AvA11. So many people are horrified and appalled by his past actions, and his current "redemption" doesn't feel like it hold up. It's too weak.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: The Animator needs to do something more. He needs to show he actually cares about his stick figures.

And he needs to apologize to Victim. That is one of my biggest desires to see, in the final episode: Alan apologizing to Victim. I want to see it as badly as I want to see the Cursor burst into pixelated flames in a fight scene. Chosen, too, deserves an apology.

I personally think that Victim is going to receive a good ending - the fact that he's being fleshed out with a backstory that makes him very sympathetic is a good sign that he might have a nice ending in this story, if not the one that he perhaps wants at the moment (that being his vengeance lmao.) And Alan usually goes for good, feel-good, endings to his story arcs. The only one that didn't really feel very 'complete' is Season 2, which, y'know, might now be for a reason.

In any case, I at least don't think Alan has it in him to kill Victim off permanently. Victim is the stick who started it all, who started him on his path to success that's brought him to where he is now. Victim is special to Alan's life story. Animator vs Animation would not exist without him. Alan wouldn't be here, doing what he loves, without him. Victim literally changed his life, just as much as Orange has, if not more.

This is why I hope Alan gives Victim the same respect of a good ending. The same respect of the ability to be happy and kind again.

It would be such a nice bookend, that the stick figure he originally created with the intent of beating up and tormenting is given love, happiness, and closure for his arc end.

That's what I want more than anything else. I want Victim to have a happy ending. I want him to have what he was deprived of in AvA1.

He deserves it, so much.

We have four more episodes to go. And a lot is going to happen in those episodes. Maybe I'm wrong and they stretch the whole 'confrontation with the Cursor' out really long, but it'll still play out mostly as expected. Or maybe something utterly batshit crazy will happen that will catch us by surprise, like Dark returning (either as an antagonist or ally, both would be awesome and unexpected) or Mitsi returning as an antagonist for some reason (probably not, but it'd be insane.) Or maybe I'm extra extra wrong and Victim will die, which would utterly devastate me and break my heart into a billion little pieces.

It's impossible to tell right now.

But I'm looking forward to the wild ride. Regardless of what happens, Alan and his team are going to make some beautiful art. Scott Buckley is probably going to make some amazing music. Everyone is going to continue to breath life into this amazing, gorgeous world, an tell an amazing story alongside it.

I don't love AvA just because of the story of the characters. I love it for the passion that goes into it. I love it because it's clear Alan loves it, and all of the animators, editors, artists, and sound designers clearly love it too. I love seeing all of that effort, all of that work, all of that love, come together to make something truly amazing and beautiful. I love that the team are in a position where they can make these animations for an audience who loves them so much.

I cannot wait to see what more their passion and love can make, and where they will take us from here.

[nygmaass]

What would you consider to be the media that best represents Q&E? and add onto that- What do you think is essential when writing their characters?

Omg yessss I love to talk about Q&E!! Unfortunately, there is limited media of them, so the only canon media you can really consume is comic books. So I’d say that is the best. I have a list of all Q&E appearances that I will actually upload onto my pinned post as well to make it easier to locate.

Within that the best comic books to read are:

•Detective Comics Annual #8 Questions multiply the mystery(1995)

•Detective Comics Vol 1 #705, #706, #707(1996)

•Robin Vol 2 #93, #94 (2001)

•Batman:The Riddler Factory DCAU #119 (1995) (This one follows Quiz and Query but is so good)

These are my personal favourites and I think the best representations of them.

When it comes to writing them, I have touched on this with a criticism of rogues! Which poorly represents the girls and I will reupload that separately to give an idea of what not to do.

I think the most important thing is their relationship with the Riddler. They are supportive roles to him. However, Edward does appreciate them (as much as he can anyway). The girls have a positive relationship with the riddler. Which brings me to my next point,

Sexualisation. DC Comics sexualise their female characters and Q&E are sexualised aesthetically. That’s why they’re called “BADD girls”, a joke on them drawn with larger breasts. HOWEVER, brilliantly enough, they are never treated differently for being sex workers. The riddler doesn’t look down on them for this (there are two comics where he doesn't talk about them very nicely, but that's later in their existence). Over all, the girls working at Pandora’s Box is never negative, and they are never treated poorly for it because the riddler A) doesn’t care, B) appreciates them, C) sees them as kindred spirits.

When it comes to personalities, there’s very limited information to draw on, but from the fact that the Riddler keeps them around often, we can tell they must be intelligent, otherwise they probably wouldn't last long. They are also willing to listen to the Riddler and have a sort of affectionate personal relationship with him where he's also happy to open up to them. Moving onto more solid aspects, the girls are both reckless and wild. With little distinction between them, Detective Comics #845 (2008) however, offers the Riddler specifically naming Query as impulsive, with a gun, which leads me to the conclusion that while both are reckless, Query is the more trigger-happy one out of the pair.

Sexuality, I also think, is very important to them even if it’s not mentioned. I will touch on this further when I share my critique of rogues! Query is canonically a lesbian echo is never confirmed but from context it’s clear she’s also queer it’s just not specifying her sexuality.

If you’re writing Q&E I think these are the main points to keep in mind and while DC doesn’t always offer much. Q&E do offer a surprisingly solid ground to work off of especially if you focus on on the 90’s being their prime, queer history + fetish community (because that history is linked) which then introduces us to the punk community and lesbian movements at the time. Given the time and right writer Q&E would be really interesting and realistically complex characters.

[alpaca-clouds]

Rethinking Religion

Let me talk about one thing: Religion. Because, oh boy. Religion has always been a thing that has kinda haunted me. Mainly due to one reason: I was raised by my mother, who was a very, very conservative Catholic. I am not even exaggerating this: She was so conservative, that she considered some decrees by the pope as herasy. Which obviously led to me - the autistic, openly queer kid, who due to autism just did not get why he should hide the queerness - to get into a lot of trouble. Not kidding: My mother tried to have me exorcised for being queer, because she was of the stern opinion that I was being made queer by some sort of demon. It took a darn cardinal to talk her out of it.

Obviously, I also was only allowed by her to visit private Catholic schools. Due to me having gotten the "gifted" stamp, we even got a stipend so we did not need to pay for it (though even private schools in Germany are fairly cheap compared to the US). Though we still could technically not afford some of the additional costs associated with it. (Class trips were a lot more expensive with the private school, than they were with any public school.)

Of course: My mother died when I was 17, and due to this entire context I could not be out of the Catholic church any quicker than that. Because... See, while one priest did a couple of times allow me to stay at his place when my mother was super abusive... nobody in the church - and they all knew I was being abused - ever contacted government agencies over it.

For the next couple of years, when I was living in Austria, I was mainly just very agnostic. I did visit church from time to time (you know, for Easter and Christmas and such), because to me the ritualistic aspect was kinda important. But I also was not really a believer.

And then came my early twenties and... Well, it was the time of new atheism. Hoorray. So, yeah, I watched a lot of content by those goofs that I call crooks now: Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Krauss mainly. And i really got into being an annoying atheist. You know the kind. I know that you know the kind. And I mean, some of the stuff I do still cling to. I think the main predictor of your religiosity is where you are born and raised. It is not the only predictor, but it is a main predictor. If you are born in a very religious family, chances are you will grow up very religious.

Now, I would say: "But we all know what happened next." But thing is, that I am honestly not sure, because it has been more than 10 years. So, for those who do not know...

Gamer Gate happened. And while Hitchens kinda got away with his name intact, due to having the wisdom to die before it all went down... Pretty much the entire rest of them, who were so loud on being rational and science driven, turned out to be raging misogynists, racists and queerphobes. Even eugenicists in some cases. So... Yeah, that was fun. Obviously all of them showing very strongly that they actually only believed in science if science said the shit they wanted it to say. If science disagreed with them, science was wrong and also informed by ideology.

So, yeah. That was... Fun.

However, it did not really change my general stance on religion. Mainly: It is highly unlikely that any god is real. It is all made up to explain stuff the folks could not explain otherwise. And in the end, religion was used for more harm than good, due to being the excuse for a lot of genocide during history.

At this time I got into most arguments with Christians over it. Especially the kind of Christians, that still annoy me to this day: Folks, who will absolutely hide some horrid opinions behind "but that is part of my faith" (you know, like queerphobia), while at the same time not actually practicing their religion. Like, I am not approving of someone being queerphobic or misogynist if they got to church every week. But if I am talking with someone spouting that stuff, declaring they can do so because of religious freedom, while not having been to church in 6 years, not even for any major holidays... Yeah, those people can fuck right off.

However, at this time I got a lot deeper into the mythological development of religion and how it happened historically. I started to realize, how the Abrahamitic faiths were an off-spring of the other semitic faiths and eventually had great influences from Assyrian, Egyptian and Babylonian mythology. And indeed, that at some points - especially during the old testament - some of those old gods are in fact worshipped and show up. And also how most religious folks try so desperately hard to ignore this stuff.

This is quite interesting at the very least. Though I still was quite angry with religion in general. Because again: I was abused because of it - and because of those "religious people holding together" those people who should have done something (teachers) didn't do shit about it.

And it was just... Well, this was something that was there the entire time.

The thing that changed it was... ironically Castlevania. And I am not even kidding here. Mainly the rendering of Isaac as a character in the show - and me getting kinda obsessed with him as a character. Because...

Well, here is the thing: Usually media very rarely has religious characters, especially not complex characters that are religious. There are some religious characters who have it as a running gag or gimmick (Flanders in Simpsons comes to mind), and at times we sure do have villains who have religion, but good characters? Well, especially western media tends to just not want to touch it, because you cannot do religious characters without someone being offended because of it. And in Japanese media meanwhile? Well, Japan has a very different relation to religion than the west.

And there we got Isaac.

Who was a complex character with a complex relationship to a religion that we normally did not see portrayed in any media. And his entire character arc was very much about him coming clean with his relation to this religion.

Well, in of itself it might not have done so much for me. But eventually, doing research for the fanfics I wrote for him, I eventually found out, that one of the mosques in my city was doing an open evening of religious discussion every second week - and I dared to go there. Only to be met with actually nice people, who were accepting, and actually not queerphobic. Other than most Christians I ever have talked to, I was not screamed at for asking questions about religion. And I cannot tell you how strangely healing that was.

By now, I have kinda mellowed in regards to religion. I would not outright call myself a believer, but I also see one thing: If a lot of people act in the way they act because they believe that some deity is telling them to do that, isn't that deity somehow real? Because that deity does influence what happens in the real world. It does not really matter if there is a physical manifestation of it: If enough people believe in it, it has power. And I by now feel the atheist position of ridiculing this, kinda misses the point.

We humans kinda are biologically pre-programmed to find religion. It is simply a mixture of our brains looking for pattern and also tending to associate a will with anything happening in the real world.

This year I decided to somewhat try fasting for Ramadan. I need to make some adjustments (due to healthreasons, I just cannot not drink for 11 hours). Praying is nothing I really manage. But somehow... Doing some tradition is actually kinda nice?

And at the very least I am a lot less angry than before. Which is most certainly an improvement. And I really gotta say, that due to this I am also still quite thankful to the folks from the Castlevania crew. Because I know that getting a well rounded Muslim character is nothing that is natural in a show. So, yeah.

[nesiacha]

In defense for Collot d'Herbois

Collot d'Herbois (1749-1796)

Warning: I do not like Collot d’Herbois at all. In fact, I find the executions in Lyon, especially by cannon, unacceptable—nothing justifies that plus . some sentences do not reflect my true opinions. However, my goal is to defend him as a lawyer would, within the context of the French Revolution. Therefore, it is normal for me to refer to Louis XVI as a tyrant or something else. You can also choose to play the role of jurors or simply state whether you acquit him or not, as you wish. Special dedication to @lanterne, whose intervention convinced me to take up his defense.

In Defense of Collot d’Herbois

Citizens, I have been mandated by the revolutionary tribunal to posthumously defend citizen Collot d’Herbois, accused of all the ills of the revolution and of opportunism. I am therefore very honored to take on this case. This revolutionary, who devoted the best of his efforts to the service of the revolution, has too often been cast in a negative light, which it is now time to dispel.

I will start with the least of the accusations against him, namely that he lacks culture and writes failed plays. One might object that this is of no importance, but I must dismantle every aspect of the bad reputation of this genuine revolutionary, whether in minor or major history. To better portray him as a fanatic atheist, it is said that he attended an Oratorian college, which is false. His plays reflect a great deal of culture.

He had to endure harsh trials since actors were socially looked down upon. The years 1767-1770 mark the beginnings of his career, during which he primarily played secondary roles like many of his peers at the start of their careers, to better learn the craft. He was a good actor, as attested by de Corsenville in the Journal de Paris and by a Mademoiselle Saint Val in 1784. He began creating his own works in 1772, starting with Lucie, ou les Parents imprudents, which critiqued social mores and arranged marriages, and where lovers triumph in the end. This play was contested by less liberal aristocrats. However, despite some criticisms, it also received high praise, such as in the summer of 1772 in L’Année littéraire, which published a laudatory article. This play was performed throughout France and even abroad. He was accused of plagiarism, but like many authors of his time, such accusations are not very credible, especially since he did everything to prove otherwise. While he showed certain limitations as a theater troupe director, he had some successes in Lyon, demonstrating his zeal and honesty, as some critiques noted.

It is true that Collot d’Herbois wrote plays praising the royal family, but at that time, like many French people, he was a royalist while still wanting systemic change. Therefore, we are far from the black legend of a failed playwright or a sycophant of the royal system. His plays played a role in the ideals of our glorious revolution. There is a certain tradition that depicts Collot d’Herbois as having entered politics in August 1789, but there is no documentation to corroborate or refute this information, although this does not diminish his revolutionary merit, which will be demonstrated again.

Although he remained a fervent royalist like many French citizens during this period, his first play, Le Paysan Magistrat, was not a success. Far from attributing this to Collot d’Herbois’s alleged mediocrity, we must see a political reason, as historian Michel Biard notes: "In this period of turmoil, of broken trust between the Nation and part of its army, it seemed unwise to stage a play where soldiers are about to massacre an entire village." Let us not forget that this play was intended to be understood as an allusion to the events of 1789, where the Court is severely criticized.

It is in this spirit that citizen Collot d’Herbois presented La Journée de Louis XII, where the King is depicted as Collot d’Herbois saw him in 1790—a man loved and loving the French, with only his entourage being pernicious.

Contrary to what has been claimed to discredit him, there is little evidence that he was a member of the Society in 1789, an attempt to portray him as an opportunist or to suggest that he was "easily" able to shift from moderation to becoming one of the worst revolutionaries capable of the worst revolutionary excesses—a term often used by counter-revolutionaries to better obscure the reasons for the revolution, especially by royalists after August 10, 1792.

On the other hand, it is true that he quickly joined the Society of Friends of the Constitution, known as the Jacobin Club. In praising Bonnecarrère, a Jacobin who became a plenipotentiary minister, here is one of his speeches that shows a new political entry into law, reported verbatim by the True Father Duchesne: "the honor of the sacred bugger of the tribune [...] has been clouded by the anger of two famous men [...] Collot d'Herbois, who is a secretary who knows how to write, (...), like no one else, has crafted in the minutes a fine pitiful turn of phrase to depict Buonne Carrère's tears that had made everyone feel pity. Here comes Danton, who has the heart of a lion, (...), and who wouldn't cry, (...), even if he saw all the Cordeliers on patrol, he put his voice from the days of great parades around his neck and spewed without hiccup that one must, fuck, have the heart gangrened by the slavery of the old regime to praise a character who only had the figure of a man like him. That damned d'Herbois, who, though a Jacobin, has(...) head that takes like a rifle's primer, has gone up to the tribune, like a kite that the wind fucks to the five hundred devils, and has delivered a blow to Danton's carogan, making him a dragon's helmet mane. The other responded with a five-leafed wallop,(...), that one wouldn't need, (...), a bunch of such blows to make an elephant die of cheek indigestion."

He defends the oppressed soldiers, especially during the session of June 6, 1791, when a military regiment from Burgundy was sentenced to death by a Council of War. Collot d'Herbois attacked the officers and war ministers, demanding clemency for the condemned. In the spring of 1791, he made several reports on the Nancy Garrison affair, suppressed by the infamous Marquis de Bouillé, cousin of the counter-revolutionary and deserter La Fayette. The main crime of these soldiers, as all citizens know, was daring to demand accountability for the regiment's finances, while he did worse and enabled the tyrant's first high treason attempt by helping him try to escape on June 20 and 21, 1791, thanks to good patriots like citizen Jean-Baptiste Drouet. Here is what Collot said in his report in July 1791: "It is more necessary than ever to give soldiers a brilliant proof of justice and protection. They have too often been the victims of their leaders' hatred." Such splendid words demonstrate a great and sincere aptitude for defending the oppressed. And I dare say, this masterpiece of ideals was the Almanach of Father Gérard, a great success among the Jacobins (this piece aimed to be on par with what the New Constitution represented). Collot's play was victorious among 42 works, showcasing his talent.

If Collot still praises the constitutional monarchy, a forgivable weakness that misled many good citizens at the time, this play criticizes the excessive power of the executive of the King, particularly the veto (a prediction that proved true), highlights universal suffrage, and consequently combats the censitaire. The Constitution must align with Rousseau's ideas, oppose ambitious military notions of going beyond borders with words like "warrior virtue does not hold everything; for then the military spirit would become dangerous. There are virtues whose practice is sweeter and no less necessary for the happiness of life and the tranquility of citizens" and criticizes slavery. Following the success of this play, Collot d'Herbois tried to get elected on December 5, 1791, as the deputy prosecutor of the Commune, but he failed, and Danton won. However, this did not stop him from continuing his fight for the oppressed soldiers of Châteauvieux, and the Swiss soldiers were released, which Collot announced on January 1, 1792, a triumph for all except the conservatives. Thus, his political beginnings are marked by some failures but also by his talent and sincerity in serving the Revolution.

Collot d'Herbois will show his lucidity again by opposing Brissot, Roland, and other colleagues' irresponsible war project in 1792 with the known results. He is denounced for this along with colleagues like Marat, Robespierre, Camille Desmoulins, etc., by the Chronicle of Paris. As historian Michel Biard said, "Collot d'Herbois remains relatively discreet on the theme of war before the key date of April 20, having already proclaimed that the priority for patriots was to fight the internal enemy, not foreign powers."

He represents the Library section with Marie-Joseph Chénier, Destournelles, and Baudrais. On July 23, 1792, Collot was part of the committee drafting the address of the Parisians with Tallien and Audouin. This was both a new attack against La Fayette and this time against the tyrant. This will further radicalize during Brunswick's manifesto on July 28. Citizen Collot d'Herbois becomes one of the most politically prominent men. On August 6, he even presides over the assembly of Parisian section commissioners. At the fall of the tyrant, the Parisian people finally recognized his merits. He was elected Parisian deputy to the Convention. Although the decision is collective, he had the honor of calling for the abolition of the monarchy, an obsolete system of tyrants. It was the tyrant's behavior towards the Constitution, his betrayal, and La Fayette's machinations that pushed Collot d'Herbois towards republican virtues, like many other Jacobins, with the Cordeliers having demanded the end of the monarchy since the King's attempted escape. His record is that of a man proposing all measures to alleviate the people's suffering: targeting speculators, advocating for taxes. Far from being an atheist, he believed in a Divine Being, attacking above all fanaticism and the clergy's vices. After all, his plays feature some good, though rare, priests, mostly bad ones. This is also reflected in his political career. It is not religion that citizen Collot d'Herbois targeted but rather those who refused to take an oath to the Convention. When some sworn priests sided with the Girondists during the civil war, he hardened further but never acted as a fervent de-Christianizer. During this period of external and internal war against our glorious revolution, from March to May 1793, he was involved in recruitment to fight counter-revolutionaries in Nièvre and Loiret. In Oise, he was responsible for overseeing supplies and implementing Convention decrees. The problem for mission representatives was sensitivity to local realities, and at times they were left in the dark about Convention orders.

Contrary to what many authors like Hillary Mantel in "A Place of Greater Safety," even nuanced ones like historians Albert Soboul and François Furet have said, Collot d'Herbois did not join the Committee of Public Safety (CPS) to counter Hébertists but because of his importance to the Jacobins and his faithful execution of CPS and Convention decisions, not to mention his effectiveness. Unlike the overly glorified Danton, Collot d'Herbois did not seek to escape his responsibilities, which is why he accepted to sit on the CPS when Danton refused, at a time when our revolution and country were more than ever in danger.

Collot demonstrated a central legislative sense and fought with all factions to unify the CPS. He was an effective office worker who devoted all his efforts to ensuring the Revolution triumphed in this war he did not want, along with other colleagues. Here's what Palmer, who holds him in deep contempt, said about him: "Once in government, these two firebrands (Billaud-Varennes and Collot d'Herbois), who had both failed in their personal affairs before the Revolution, showed themselves surprisingly capable of diligent and regular work. They quickly proved very useful [...] They worked tirelessly [...] even on Sundays, at any hour, more punctual and diligent than any of their colleagues except Carnot and Barère." It is important to note that the hours were infernal, yet he fulfilled his part without ever failing. Thus, we are far from the cliché of the ineffective and mediocre revolutionary.

Nevertheless, most of the black legend surrounding Collot d'Herbois comes from Lyon, renamed Ville-Affranchie. However, let's not forget what happened in Lyon. Our valiant and regretted revolutionary Joseph Chalier, martyr of the Mountain, arrested on May 30, 1793, by the Lyonnais, was killed in atrocious conditions, and the city sent back the Convention's envoys, declaring itself autonomous. The repression attributed to Collot and the Convention rarely mentions what happened on May 30 and July 16, 1793, conveniently forgetting that under the tyrants, it would have been ten times worse. Though having retaken the city, Couthon did not want to follow other Convention orders to better ensure justice and retaliation for this federalist revolt. Collot was sent in his place, likely due to his successful missions in Nièvre, Loiret, and Oise, and his prior knowledge of Lyon.

One of the objectives is to ensure the conversion of the people of Lyon to republicanism and to ensure that they never again reproduce the events with Chalier and the federalist revolt. Firstly, if one must reproach Collot d’Herbois, it should be towards the Convention that voted and the CPS. Just look at Barère's written order concerning the destruction of the city of Lyon: "The city of Lyon will be destroyed: everything inhabited by the rich will be destroyed. Only the house of the poor, the homes of slaughtered and exiled patriots, buildings specifically used for industry, and monuments dedicated to humanity and education will remain." Moreover, here is an anecdote reported by Michel Biard that challenges the argument of Collot d'Herbois's insensitivity. He issued a decree stopping the demolition because the people of Lyon chose women and children to carry out the work. Collot d'Herbois issued a decree establishing a list of workers with a maximum of one-fifth women and no children. From the outset, we notice the reluctance and tricks of the Lyonnais to avoid obeying the Convention’s envoys. Furthermore, their attitudes when they saw the executions were such that Collot d'Herbois recounted: "The military commission has too often employed judging those against whom it found no evidence, and it has released them, moments which should have been a terrible judgment pronounced against the guilty. It has executed several by firing squad. The tribunal is firmer, but its progress is slow; it had achieved little... Even the executions do not have the expected effect. The prolongation of the siege and the daily dangers faced by everyone have inspired a kind of indifference to life, if not outright contempt for death. Yesterday a spectator, returning from an execution, said: it is not too harsh. What could I do to be guillotined? Insult the representatives." That is why he advocated greater severity after weeks, using cannon executions which admittedly led to horrible suffering. This measure provoked panic among the people of Lyon, leading to a massive petition by ten thousand women and another petition near the departmental directorate, although dispersed. The black legend says that Collot d'Herbois was present at the executions, but there is no proof that he was at Brotteaux, not even from Abbé Guillon de Montléon.

Of course, I do not deny that what happened was atrocious, that justice was swift even before Collot d'Herbois and other representatives used the cannon for execution, and that consequently, a good number of innocent Lyonnais died. But I have already mentioned the reluctance of the Lyonnais to obey the Convention’s envoys and what this city was guilty of previously, not to mention the context that the Convention could not afford the luxury of Lyon rising again as soon as the representatives let down their guard, explaining, without excusing, Collot d’Herbois’s attitude which was in no way disapproved by the CPS; otherwise, there would be traces of their disagreements. Furthermore, let us not forget, as I mentioned earlier, that at times the local authorities and therefore the mission envoys were sometimes left in the dark about the mission orders. Besides, Jacobins and Convention members applauded what Collot d'Herbois said about the cannon executions he ratified: "They spread the word that they did not die at the first shot... Well! Jacobins, did Chalier die at the first shot? If the aristocrats had triumphed, do you think the Jacobins would have perished at the first shot? Who are those who have tears to spare for the corpses of the enemies of liberty, when the heart of the nation is torn? A drop of blood shed from the generous veins of a patriot falls back on my heart, but I have no pity for conspirators."

Moreover, although there were de-Christianization celebrations in honor of the martyr Chalier, there was no specific decree against clergy members. Those who were executed were designated as refractory priests. As for the confiscated religious objects to be melted down, it was in the context of requisition. Moreover, he took the trouble in Commune-Affranchie to issue texts to eliminate begging and ease the suffering of the most needy.

Some have claimed that Collot d'Herbois was primarily a Hébertist who would prioritize this group over the CPS. This is false. If he tried for a reconciliation that failed between the Hébertists and him, it is because Ronsin and he were targeted by the same adversaries, and there is no evidence of a privileged link between Hébert and Collot d'Herbois. When this reconciliation failed, he was among those who signed the arrest of the Hébertists and later the Indulgents. Certainly, there were parodies of justice that he accepted, but the CPS was in a position where it needed to be preserved for the revolution to triumph in light of the ongoing war.

Regarding Thermidor, it is important to note that after the assassination attempt on him by Admirat, he somewhat disappeared from the political scene for three weeks until the 8th of Thermidor. It is hard to say he premeditated Robespierre’s execution. The attempt to reconcile the members of the CPS and the CSG seemed to fail on the 8th of Thermidor, for which Robespierre also bears responsibility when he said and read what seemed to be his political testament. Billaud and Varennes and Collot d'Herbois, attacked at the Jacobin club, had every reason to believe they were in danger as well as their expulsion with cries of "To the guillotine." They had every reason to believe their lives were in danger, not to mention the fatigue he was suffering after giving so much to the revolution was immense.

Yet after Thermidor, the worst was yet to come for him. He would become a scapegoat along with Billaud Varennes, Vadier, and Barère. Despite Carnot and Prieur showing solidarity with them, it worsened. They had to leave political life and be placed under residence. On the 12th of Germinal, exhausted sans-culotte militants of the new incompetent government demanded bread and the Constitution of 1793. There would be repression, and the fate of Billaud Varennes and Collot d'Herbois was sealed. After reflection, instead of the guillotine, they were condemned to the "dry guillotine." Barère likely escaped, helped as a political weathercock. This time Carnot, Lindet, and Prieur did not intervene to help them. Billaud Varennes and Collot d'Herbois, legalists, accepted without flinching even though they knew deportation could be worse than death. The conditions were very harsh, and they were sent to Guyana, although gradually some improvements were seen. We see Collot d'Herbois one last time proposing favorable measures for the Black people. He advised Cointet to "distribute to all Black people who wish it virgin lands to turn them into small proprietors. The large number of these micro-farms would produce a quantity of goods far superior to that from large plantations, all while respecting everyone's right to equality. The settlers, through their emissary, believe such reasoning comes from a European imagination totally ignorant of local realities, that since the abolition of slavery the Black people no longer work ('their natural apathy has prevailed'), and that the only solution would be to reestablish the system of slave plantations" (words of Michel Biard in his biography of Collot d'Herbois).

With the arrival of Governor Jeannet, Billaud Varennes and Collot d'Herbois fell gravely ill and were treated at the military hospital in Cayenne where, for the first time, the two Conventionals could meet. The black legend continued to kill this authentic revolutionary Collot d'Herbois. Forgotten were all his positions for universal suffrage, against slavery, to eliminate begging, for the poor, and the fact that he wanted to maintain the unity of the CPS. Only the bloodshed remains to make a sale, forgetting all the ferocity of the royalists and the violence of the counter-revolutionaries. By citing all these facts, I ask you to acquit the charges against this genuine patriot whose memory has been constantly sullied and who give his best for the revolution.

Sources :

Danton, Frédérich Bluche

Michel Biard Collot d’Herbois Légendes noires et révolution

Antoine Resche

[bestworstcase]

Hi, just joined Tumblr earlier today as part of an unrelated thing, thought I'd check your page out on a friend's rec, and... wow. Just, wow. This is practically the nine-dimensional chess of media literacy. I would have so many question, but everything you discuss is promptly explained in such great detail that I can't even say that. One question remains, though: *how?* Where do you get the absurd amount information and brainpower required to connect the show's many, many dots at this high of a level? It's something I struggle with myself (though that may be due to there being over a year between watching V1-V8 and seriously starting to reflect on the show beyond "well, that was a fun sequence of events"—thank you, newish fanfic writing brain—but that's besides the point), and I was wondering if you had any tips for expanding one's thinking in this direction, as the show still means a *lot* to me—there's a reason, however unexplainable, that I stuck with it so long before the reflections started—and I'd love it if the deepest parts of my brain could reflect it as such.

...Unless that's too much to ask, in which case, whoops! Either way, thank you.

really fundamentally the most effective thing you can do to practice is make a deliberate effort to cultivate a sense of curiosity toward the text. and what i mean by that is, get in the habit of asking yourself questions as if you’re in a high school english lit class: what happened in this scene? why did this character say or do that? does this conversation remind you of anything that happened in an earlier scene, and if so, what’s similar? what’s different? what did you learn about the characters from this scene? what did you learn about the world they live in? why do you think this scene was important enough to be in the story? what changed in this scene (something will always have changed)?

it may feel a bit patronizing at first BUT over time if you’re consistent about it, doing this will train you to approach reading or watching as an active participant. analytical interpretation is a skill and like any skill it takes sustained effort and practice.

after that it’s sort of just pattern recognition. this is true of all stories but it’s especially true of theme-driven stories like rwby because they tend to be very deliberate about repeating and refracting their ideas and often develop rich symbolic vocabularies. so you identify a pattern and then examine the text until you can develop a compelling argument for what it means.

one thing to keep in mind if you’re generally familiar with fandom is that fandom encourages a lot of practices that are cool and fun in fannish contexts but will poison analysis because they are (by nature of being transformative) untethered from the text. headcanon, for example, is things held to be true irrespective of the text—one could have as a headcanon that ruby is allergic to bee stings or that qrow is her father or whatever and it doesn’t matter that there’s no textual evidence or that the text says otherwise because the text is not relevant—but analytically, you must be able to back every part of your argument with textual evidence. so it is useful to practice compartmentalizing to keep headcanon strictly separated from the text in your mind.

(that’s also a practice i recommend in general because being able to say “i like this idea and i have it in mind when i create fanworks, but it isn’t canonical” is healthy)

a good habit to get into is arguing against yourself and holding yourself to a high standard of proof. the reason my argumentation tends to be so thorough is that i try to be as skeptical of my own theories as i am of other people’s. if i have an idea that seems right but doesn’t withstand textual scrutiny, i discard it. (or i might toss it into the headcanon/au idea pile, if i’m very fond of it.) i will often develop more than one argument about a given subject and then lay them all against the text before i commit to one. being skeptical will push you to pay closer attention.

cultivate curiosity about your own emotional reactions, too. what did this scene make you feel? why? how do you feel about this or that character? what draws you to your favorite characters? what distances you from the characters you don’t like? what ideas come to mind when you think about the story and what it means to you? if you have a strong reaction to something—good or bad—try to trace that feeling to its root. what sparked it and why?

once you start digging into that you’ll find that your intuitive reactions to the story are non-arbitrary—you’re subconsciously picking up on certain patterns or themes that resonate with you. so paying attention to what the story makes you feel and asking how and why it incites those feelings will guide you to conscious discovery of things you’ve already noticed without noticing.

and another good point of entry is to look for recurring symbols / imagery—for example, silver-eyes get associated with death and reincarnation through a combination of harvest/reaper imagery (scythe, sickle, ‘the grimm reaper’) and butterflies (ruby’s first glare resembles wings, butterflies everywhere when she and maria discuss her eyes, butterflies symbolizing ascension in the ever after). adding this pattern together with the white light in the liminal void between realms (the threshold of life and death!), the implication that silver-eyes came from ozma (who dies and reincarnates cyclically), the stated purpose of the glare (to preserve and protect life), ruby hearing pyrrha’s final words in her dreams (which she didn’t hear in reality), and the glare having destroyed the hand cinder used to kill pyrrha, is how i got to “silver-eyes are psychopomps,” because both the symbolism and the narrative facts about the power line up in that direction.

the one thing to be careful with in relation to symbolism is not to treat it like a secret code! symbolic meaning isn’t universal so you should always consider symbolism in context with the narrative. the first question should always be “what idea does this image appear in connection to, when it appears?” i.e. the burning rose in rwby symbolizes mourning. think of symbols as more like trail markers that the narrative has placed to help you understand the story by connecting dots. we see the burning rose on summer’s grave and then we see it on ruby; she carries her mother’s absence with her. she gives the brooch away in the ever after right after the blacksmith shows her a glimpse of summer, and then in the storm her reflection is summer but ruby doesn’t look, doesn’t see: she’s avoiding her grief, trying to pretend it isn’t there. and then the brooch returns to her once she faces what the blacksmith wanted to show her about her mom: now it’s a symbol for acceptance of loss.

and with a story like rwby that uses allusion to develop its thematic narrative it’s really helpful to read the texts it alludes to! the core narrative allusions are the marvelous land of oz, maiden in tower fairytales (petrosinella, persinette, rapunzel), cinderella, and the little prince, plus alice’s adventures in wonderland & through the looking glass for the ever after. and then every major character has a specific character allusion. both kinds of allusion are symbolic/thematic (you can’t use allusions to predict specific plot events but they help tie together emotional arcs and character relationships cohesively, and the narrative allusions are pretty good weather vanes for very broad-strokes things like ozma’s symbolic blindness being ‘healed’ in the end).

rewatching the show a couple of times will also help, especially if you take notes. i’m not sure how many times i’ve rewatched v1-8 but it’s a lot and i’ve watched v9 in full twice, plus rewatching a lot of specific episodes or scenes for reference. rewatching will help you spot patterns that you missed before and increase your familiarity with the text in general, both of which help tremendously.

[lottepriant]

Hypnosis Case Study: Reminiscing

I was consulting on a scene with a couple of domme & hypnotist friends of mine, and I realised that one thing we don't especially do very often in hypnosis is… analyse. Collaboratively. Share thoughts on a concept, or an idea, or a scene - not in a "this is hot" way, but in a breaking down a scene and an interaction way.

So, let's try this. I'm going to lay out a brief description of a scene/vibe and a subject (who was very kind to volunteer up herself + this story for public display :P) - if you want to play along, share your thoughts on how you might approach the concepts below with this subject. What things would you pay attention to? How would you frame the idea? Can you forsee any potential issues? What would be your angle of attack here?

In a couple of days, I'll post how I did it (this scene happened yesterday) and how it went. If you have any questions, reply to this post, and I'll see if I can give you more information.

Your subject, C, has been your play partner and friend for a few months. You hit it off at a hypnosis munch a few months back, where she caught your eye by sharing some particularly interesting insights about her experiences with VR hypnosis and the different affordances between VR and meatspace scenes. Since then, you've played a half-dozen times, and spoken a lot about your respective approaches on kink, and also just general life and interests. In a kink context - as a submissive - she loves feeling controlled, helpless, and special - the latter being particularly important. Any hint that she might be fungible, or that her submission and time and attention isn't valued, is a real issue.

Which is not to say that she likes her scenes warm and fluffy, oh no. She's an intense emotional masochist, especially around fear play, and enjoys predator-prey vibes. Also the idea of being manipulated and coerced - by word or by force. In my first scene with her, I threatened her with a (blunt) knife and told her that it'd be two days before anyone came looking for her. After the scene ended, she burst out into maniacal laughter. She's quite an accomplished subject, too, and an active one - communicative during trance and out of it, and very good at adapting suggestions and concepts as she needs.

She has quite a "strong sense of self" (her words) and dislikes it when suggestions or concepts are trying to impose themselves over her personality and that sense of self. She is very comfortable with the idea of being altered, but in a way that is about being a more useful version of herself for the moment rather than a fundamental imposition of another way of being on top of her core self.

I've played with her a few times now, and she has a habit of gushing (her word) about me and our scenes to her kinky friends. We were talking about this concept, and she came up with an idea for our next scene: "Use some memory fuckery to seperate the fact that you're the person behind all the scenes we've done together. Have it so that we're talking about kink, and sit back and listen to me gush to you - about what we've done - like it wasn't you."

This scene can - optionally - also include some element of taking advantage or otherwise manipulating, coercing, drugging, etc. her - but the core should be, at least to begin with, that reminiscing over her scenes to me as though it wasn't me who topped them.

[bartletslesbians]

i'm always trying to remember what i followed you for when i see you on the dashboard coz i'd never heard of the west wing tilll you started posting about cj lol. is the show really that good? im not from the US so i feel like the politic parts would be boring or not make sense but i wanna understand your posts

That is so fair LMAO, hi! I used to be siriuslysapphic? I used to do a lot of HP femslash, mostly marauders era, a lot of Narcissa related stuff. I wrote a lot of trans!Narcissa? That obsession has now shifted to The West Wing and finding excuses to write femslash for this 25 year old political drama.

But I would actually highly recommend the show! I am also not from the US, and when I first started watching it (almost ten years ago, so I was a teenager), that was my qualm about it too. It was my dad's favourite show, and I kinda hated the idea of watching some 'boring' political drama about US politics of all things. But once I started I fell in love surprisingly quickly? I think one of the things this show does really well is to take complicated and otherwise objectively pretty boring topics and make them genuinely fun to watch. Even when I didn't fully get everything they were talking about (especially when I wasn't even totally sure yet what the difference was between the senate and the house of representatives at 15 yknow), they'll either explain what's going on or why that is important, or the specific bill they're arguing about doesn't really matter for the scene, it's about the way the characters are approaching it or a larger plot that's going on.

And the characters and the dialogue are just incredible, which makes almost anything they're talking about just feel genuinely engaging and fun. It's wishfulfillment politics from 25 years ago, so in today's political climate it's a bit jarring sometimes but also a really nice way to escape it all a little bit for something more hopeful, too lmao.

I will say, it IS US politics from 25 years ago. So while it's idealistic in a way for the time, you gotta keep in mind that the show's aged and not always that well. Especially if you're not from the US, the way they talk about the US military and foreign policy (especially the Middle East) is jarring at times, and the state of like gay rights discussions and the treatment of the one woman (and complete lack of any people of color) on the senior staff is? What you'd realistically expect? It's US politics in the early 2000s and it shows sometimes, so that's not always fun, and that's not even really a criticism cause of course that happens with political shows especially, it ages quickly and thay shows, but especially with all that's going on, it's nice to know what you're getting lmao. Though there are absolutely times where I'm pleasantly surprised at the nuance they bring to a lot of discussions! They very clearly make a big effort to, it's just that they made the effort a While ago.

But I'd genuinely highly recommend it. I think CJ Cregg is one of my all-time favourite characters, and while my blog should not trick you into thinking there's any canon femslash happening, I do actually think there are characters and moments that could lend itself for it perfectly and it's really fun to explore that in the context of the show.

(One thing that might also be fun: Queer Gals Watch The West Wing is a podcast that's watching TWW for the first time this year, doing one episode per week and just discussing it and giving political background information to what's being discussed in the episode! Some deep dives and some basics of "what does a Vice President actually do?" and I think it's a lot of fun to hear people discover the show for the first time in today's world and talk about that)

[nelyos-right-hand]

Hey there so I think your post is wonderful and has only good intentions and you seem like a great person!

However…here’s the thing. I was recently bullied out of the fandom because I made a single post where I said that I liked both elwing and maedhros. This person hates elwing, luthien, aeredhel, and andreth, and they actually came onto your fandom peace post and proceeded to vague blog me while tearing down my personal character. At a certain point it becomes hard not to take the context clues. If you dislike every woman in the book, it’s really hard not to think something about that.

It is true that fictional taste does not translate to a moral stance… to an extent. I minored in feminist theory in grad school and wrote my thesis on it. And misogynists (cis men usually but not always) do like to push women out of fandom spaces by either sexualizing, demonizing or otherwise demeaning both the fictional and very real women who are a part of it .

Maybe I’m way off here. Maybe it’s my fault I got bullied out of this space (certainly I knew better than to mention elwing). It’s hard to say because you’re right, you can’t assume anything about someone through a screen. But the extent of vitriol that people get if they so much as mention elwing… I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like an equal battle ground to me and while you can’t call someone pro murder for liking a fictional murderer, you can question someone’s stance on women if they hate every woman in a book.

Once again, you seem wonderful and this is not a critique of you

(This is not the anon from earlier btw)

Hi Anon!

First of all: Thanks for staying kind!

I understand your argument, and it adds an interesting angle I didn't think about before. I also wish that there were less arguments surrounding Elwing and M&M, especially since fandom exists so fans can enjoy the things they agree on together, not fight over the things they disagree on.

On the topic of misogyny and feminist theory and all of that: I'm honestly gonna say that I'm not an expert on this topic, and that it's not an easy topic either, and that I feel kind of unqualified to answer such difficult questions, because, even though my blog is not a very big one, you always have a certain responsibility on the internet, so I would feel more comfortable leaving such complicated and important questions to people who are more informed on this and actually know what they are talking about (to specify: I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, but that I wouldn't know what I was talking about).

I'm sorry that I couldn't really answer this ask, I just feel slightly out of my depths, and since it is a really important topic I feel like I should rather be careful and say nothing at all, than accidentally say something wrong or offending. I'm still glad you shared your point of view, though, and hope you understand! Have a great day!

[theworldgate]

Okay, so, wild speculation time but: I think Nashi could appear in Duskmourn: House of Horror. Like, in a major role.

Now, I, obviously, do not wish harm upon Tamiyo's beloved ratperson son, but also I think there are a bunch of factors that make it make sense for this to happen. [Edit to add: uh wait hang on we got some Duskmourn art in the [admittedly too long] I spent writing this?! Really?!]

Like, enough that I'm going to stick a "read more" in here.

Anyway, to start off: Wizards probably does need some established characters to Experience the Horrors. Like, there's the idea of horror as corrupted familiarity - already-known characters can be a source of said familiarity. It's why all those Pokémon creepypastas exist[1]. Also every set has at least some tie, at the very least thematically, to the larger plot (yes even Zendikar Rising). This, obviously, doesn't necessarily mean Nashi, specifically, has to be there, but it is relevant context for all the rest of this.

Nashi is teen-coded [I do not know quite how old he's meant to be, and him being a Nezumi might complicate it, but he is still A Teen in every important respect]. Now, I am no Modern Horror Expert (tm), but a lot of those stories do focus on teen characters and... in terms of the present timeline we have Nashi, Kellan and. Uh. Shadowblayde-with-a-y? Like there are not that many Teen characters, especially with the recent timeskips. Like, Rat might technically be 19 at the youngest now. And, speaking of Rat, well, with apologies to her fans, I think we're still close enough to War of the Spark for Wizards to be nervous about introducing a new character to be the token teenager [in the main story. There might be other Teenaged Horror Protag/Victim creature cards in there].

Nashi also just starred in a story in a set with 43 other Legendary Creatures [not including Commander exclusives, or Loot], despite not getting a card himself. This might just be because Wizards let Akemi Dawn Bowman write whatever for her OTJ side-story, but there might well be a reason they brought Nashi back here. (I mean, it's a good story, and sometimes Side Stories are just there, but I'm assuming relevance for the sake of argument.)

"A Long Way From Home" further established Nashi's power as cameras - indeed, his entire thing as telling stories through cameras. The very limited information we have for Duskmourn includes the set logo. Which has freaking scanlines. Also cameras and found footage and people attempting to record the horrors for posterity are all modern horror staples [I would do a list but it would get long]. Again, Nashi is the clearest link to these tropes 'normally', and he's just about reckless enough that him getting involved doesn't seem particularly OOC.

Finally, Nashi uses his OP camera powers to steal an "elixir" described thusly: "The liquid was deep red and unmistakably metallic. There was no writing on the bottle, but Nashi's nostrils flared when he picked up its scent. The magic was abhorrently pungent, and the stench made his eyes water.".

I don't think anyone has managed to ID this incredibly suspicious potion. He presumably went ahead and drank this stuff, or otherwise still has it. I would not be surprised if it actually had some ties to the horror plane/plane horror and drinking this mysterious red liquid is part of how you end up on/in Duskmourn (like, it has the urban legend feel to it, and the power, or other desired thing, at an extreme and unpredictable price implemented by an almost cosmic force is also a big horror thing that falls outside of the Innistrad remit). Like this is pure speculation, to be clear, but it also really fits the vibe imo.

SUPER DUPER BONUS POINT

Kaito confirmed for Duskmourn! I mean. Kaito was mentioned in Nashi's story, because Nashi still has very complex feelings about the "Kaito didn't save my mom" thing. So it's a point in favour! But also, like, I feel as if Nashi would be in that type of art if he was appearing, so...

[1] Point adapted from Supereyepatchwolf, who used the phrase "dissolution of our world's boundaries" from... uh, I'm not sure where, Googling gets stuff about demon summoning (like... results about it in those words, thanks 'AI'), and a video he referenced didn't seem to use it in the first several minutes but using "normalcy" as part of said boundaries. (ngl, I like "corrupted familiarity" better).

[ineffablecolors]

hey just wondering why you think Roy reuniting w Keeley post s3 would’ve been bad for him? I sort of agree but also don’t want to bash keeley in anyway so I haven’t talked about it

Heya! Thanks for the ask and sorry you feel like you can't discuss something though I do understand why. I'll preface this by repeating something I've said before - canon did such a horrible job of holding Keeley accountable for anything and wrote her as if she could do no wrong and fandom seems to have picked that up and totally ran with it.

I do love that when reading RoyJamie fanfic, I never see Keeley bashing, as you call it, because vilifying female chatacters is such common practice in fandoms. But Ted Lasso fandom seems to swing to the other extreme where I've never even read a fic where Keeley apologises for something? And you can't even quite blame the fans, they just picked what canon put down - Keeley can do no wrong.

So, first of all, I think simply judging Keeley's actions is not bashing at all, it's just treating her the way every character BUT her is treated in both fandom and show. I think Keeley, like almost every other character, has made plenty of bad decisions and mistakes and, personally, how I react to them is a mix of how well I can relate to her and something else. Jack, for example, was a very professionally questionable decision but I completely sympathise with Keeley for it because 1) she faced consequences for her mistake even if it's never acknowledged that she made one and 2) I can relate to it! Hiring Shandy on the other hand was such a monumentally stupid decision that I could never relate to, so it just makes me annoyed with Keeley and the fact that the show treated it as her just being too sweet and wanting to give another horribly unqualified woman a chance rather than as a point towards her lack of professional skills.

Anyway!! The something else is important for my answer. As much as I love discussing my favourite shows and try to be objective, I very rarely am. Once I pick a favourite character, my opinion of almost every other character is informed by how they treat my favouriteTM. Is that fair? No. Do I do it without fail? Yes. Do I feel bad for it? Umm, no, that's my baby, nobody is allowed to be mean to them xD

And this is how we get to the Roy Kent of it all (finally! christ, this is gonna be long, sorry but also thanks!). Roy's my favourite, my baby, my grumpy, old, emotionally constipated and physically aching romantic. Roy can and has done wrong, I'd never claim otherwise. But I'd still claim he's the best chatacter and one of the best people on the show. And he's always gonna put himself last on his list of priorities.

Which is why I fully admit that I judge Keeley extra harshly when it comes to her and Roy. For brief context - I totally shipped Roy and Keeley and think they were good for each other, for the most part, in s1, I was ecstatic they were together in s2 and still shipped them like hell on my first watch (which was binged with s1!) and less and less on every consequent rewatch, part of me still wanted them to be together and then to get back together in s3 until I actually watched it all and completely changed my mind.

Shall I finally answer your question? I don't think Roy should reunite with Keeley because he gives too much of himself and she gives too little. I don't believe they are well balanced and I dont believe he'd feel loved with her again.

That WAS brief! But if you'd like more detail...

I think as sweet and good-hearted as she's portraited, Keeley is inherently a selfish person. Now, we circle back to bashing and judging. I'm doing neither. I'm myself a selfish person in many ways, that's not the worst thing to be in some regards. But I think Keeley is especially selfish in her romantic relationships and that simply does not suit someone like Roy. When paired with a selfish partner, Roy would just give and give and blame himself for not getting as much back.

I'm not saying there haven't been some great moments between Roy and Keeley, full of affection and care from Keeley, such as the scene at the end of s1. That's probably my favourite moment of theirs. But there have been some pretty shit ones too that for me outweigh the good and, more importantly, came once they settle into the relationship.

As early as their first kiss, Keeley got so annoyed and impatient, she immediately slept with Jamie. I know the show took it as an opportunity to have a kinda feminist moment but can you picture that turned around? Roy and Keeley kiss after tons of flirting and build up, and the day after Roy sleeps with a girl Keeley has a proper (however childish) feud with just cuz she told him she was busy that night. That would've never been fine. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's the response of a person who only cares about what they want and doesn't plan for the future.

Then, we have the infamous "Roy is a fridge magnet" episode which I still can't wrap my mind around so gimme a sec here. Your boyfriend is too into you, is perfect (by Keeley's own words) but not giving you the space you haven't asked for. So, instead of talking to him - don't even get me started on people writing Keeley as a character who's good as communicating - girl, where?? - you talk about it to his boss, a bunch of his coworkers and your ex who has an antagonistic relationship with him, and eventually as you're spending time together and he's trying to share one of his interests with you, you start screaming bloody murder at him about how clingy he is. Do I have that all correct? All of this would have been forgivable ofc, miscommunication happens, people aren't perfect, etc, etc, expect... forgiveness was asked by the wrong person. What on earth did Roy have to apologise for? This is the #1 example for me of that show trying so hard to make Keeley a perfect sunshine girl boss that they made 0 narrative or even logical sense. Honestly I hate that whole episode with a fiery passion.

Then we have the funeral shenanigans, which I won't even get into because I think Roy was 100% hilarious in that and Keeley was 100% overreacting (and yes, that's a heavy term to use towards a woman but here's the thing... she was). I guess this would be a good place to talk about their ILYs as well. Roy's ILYs always come with an acknowledgement of Keeley's feelings and his own fault for hurting them in anyway. Keeley's first ILY though has absolutely nothing to do with Roy. She's happy about her own success and he's celebrating her. That's it. That's the first time we see her say I love you. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Roy's aren't better but I think that just proves why he couldn't be happy with Keeley. Every time he's said ILY, it's been tinged with sadness and guilt and self-incrimination. Why would I want him to be with someone who constantly inspires those feelings in him?

This is now definitely too long so I'll try to wrap up with s3 very quickly and mainly the fact that the episode Keeley is drinking alone in the pub is one of the only ones where Keeley faces consequence for her actions (in this case, sleeping with her boss - again, not something I blame or begrudge her for but also something she should've probably considered can get her funding pulled when it ends, see: never thinking about the future (and why I don't see Keeley being successful without people like Barbara or Rebecca but thats a different topic)). Keeley responds to being made to face the music by using Roy to make herself feel better. I'm sorry but there's no other interpretation of their hook up for me. He's just read her a very heartfelt apology, ending with another guilt ridden ILY and then he was leaving. Except she chased him down, not to say it back ofc, but to use him for sex.

Thanks, I hate it.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the fact that I think Roy was right to break up with Keeley. Not because she's not a great catch and not because there was anything wrong with her being successful or needing time for herself but because they're not right for each other. Roy is too selfless and ready to blame himself for everything and Keeley is too focused on herself and ready to take advantage of that.

Roy is the kind of romantic that would tell his cabbie to date his wife and compose a playlist for the girlfriend who treated him horribly yesterday. He's the kind of guy that's had to bottle up all his emotions forever and never talks about himself with people and has had his fucking watch stolen by his fucking hook ups. He deserves someone *cough*Jamie*cough* who is absolutely obsessed with him! Who will appreciate the things he does for them and the time he spends with them rather than take them for granted at best and be annoyed at worst. Who will make him feel like he's been struck by lightning! He deserve someone who cares about his feeling and frankly, in season 3 at least, I don't think that's Keeley or should be again.

[system-of-a-feather]

I'm glad you're going hogwild on Bleach rn. It was also a major part of our childhood and development, and I feel like there's still a ton to get out of it, even from an older perspective. (Not trying to sound uppity or anything, I really love Bleach.)

What do you think about the idea of Ichigo as a CDD allegory? I don't think he was written with that in mind, but reading through the manga, there are a lot of scenes that make me go "hmMMMMMM."

(Never watched the anime, lol. Manga-only)

Funny you should ask that question. I have actually already made a very important post on the topic of Ichigo as a CDD allegory. /hj

Honestly though, I think its one of my favorite "not intentionally a CDD but very relatable as someone with a CDD". Like I'd have to get further into TYBW and later cause I know they expand and drop some lore secrets about the dynamic of the part (I was gonna edit that to be more accurate to the world context of Bleach but I felt that term is telling about how I feel about the allegory XD) that make up Ichigo's soul and shit.

I know a lot of what is revealed because as good as I obstained from a lot of spoilers, I actually heard a rumor that Hollow Ichigo isn't seen after the Aizen-Karakura town arc and I was so distraught at that that I let it be something I got spoiled on before it was announced that it would continue. At the time, I thought it upset me cause I thought the hollow stuff was cool, but that reasoning didn't really make sense to me because I was actually like *sad* in a "no thats not fair or right, hollow ichigo deserves to live too" which in hindsight, I realize was probably some not-entirely subconscious "no don't just delete and erase the existance of a part of yourself!!! You should make friends with them and make them your best ally!!! I want to see more HIchi and Ichigo interact ;w;"

and also

like

lowkey I had a Hollow Ichigo introject in my head that I didn't know about for the longest time so it was probably pretty personal

But personal shit aside, I honestly really do like it. I mean to some level - especially early in the series - its a lot of "oooooh spooky evil alter" vibes, but honest to god - and this is a controversial opinion - I think we need more nuanced "evil" alter representation rather than the elimination of the "evil alter" trope because shitty asshole alters exist and are actually common and I think its a lot more meaningful to show how two completely conflicting and otherwise aggressive towards eachother individuals can find a middle ground and empower eachother. Which is what Bleach does particularly with Ichigo and his hollow self and UNIRONICALLY the whole Bleach arc Ichigo has with his hollow self is incredibly similar to the "arc" that XIV and I had which, go figure. Me the Shounen Boy Optimist protagonist and a literal hollow ichigo introject had a similar arc to the Shounen Protagonist and Hollow ichigo. Do you see the shock in my voice?

Honestly if I have time and feel like it (unlikely since I don't often have time) I might put a longer opinion / discussion on it, but honestly, even outside of Ichigo, I think the way Bleach handles Zanpaktous and even stuff like Lillynette and Stark is just a really fun way to have a lot of plural / CDD adjacent themes and vibes without necessarily even being an allegory.

The idea of being able to have a manifestation of your soul and the power it has take a sentient form and the bonding, communication, and collaboration with said manifestation being the key to increased power and skill development is just??? The coolest thing?

Honestly I think Bleach has subconsciously informed a lot of how our system is structured and interacts in more ways than we are probably cognitively currently aware of and I think to some good level that whole just general vibe probably plays a role in it somewhere.

But man, I love this show. I honestly am genuinely thinking of returning to my natural autistic instincts and just chronically watching it whenever I dont have anything else to watch because I really DONT need to have a variety of shows to watch and honestly if something aint broke, why ever change it /hj

I can have a comfort anime smh

[royalreef]

@lambfated inquired: 👁️ - How often do they make eye contact? The Little Things - Accepting

(( In more formal settings, Miranda maintains eye contact very well! Her eyes are very striking, and with the way that she speaks, she tends not to let people who have caught her attention escape it anytime soon, and within crowds she's very good at making everyone she's talking to feel like she's paying attention to them specifically.

However, this is all learned behavior. Eye contact seldom means very much inside the Merkingdom, and usually in the cases where it means anything at all it's aggressive/dominant. This means that the more comfortable she is with someone, the rarer it is she'll bother even thinking about eye contact or looking in their direction at all. The bigger, more important tell is where her fins are angled, which is where she's listening and what she's listening to.

However, she's also very aware that eye contact means a lot more to landfolk, and it already meant more to her than your average merfolk, since a royal's attention is by definition a threat and a power play. So she has to take care to do it more, to look at landfolk more directly and to make it seem like she's looking at them, changing her behavior so as to not be caught off guard or seem weak to landfolk company. This isn't to say she doesn't look at all at the people who she's close to, or that she won't tend to stare in informal situations, especially if she doesn't realize it's inappropriate, but it's a gesture more to distance between her and the other person. Of difference, in a way.

There's a very good reason I draw attention to how it feels when she's pinning someone down in her sights, not just in the way that her eyes and the act of her looking at someone else is distinctly inhuman (not having any whites to her eyes, and thus seeming less emotive, and the slit pupils making it even harder to recognize her as a member of one's own moral community, the only other context in which these show up being from large predators when they're hunting), but because it also intersects heavily with power and authority, the sense of who's allowed to look at who and what the act of looking means.

It's the same reason that Miranda willfully closing her eyes, resting with her eyes shut around someone, or just otherwise shutting her eyes is a gesture of closeness and of willful vulnerability, because then I can show her being able to not pay attention at all.