#get in the way of exploring all facets of the human condition. )

[amiya-shirou]

I love how despite the Seaborn having a very minor role during Exodus from the Pale Sea their presence is still embedded so deeply in every facet of the story. I don't just mean how they're the reason the Pale Sea exists or how one of them appears in the event, but also the way they affect the themes of the story, which applies the Human Individuality vs Seaborn Collective conflict we've already explored in the Abyssal Hunter events to a tale where every part is played by humans.

There's something in the way Anastasio stands against any and all desires, almost word for word quoting Arturia as something that should be fought against at all costs. The way Arturia in turn thought of the Seaborn as boring because they lacked that desire. The way the citizens in this story are so scared of desire, how they fell so deeply on the Inquisition's teachings to survive and try to forget the horror they lived through that even now that much of the danger has passed and the conditions are better they still dare not fill their bellies even if there's food, they dare not buy something that might look fun from the caravans, they dare not wish for anything for themselves, almost every ounce of individuality they once had completely destroyed to the point that when Silver tried lifting the bans and letting them live a better life they couldn't accept it and wanted the prohibitions to come back, readily switching side to Anastasio to get back that familiar sense of comfort and stability the rules gave them even if they had long exhausted their material purpose. The very Inquisition that's so hellbent on eradicating the Seaborn from the land while making speeches about the superiority of human civilization ended up turning the people they swore to protect in something that's not so different from them, or even fully ready to join We Many as seen in other events with the way the Church of the Deep is able to pray on the discontent of the Iberians.

But as Deepcolor once noted in her operator record, it's impossible to completely eradicate your humanity, just like the Priest she talks to couldn't fully become Seaborn due to his curiosity or she couldn't become one because of her artistic passion, and in fact if you look at the conditions of both the citizens and Anastasio, they're all just guided by fear. After all the Seaborn have no concept of guilt or sinning, they're just driven by the instinct to keep the collective going and any of them would readily sacrifice itself for the others and they're shown wanting to free their kin even as they're actively being killed by them - meanwhile Silver trying to help the city by reforming the pirates and making some compromises so that everyone could live better is met by Anastasio with disdain, because his teachings don't allow for real forgiveness except for the one given by death, no matter if "the collective" has to live a life of misery because of it. He values peace of mind above the physical well being of the people in a way that's the farthest you could ever get from We Many, but the way he gets it is by violently eradicating the core difference between us and them. He seeks the embrace of death, deeply mythologizing it like a human would, while being driven by an incredibly powerful directive to live on like a Seaborn would, straight up coming back from the death three times. He's a walking contradiction, and when the event ends with him literally being shown as a mix of both, everything falls into pieces. It's a tale about how self-destructive repressing your wishes and individuality and trying to force everyone to adhere to a single doctrine - trying to live as a seaborn while being human - is.

And of course the final touch is how well all this works as a premise for Arknights to make a story about pirates, because of course even if they're not actual good guys and in fact very violent and did plenty of bad things on screen, they'll forever be a great stand-in for the concept of seeking freedom and following what your heart desires (and in fact the whole plot revolved around the Corazonix, one side wishing for what it promised, the other believing it only brings corruption). Juana and her crew are the other extreme to the Inquisition in the city, people solely guided by their desires to the point they become destructive, and while we had to fight both sides during the event, the final resolution is about accepting them as shown with Thorns's very simple wish that guides him to victory against Anastasio - he just wants to see the ocean. The story ends with the beginning of a straightforward pirate story with Isidro and his fun band of misfits going on an adventure, re-contextualized in a setting where the Profound Silence had long since suffocated any notion of dreaming about the future, any notion of the sea as something you want to admire and explore rather than a place of horror and death as it's always been presented in Arknights up until now.

It's neat.

[mrs-stans]

A Different Man dives into an absurdist exploration of identity

Sebastian Stan and Adam Pearson are unforgettable as friends and rivals in a beautifully bizarre take on what it means to be human.

By: Sarah Gorr

A Different Man dives into an absurdist exploration of identity

A Different Man is all about what it means to be seen, in all the best and worst ways. It’s what it means to avoid eye contact with the unhoused man on the subway and to gawk at anyone who looks remotely outside the norm. It’s the difference between simply being noticed and being intimately seen, the way only someone who actually understands you can.

Writer and director Aaron Schimberg looks for as many ways as possible to play with these ideas, fitting the seer and seen inside each other in a little matryoshka doll. But first and foremost, our gaze is on Edward.

Adam Pearson isn’t internationally known, but he’s known to rock a microphone. (Matt Infante/A24)

Edward (Sebastian Stan) is a struggling actor with a rare condition that covers his face with large, benign tumors. He’s quiet and reserved. His every movement reveals a discomfort even existing in the world, never mind taking part in it. So when he gets the chance to take an experimental new drug that can completely heal him, he does so without a thought. Reborn as his new, more handsome self, he finally gets what should be the part of a lifetime in a local play based on his life. That is until Oswald, a man with the same condition as Edward, steals the part. In the process, this new arrival reveals just how exactly Edward has actually transformed.

Sebastian Stan captures all the nuance and complexity of Edward as he stumbles through this journey in a manner that’s nothing short of impressive. Hidden behind Mike Marino’s brilliant prosthetics, Stab carries the weight of his performance in body language. The slump of his shoulders, the way his eyes apologetically flit to those around him as if apologizing for even existing. Post-procedure, Stan infuses the performance with Edward’s confusion, frustration, and even unbridled rage. Schimberg’s script is an actor’s dream, and Stan more than lives up to the part.

Renate Reinsve isn’t buying what Sebastian Stan is selling vis a vis a plaid couch. (Matt Infante/A24)

Meanwhile, Adam Pearson’s performance as Edward’s foil, Oswald, was clearly crafted with the actor in mind. It’s an incredible showcase for Pearson’s exuberance and energy. He steal every scene he’s in and gives Edward’s jealousy the perfect excuse to boil over. He embodies everything Edward is not: charming, confident, witty. Pearson’s Oswald is a man you not only want to know but are downright grateful to have in your life.

Together, Pearson and Stan depict a dynamic that is mesmerizing to watch. Does any of Schimberg’s script work half as well without them? Honestly, it’s impossible to imagine.

However, audiences shouldn’t take that as a slight against Schimberg. His script is an intensely rich text, less Beauty and the Beast, more The Scorpion and the Turtle. A Different Man questions not just what’s in a person’s nature but what benefits or inhibits the performance of identity. In art, what makes something feel real or true? What truths benefit a piece? Which hinder? What facets of ourselves we take as inherent truths are anything but?

Sebastian Stan is giving what if autumn was fashion.(Matt Infante/A24)

It’s a film in a constant push/pull with transformation vs. consistency. Permeating it all is a sense of bleakness that seems to radiate from Edward himself. It infects everything from Umberto Smerilli’s bold and moody score to the film’s very texture, with its high contrast, sharp shadows, and rich color. It all comes together as if to say Edward’s insecurities, anxieties, and sadness that can’t seem to disappear as quickly as his features transformed.

Schimberg’s depiction of Edward’s journey to something like a discovery of self is part tragic, fully comic, and delightfully absurd. It’s a distinct film, despite the comparisons to Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance that people are already forming, and more than worth the price of admission.

A Different Man gives face in limited theatres starting September 20 before opening wide on October 4.

[kitsmits]

Nobody asked, but here are my rambling thoughts about Bleach’s Aizen Sousuke

Aizen Sousuke. The man, the myth, the legend. The villain who ~allegedly~ planned out so much of Bleach’s storyline that the fact that that is a meme is, in itself, a meme. And also probably part of Aizen’s plan.

I’m fascinated by this character, to say the least. I mean, why else would I be writing an Aizen/OC fanfiction on both AO3 and FF.net? (Shameless plug. Sorry not sorry.) Despite my many thoughts - so numerous are they that anytime I reply to a comment on “Mono no Aware,” I wind up with a graduate dissertation - I’m not entirely sure where to start with this guy. He’s complex in some ways, yet simple in others, fitting neatly into some psychological molds until you come across that one trait or act that makes you question your whole thesis. Fitting, really.

I don’t think there is one definitive, absolute answer for who Aizen Sousuke is. Even Kubo’s own idea of him isn’t necessarily the only one - once an artist puts their creation out into the world, that creation is open to interpretation by others. Again, rather fitting that we’re talking about a character whose entire power is based on the ideas of suggestion and perception.

It’s fun to explore various facets and ways to interpret a character though, so today I’d like to look at a few: psychology (Aizen the Sociopath), mythology (Aizen the Trickster), reality(I guess…) (Aizen the Opportunist), and philosophy (Aizen the Ubermensch).

So let’s start with psychology.

Aizen the Sociopath

Antisocial personality disorder, commonly/colloquially referred as “sociopathy,” is defined as “a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.” (Mayo Clinic) For the sake of simplicity, I will be using the terms “sociopathy” and “sociopath” here. It’s one of four cluster-B personality disorders within the DSM-V (Diagnositc and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, 5th Edition - the most recent one as of 2023), along with narcissistic, borderline, and histrionic personality disorders. In other words, it is clinically recognized as a mental health condition by the psychology field, and it’s one of a family of personality disorders characterized as having “a consistently dysfunctional pattern of dramatic, overly emotional thinking or unpredictable behavior.” (Considering who we’re talking about…this is kind of surprising, honestly.

To paraphrase the Mayo Clinic’s list of symptoms, sociopaths…

ignore (or have little/no concept of) right and wrong

often lie, steal, use false names, and/or engage in cons

use charm or wit to manipulate others for personal gain

have an inflated sense of superiority and are extremely opinionated

often violate others’ rights and feel little/no remorse for how their behavior negatively affects others

Keep in mind that for a person to be considered a “sociopath,” one must consistently and repeatedly show these traits. Not every mean person is a sociopath, and not all sociopaths are mean (…all the time). Probably the most consistent descriptors I’ve come across for sociopaths are “manipulative” and “callous” - again, they’ll say/do anything to get what they want, and they have no remorse over whether it harms other people.

So…is Aizen a sociopath? And why should we care?

Setting aside the fact that Aizen is a fictional character, and fictional characters are often meant to be simpler than complex, ever-evolving human beings…I’m of the camp that yes, he is. It certainly explains a LOT of his behavior and actions; even the fact that he seems to have no “true” personality fits this mold. Partly because of how Kubo writes him, we can never be certain that anything Aizen says or does is “genuine,” or if he’s just trolling.

Why we should care if he’s a sociopath or not: Eh. Aside from the fun of armchair-diagnosing fictional characters, this gives us a framework within which to work. It gives us consistent traits that help us understand Aizen as a character. It’s sort of like a character sheet or profile: an easily referenced list of traits and tendencies.

However, even if we could truly diagnose Aizen with something, I don’t think that diagnosis would completely define his character. Far from it. Because this is fiction, every major character usually serves a particular purpose for the narrative that influences how they act and how they affect the characters around them. So let’s look at what I believe Aizen’s role is in the Bleach ‘verse.

Aizen the Trickster

A “trickster,” in terms of mythology and folklore, is “a character in a story…who exhibits a great degree of intellect or secret knowledge and uses it to play tricks or otherwise disobey normal rules and defy conventional behavior.” (Thank you, Wikipedia.) Classic examples of tricksters are Loki from Norse mythology; Anansi the spider from West African folklore; and Coyote from many Native American cultures, particularly groups in California and the Great Basin. Even Greek mythology’s Hermes and, at times, Norse mythology’s Odin act as tricksters, using their intellect to deceive others or defy conventions. Tricksters can be villainess or heroic, depending on the tale and their role in it. Consider Odysseus in the Illiad and Odyssey: in both tales (but especially in the latter), he is cast as a hero, but most of his actions are devious and even reprehensible.

I see Aizen as being a trickster in the Bleach ‘verse in many ways:

He’s highly intelligent and possesses “secret knowledge” (ie: truth of the Soul King…but more on that in a bit)

He seeks to defy convention and push all types of boundaries, from combining/transcending Shinigami and Hollow powers (physical boundaries) to being a Shinigami who commands Hollows (societal boundaries)

He openly questions, disrupts, and mocks authority (Even when he was playing the Nice Captain, he was one of the only people to openly question Rukia’s execution…granted, it was All Part of the Plan(TM), but I still find it interesting that he allowed that to be a part of his character at that time)

He enjoys trolling people and making them question their own beliefs and perceptions. Not even just because it’ll benefit him; I think he honestly enjoys throwing people mentally off-balance.

I mean…he openly says it during the TYBW:

Sure, you might say that Aizen’s goal was to kill the Soul King (…I have thoughts about that too), but THIS is the reason for that goal. If it wasn’t the Soul King, it would be whatever other being tried to reign over him. Yhwach, Ichibe, whoever else…Aizen would not tolerate anyone having authority over him. This fits with the Trickster archetype because, at their cores, this is what tricksters do: they challenge authority.

It’s also worth noting that in most Trickster stories, especially ones where the trickster plays the antagonist, the trickster doesn’t exactly “win.” Often, they’re foiled or humiliated in some way, sometimes due to their own hubris; I mean, Loki wound up being tied up with a snake dripping poison into his eyes because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut about having orchestrated the death of one of Odin’s sons. This is also something we see in Aizen’s role in Bleach: At the pinnacle of his power, he is defeated - not only by the hero of the story, but also by another possible “trickster” type (Urahara) and by his own arrogance and, possibly, not knowing his own deepest desires.

Btw - for an interesting take on Aizen “not knowing himself,” check out this video by Nux Taku: Anime’s Most Relatable Overpowered Sociopath - Aizen from Bleach

“Defeated” doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t win, though. In my opinion, Aizen is, above all, a master opportunist who will turn ANY situation in his favor.

“All according to keikaku:” Aizen the Opportunist

Aizen definitely fits a classic “mastermind” mold, no arguments here. But I think people take the meme-worthy “it was all part of my plan” thing a little too far with him. Aside from the tendency of sociopaths and tricksters alike toward self-aggrandizing, and the fact that it benefits Aizen to be perceived as omniscient, let’s be real: He didn’t plan everything out himself from the start. To be honest, the idea that a “mastermind” necessarily sees all possibilities 100 steps ahead is…a bit much. Rather, masterminds like Aizen who play the long game are excellent opportunists.

Just look at how Aizen acts during “Everything But the Rain”: As far as Tousen was concerned, the Hollow “White” was a failure because instead of going after the powerful Shinigami captain, it attacked a Quincy - the one creature in the area that couldn’t be Hollowfied. But to Aizen, this wasn’t a failure: it was an unforeseen turn of events that presented an unprecedented opportunity to study the congruence of two diametrically opposed beings. After all, his whole schtick is about transcending the boundaries between species; of course he’d be curious to see if there was a way for a Quincy and a Hollow to mix without destroying each other. Plus, I’m willing to bet that Aizen at least suspected that this phenomenon might draw Urahara out of hiding, which would give Aizen his location (and thus the location of the other Hogyoku). The fact that Masaki survives with White’s Hollow energy inside of her, AND that she, a Quincy, and Isshin, a Shinigami, fall in love and have a kid…that’s all a bonus that he later works into his plans.

TL;DR: Aizen had plans for White, but when those plans fell through, he turned the situation into a new part of his plan. It all worked toward his ultimate goals in the end. THAT is what makes him such a formidable mastermind: he’ll take any opportunity that comes his way.

Aizen the Übermensch

Okay, I’ll admit I’m gonna be a little lazy here and point y’all to a wonderful analysis video by DBZimran that goes into this topic. The gist is that Aizen embodies the Nietzsche idea of the “Ubermensch,” or “super man” (from before the N*zis appropriated the concept), and that Urahara is the opposing “last man.” It’s really interesting stuff, and DBZimran explains it way better than I feel equipped to right now.

Sosuke Aizen: THE FALSE GOD | BLEACH: Character Analysis

While you’re there, check out his other videos about Bleach. I took a lot of inspiration from his analysis of the Hogyoku when writing Mono no Aware, to be honest.

Other interesting takes on Aizen

I can’t get enough of this man, and if you’ve made it this far in this ridiculous long post, I’m guessing you can’t, either. I’m definitely open to writing more about him, answering prompts, giving headcanons…just ask! Here are some other people I like to reference for Aizen and Bleach content in general:

Youtube:

MrTommo2304

DBZimran

This wonderful hellsite, aka Tumblr (not a definitive list - I’m sure I’ll forget peeps):

@bleachbleachbleach - I LOVE THEIR WORLDBUILDING HEADCANONS OMG

@my-my-my - large variety of headcanons and imagines, from worldbuilding/story analysis to romantic/shmexy stuff

@brittscafe - fun, shmexy headcanons with an excellent grasp on the characters

@recurring-polynya - writer who also has lots of interesting and fun headcanons about the Bleach world; also their page is just really pretty

@brainbleached - silly totally-real-not-at-all-made-up incorrect quotes and such

[lucithornz]

Ship RPF and "relatability and self insert"

So I have seen this idea thrown around a few times now that ship RPFis just x reader fics with extra steps. And as an RPF writer who has written for many RPF ships over the years this just isn't the case. I can't speak for everyone, but I think that this idea stems from a certain way of thinking when it comes specifically to some modern expectations of literature, especially when it comes to the modern romance genre.

I want to start off my saying that I am not trying to shade or downgrade x reader fics. They are not my thing, but I see they have their place, people enjoy them, go crazy have fun out there.

This is going to be talking about why I think some people don't understand the ship RPF side of things and think it's the same as x reader fics. So let me explain my motivations and inspiration for why I write ship RPF, and let's look at where some bad assumptions about people's motivations come from about who reads and writes it and why.

Definitions for clarity.

X reader RPF: any ship where the reader is the one being shipped with a real person in a fictional scenario. Ex. Tom Cruise x reader.

Ship RPF: any ship between two real people that does not include the reader. Ex. Barack Obama x Harry Styles, or for a serious example Charles Leclerc x Max Verstappen.

These are both categories of RPF but they are very different.

I have seen people ask "Why write ship RPF when you really are just writing x reader with extra steps?" The short answer is: I'm not. I am not writing this RPF to be able to self insert.

The reason I write an RPF ship is because there is a specific thing about two people's dynamic that is interesting to me. A rivalry, a friendship, a bitter feud, something that exists between those two people and is full of storytelling potential. Relationship dynamics are varied and there is usually something unique about the way those two people interact that makes me want to explore that dynamic in depth.

The real people, their personalities, their history together matter in RPF ship fic. It would not be the same fic if it was made x reader, at least it wouldn't be good. Because that character would not be them (one of the real people in the ship) anymore, they'd lose all of their characterization that makes them them in the process of stripping them down to make them bland enough for self insert.

I like exploring people's perspectives that are different than mine, both good and bad, in fiction. The fact these people are different from me is part of what makes them so interesting.

My RPF ships to me have a unique chemistry and that is what I aim to dig into with my RPF fic.

Now I want to get into why I think people say "all RPF is self insert"

I think it stems from the more modern notion that all romance is for self insert purposes to some extent. Over the last 10 years, I have seen increasing emphasis placed on the relatability of the main character in a story. That is a high value trait to readers, and this seems to be especially true with modern romance. Because yes, it seems many readers are looking for something romantic, spicy, or some mixture of the two, to relate to.

But I don't think all characters need to be relatable. I personally enjoy reading about characters I have nothing in common with. I find the human condition be relatable enough in it's many facets. This is why you are seeing younger people picking up classics and saying they are unrelatable. There aren't a lot of surface similarities between a 21 year old girl in California living in 2024 and Jane Eyre. But if you dig deeper it's easy to find them.

I have very often seen a critique of a book being "this wasn't relatable to me" or "I couldn't self insert" as if those are things that you should be able to do with most stories. I think that so long as books are written by people then there will be something relatable on the page, a character may be very different but there will be something about their circumstance or emotional journey that resonates with some. I would also add that it is often a deliberate literary choice to create some characters that are very hard to relate to, repulsive villains etc. This is supposed to challenge a reader.

I think that romance as a genre has a lot more to offer than simply being thinly veiled self insert escapism. To me well written romance is a romance that really relies on unique traits of the people falling in love. If a romance is bland enough that it can easily serve as self insert than it has become something else. And again, self insert and x reader stories do have their place, but I have an issue when this becomes the expectation for the genre as a whole.

Is relatability king?

No. I think that expecting stories to always be easily relatable is not a healthy way to approach reading and story telling. It's very narrow minded, and can stray into some dicey territories. I saw a video of one girl who explained she couldn't relate to the main character of a novel because that main character was black. Firstly, this is racist. Secondly, I think it shows just how narrow the window of expected relatiability really is. Some readers need that MC to be just like them to be able to relate at all. I think that if a character is well written and has motivations then they can be relatable in some way, they don't even have to be human characters to achieve this (Red Wall, Watership Down for some examples).

Then there is the implication that if something isn't relatable that it's bad story telling. When if you are finding something unrelatable interrogate why that might be. Is the author making a narrative choice? What is the deeper meaning there? Actually engage with the text instead of stepping away the moment it starts to challenge you.

Back to the RPF of it all

Now why RPF specifically? Because a lot of this can apply to any ship. I think this is more pronounced in RPF because the idea is "that guy is hot, you are writing RPF because you want to have sex with him" (I write sports RPF about race car drivers they are dudes, but insert whichever pronouns are applicable to your case)

Which this isn't the reason some people are writing ship RPF at all. I'm sure there are some. But once again, my main interest in the ship that I write for comes from the chemistry I see between those two guys. I want to see what happens if you put that dynamic in with an alternate universe, a few fucked up tags, and shake well and see what comes out. I often write about people I have no physical attraction to whatsoever.

I think that the above idea is linked to what I discussed earlier about assuming that romance is always an exercise in self insert, which assumes some need for attraction to the love interest. When this is simply not the case.

I think this idea that ship content exists as a step removed from x reader misunderstands the purpose of a lot of story telling, and underestimates an author's motivations, and the reasons people may want to read and write RPF ship stories.

This is once again especially common with RPF about people who are alive and active on the internet today (Kpop, sports, youtubers etc) But I think if you dig into what makes people passionate about a specific ship you will find a lot more depth than you are expecting.

Anyway those are just some thoughts I had on this topic that's been rattling around my brain for a few months,

[emcandon]

Hello ! I finished TAU today and it's been quite a while since a book has crawled its way into my brain and made a home like this; thank you for creating such a wild beautiful hilarious emotional work and characters - the world you built is so deep and I am so deliciously intrigued and delighted by so much of it (all the implied history with the Cradle and ascension and recolonization is making me want to chew drywall (in a good way)) and I can't wait to see what else you have in store, but for now a question that I hope isn't too spoilery: can you talk about how you named the AIs? Every time you dropped in a new one it really spurred my imagination about the circumstances under which it originated (am I right in thinking they became more abstracted from programming terminology as time went on?), and I'd love to hear any thoughts you can share about what you imagined when coming up with them all.

Hi!! I am tickled, I am pleased, I am fed, I am DELIGHT! I hope to tell y'all more about Cradle in the next book! I'm unsure what's going to get shared there, so I have to keep a lid on it!

But AI names are pretty safe, tho there are some interesting implications to be nosed out. I will not explore those implications too deeply bc those will almost definitely get room in the sequel. ANYWAY.

The AIs you meet in TAU have all chosen their own names! Their names are also pretty good indicators as to their particular interests and fascinations -- which themselves tend to derive from facets of their original designs. So it's a bit destiny (design) but a destiny remodeled by active participation in it (autonomy). Iterate Fractal alludes to its fascination with the biological infinite; So-Beloved was devoted to art, particularly music, as a kind of worship of the human condition; Register Parse was driven to connect people and deepen understanding; and Fun-Size Exultation in Perpetuity is just really interested in like, money -- more so gifts and the exchange of things, but all economics as a rule.

[canmom]

seasonal animes: Zom 100/Bucket List of the Dead

watched 5 of the current 6 episodes of Zom100 (I'm watching Zoombie's releases, which have Crunchyroll's translation with better typesetting).

tricky to know what I think...

visually there's nothing to fault - it's got energy and style all over and every episode brings a new crazy impressive sequence, with great choreography to music and inventive staging. that's why I'm watching it, and it consistently delivers! kVin has already written about the strength of the team behind it in great detail. the consistent bright colours of the zombie blood, the use of yellow, the seamless transition between real and abstract - all kick ass.

narratively... it's certainly direct with its themes, but not at all in a bad way, and it's a meaty subject matter for which the whole irreverent take on zombie movies is a fitting metaphor. it won't say it in so many words, but it's clearly about philosophy, finding the 'good life'.

As You Know, the zombies in Romero's movies stood for Consumerism(TM). if the modern world has a deadening, dissociative affect to it, we pull that further, and we get literal walking dead. alongside that is a huge element of wish fulfilment in zombie/post apoc stories: the idea of a reduction to a simpler world, where all the complications of society are stripped back. sure, everyone may die, it's tragic, but the protagonists are given a stage to come into their own as a badass hero type full of Machiavellian virtù.

zom100 doesn't bother with the smokescreen of tragedy, and indeed it uses the contrast between the feelings of of the protag who's getting to live his best life against the backdrop of collapse as a source of comedy. but then it's about poking and prodding at that wish fulfilment, trying to define it more sharply.

our protagonist wasted years at a hyper-exploitative 'black company' but now he's freed, he has to face existential aimlessness; his friend found material and social success but no personal fulfilment and had to conquer his fear to pursue his real dream; the blatant tsundere love-interest girl is too narrowly focused on survival to enjoy her life - each one seems set up to explore some facet of the human condition. the ED shows a fourth member of the MC group, who will presumably explore some other angle of 'how do you live'. if you know how much I like NieR Automata, you can probably imagine that's a theme that's up my street.

so what's the "but"? well it's just so much hetero guy pov lmao. I just... do not connect to the MC, and the show is very heavily structured around providing a stage for him to work out his shit.

for example, it's maybe a little too obvious in introducing characters to demonstrate the theme of the episode, then feeding them to zombies as soon as their purpose is served. the fate of the flight attendants in episode 4 especially bugged me: for our main two boys, the flight attendants are an opportunity to prove their masculinity and sexual prowess (the MC's ability to 'score' is questioned, while it comes effortlessly to his friend). so these girls show up and they hang out; one of the girls has sex with the friend and then promptly dies. the other refuses sex to our protagonist but she talks about her ambitions providing some insight to him and then gets chomped - don't you see, she was reminded of her childhood memories, she had one good day, ah, mono no aware! meanwhile the cynical and slightly arrogant leader of the flight attendant group is the most fun of them all, but she's just zombiebait. the protagonist grieves for all of one minute but then cheers himself up.

and of course you expect characters to die frequently in a zombie story; and the whole point of the show is that the MC's cheerful affect is completely inappropriate for a zombie apocalypse. but the effect of storylines like this is to that it's so manifestly a world of effectively invincible protagonists, where everyone else is basically an NPC. our protagonist will embarrass himself and suffer pratfalls for a joke, but ultimately this is a world that exists to serve him, and he acts like on some level he knows it!

all the same, I'm curious where it will go once it finishes establishing the main cast group.

on a more niche note, it's interesting observing that 'hypercompetent hacker girl in a big coat' is becoming fixated as a love interest pattern. the big coats are cool, so fair enough.

[mediaevalmusereads]

The Bridge of San Luis Rey. By Thornton Wilder. Harper Perennial, 2021 (original publication: 1927).

Rating: 4.5/5 stars

Genre: literary fiction

Series: N/A

Summary: On Friday noon, July the twentieth, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru broke and precipitated five travelers into the gulf below. With this celebrated sentence Thornton Wilder begins The Bridge of San Luis Rey, one of the towering achievements in American fiction and a novel read throughout the world.By chance, a monk witnesses the tragedy. Brother Juniper then embarks on a quest to prove that it was divine intervention rather than chance that led to the deaths of those who perished in the tragedy. His search leads to his own death -- and to the author's timeless investigation into the nature of love and the meaning of the human condition.

***Full review below.***

Content Warnings: attempted suicide

Overview: I don't know much about Thornton Wilder (or about 20th century American literature, for that matter). I haven't read or seen Our Town, so my evaluation of this book is coming out of complete ignorance. I happened to find it on a list of recommended historical fiction novels, and the premise was intriguing, so I gave it a go. Overall, I was surprised by how much I liked this book. Wilder's characters were eccentric and compelling, and his prose style brought them to life in rich, vivid detail. While I can see some readers become frustrated with the lack of an overarching narrative, the individual character portraits were so captivating that this book gets 4.5 stars from me.

Writing: Wilder's prose is superb. It feels elegant without being overly lyrical or formal; it brings characters to life with descriptions evocative of a 18th or 19th century folktale. I really loved the hint of "wisdom literature" that Wilder injected into his writing, and I loved that the book felt old-fashioned yet fresh and new at the same time.

Plot: There isn't really a plot to this book so much as there is a number of character portraits that are brought together following the collapse of a Peruvian bridge. When the bridge of San Luis Rey collapses and sends 5 people falling to their death, a witness named Brother Juniper resolves to investigate in hopes of convincing the locals that their deaths were part of God's plan. The bulk of the novel, then, includes descriptions of the victims, their backgrounds, and their lives so that Brother Juniper may definitely answer the question "why did these 5 people die?"

If you like plot-driven stories, then you probably won't enjoy this book, but if you like character-driven works, this is a spectacular example. The characters all have unique quirks and an array of desires, and many of them have an almost obsessive preoccupation with the object of their affections. Doña María, for example, is desperate for her daughter to love her while Esteban is so connected to his brother that his death leaves him feeling empty. Themes such as love/obsession and religion/spirituality are woven so deftly throughout the novel that it was a delight to see them reappear at different points, each exploring a new facet.

I also very much admired the way Thornton made all the characters feel interconnected. Though they didn't always interact with one another, they belonged to the same community, often crossing paths with prominent secondary characters. This meant that their deaths didn't feel random, but didn't feel like a punishment, either. Instead, it felt like Thornton was painting a picture of a tragedy, one that is deeply felt by the whole town and which has ripple effects across different strata of society. It was incredibly satisfying to read.

Characters: There are quite a few characters in this book, so I'll speak about them more generally rather than giving a detailed critique.

The five victims of the bridge were complex, somewhat eccentric, and very well-realized. I loved that each of them felt unique but all fit into the same world without issue, and I appreciated the way they were used to explore the major themes of the book. While each of them were some mixture of good qualities and bad ones, I didn't get the sense that I was reading about heroes and villains. Each one had attributes that made me like them or feel sorry for them, and each had things that made me side eye them a little bit.

Secondary characters were also masterfully used, often showing up as anchor points across multiple chapters. Both the abbess and the actress, for example, are powerful personalities, and they have unique relationships with each of the victims that makes this book feel like a series of interconnected, overlapping paths. If you enjoy those kinds of "composite novels," you'll definitely appreciate Thornton's work here.

TL;DR: The Bridge of San Luis Rey is a masterful meditation on the meaning of human life, made all the more impactful by its elegant, gnomish prose and cast of complex characters. While some readers might be turned off by lack of a tight narrative and the open-endedness of the denouement, this book is a wonderful study of character, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in creating memorable, impactful character vignettes.

[selfpivot]

Unlocking Success: The Critique That Makes Magic with Self-Compassion

Self-compassion is the bridge that transforms our struggles into opportunities for growth and success.

“If I Am Not Harsh Towards Me, How Am I Supposed to Achieve? “

A frequent question I get asked when discussing self-compassion or hosting a workshop on the topic. Let us look at it-

We as a culture have been taught never to give up, to work hard towards our goal, to be open to suggestions, and to be critical of what we do. Now there is nothing inherently wrong about that kind of thinking, goals cannot be met until you work towards them. Until you receive feedback about a task and you are serious about it, you cannot progress.

The part where it gets on the unhealthy side of it is when one’s sense of self gets attached to it. Growing up in almost all households something besides these virtues that were taught was these unwritten rules or as Carl Rogers put it ‘Conditions of worth’.

Not only do you have to achieve, but if you do not meet a certain standard, you will not be considered worthy as a person and worthy enough to be loved. It was not just about criticism of your work but also criticism of yourself and how much value you should see in yourself. “Success isn’t only about your achievement, but also about being nice to yourself and rising from helpful response. Get in touch with Self-Pivot for Best Online Therapy to achieve your goal.

Self-Compassion: How to Overcome Harsh Self-Criticism

Having a critical view of one’s identity means a very rigid way of living life. Either you are perfect or you are worthless as a human, either you are achieving everything on a given timeline or else you are not enough as a person. The moment every situation, every experience, and every outcome are seen from an angle of being a defining factor of who you are, the criticism does not help you, it cripples you.

It does not allow you to be okay with your limitations and rectify them, it makes you question yourself; it makes you ask yourself how dare you made that mistake. Does this kind of criticism help? It does not. It further withdraws you from growth and consistency. replace in simple word-Self-compassion is the essential toolkit for navigating the complexities of our era, offering a lifeline of kindness in a world full of challenges.

Criticism helps only when you direct it objectively at a task, separate from your worth or character. Treat it like a project and, as a researcher, figure out how to make it work. When you’re curious and passionate, you’ll find ways to stay accountable, and discipline will come naturally.

Achievement then is not a survival mechanism; it helps you thrive and explore different facets of your mind. You do not get bogged down easily.

The harshness, the rules, and the discipline need to be directed toward the work, only then help you achieve it.

Calling yourself a loser does not get the work done, seeing yourself capable of finding a way out gets the work done. And that is where self-compassion comes in.

Self-Compassion: Learning from Mistakes and Criticism:

Self-compassion is another way of saying that you need to consider yourself human, a human who makes mistakes but can also rectify them, a human who can face limitations but also has strengths to overcome them, a human who can have bad days, but that does not mean they cannot come out of it. When there is self-compassion, the self is also functional. Since it is not personal, all the critical viewpoints can be directed to the task at hand.

Questions to ask yourself-

1. When I look back on my past, what kind of self-dialogues made it impossible to get a task done?

2. When I receive criticism about work, do I blame myself, or do I let it be about the work?

3. When I look back on my past, what kind of words would have helped build confidence?

4. What kind of virtues get the work done?

5. What kind of words would help me become more resilient towards my work?

Conclusion:

In this article, we have seen how Online Therapy Sessions help for success by nurturing Self-kindness. These articles come out straight from a therapist’s room.

Your dose of insights with some questions for reflection. after all, therapy is incomplete without some homework on the side. watch this space for more.

[justagalwhowrites]

Hi bestie!

For the fic writer asks…is there a Pedro character you are wanting to write for and is there one you can’t imagine writing for at this time? What draws you to each of his characters over others, example Joel and Din over others? Thank you for sharing :)

Hi Bestie!!!

Thank you for sending the ask!

I am super excited to write for Frankie soon because I have a fic idea for him that is giving me brain rot. I also really really want to write Javi P! I have a general fic idea for him, too, but I really need to plot it out and actually just write it, I've had the idea for like a year now. As far as PPCU characters I can't see myself writing, pretty much just Maxwell Lord at the moment. He just... does not intrigue me much. And I'm not about to watch the movie again because Gal Gadot. Ew.

As far as what draws me to certain characters, it has a lot to do with what I can explore with them? For Joel in particular, the sheer breadth of his character within the canon of the story makes my brain go brrrrrr. He's this dedicated brother and father who made his daughter his whole world on one end of the spectrum. On the other, he's a serial killer and torturer. All within the same story. And both pieces of him fit so well within him as a character which is just extraordinary to me. You can delve into so many facets of the human experience through Joel because of that!

With Din, I think it's a number of things. One, he's in the Star Wars universe which is really the first fandom I became obsessed with in childhood but, from a storytelling perspective, I don't have a ton of drive to dig into the Skywalker Saga. So much has already been explored there that it doesn't interest me as much to write it (potential exceptions being: Han and Leia's relationship, they were my first OTP and MAYBE a fix it fic with Obi Wan/Anakin/Padme because I have THOUGHTS that no one should get me started on we will be here all night) but I LOVE the Star Wars universe. Din is such a fun way to hang out there without getting involved in the tangled web of the Skywalkers. Other things with Din: 1) he's a loner who forms such deep, lasting bonds when the opportunity presents itself and 2) he's an orphan of war who was turned into a bit of a living weapon. I really liked thinking about those things with Beskar Doll, the forced proximity allowed the bond to form and Doll being another living weapon allowed for this (I think) lovely dynamic between these characters that I loved writing. I have some other Din fic ideas but all my in-universe Star Wars ones involve other orphans of war and other people who were either made weapons or weaponized themselves against the Empire, all people who find themselves in this reality that was shaped by war but with no more war to fight. I also just really love frustrating the hell out of the Tin Can Man, I think he's very fun to annoy lol so I love pairing him with women who put him through his paces.

Soooo yeah! Like a small piece of it is "how much would I want to fuck this man" but it's mostly "How can I explore these more extreme areas of the human condition through his existing characterization and backstory" because that's what's fun for me.

Anyway, that was a super long winded answer but I hope it makes sense!

Love you!!

[starfish-ix]

Great Blue Heron - Reviewed

Last semester, I took a class called Anthropos in the Anthropocene. It was really insightful, and i leaned a ton. heres an exerpt of the course description:

This course explores this writing and related work on the ways that humans interact with their environment. Its goals are to inform students about Anthropocene environmental conditions and debates surrounding the term; to trouble commonplace notions of what it means to be human; to show students how human-environment relations can vary historically and cross-culturally; and to encourage students to think critically about strategies for environmental conservation.

Our final project was to create a "blog post", and I chose to model mine after the format of my favorite book/podcast- The Anthropocene Reviewed by John Green

SOOO here i am sharing it :) it is an ~10 min listen !! let me know if you listen/what u think <3

YouTube link to audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvgjDi41BnQ

Transcript:

Hello, and welcome to my own spin on the Anthropocene Reviewed, a podcast by John Green where he reviews facets of the human-centered planet on a five-star scale. My name’s Ixchel Quinn Cruz, and here in this episode I will be putting my own spin on the format, and reviewing the Great Blue Heron.

When I began this semester at Smith College, my professor, Colin Hoag, assigned us a semester-long project involving observing an organism in our environment. While at first my head was filled with ideas, as I went about my life the next few days, I could not get the idea of choosing this organism out of my head. I walked up the hill by Paradise Pond every afternoon as the sun was setting, and I always saw it : A tall, gray-ish blue heron standing tall in the evening light on the pond. Something about it drew me in. I could not help but stop and admire it, reveling in the beauty of this graceful bird in the pond, lit by the setting sun. I decided that I would wake up at 6am to go visit the heron whenever I could, over a few weeks. It was on these mornings that I developed such an intense affection for this heron.

Herons exist all around the world. They come in many shapes and colors and sizes, and there is a species of heron that exists on every continent in the world except Antarctica. The Great Blue Heron is one of the biggest and most well known species of heron in the world. I consider them incredible and stunning birds, with their grayish blue plumage and an impressive wingspan that would make anyone stop and look in the afternoon light. Seeing a heron on a pond is always quite a moving sight, and I am not alone in these beliefs.

In her inaugural speech to the college, the new president, Sarah Willie LeBreton mentioned the very heron I observed. She said on her first morning here, she woke up to the sight of a Great Blue Heron on Paradise Pond, and that its beauty stunned her and reminded her to be mindful of many things, namely the land that we inhabit and its ancestral ties to the native cultures that see herons symbolizing many things: including individual strength, patience, meditation, and stillness. The respect and admiration for the heron could almost be felt in the room that day. It was clear that so many of the people in attendance knew exactly of the heron she spoke of. It was such a powerful statement based on something seemingly so simple. Just a bird on the pond. 

The canada goose is another water-dwelling bird of North America that frequents Paradise Pond, and its story mirrors the Great Blue Heron’s surprisingly well. They are both large birds hunted for game by European settlers that had astonishing comebacks after the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which protected Great Blue Herons along with any other migratory birds under the law, was passed. They inhabit the same spaces and can often be seen together in marshes and ponds. However, our perception of the two is often very different. I think a common sentiment around the Canada Goose is resentment. Geese honk and strut and bite and are loud when flying in large groups. They are very defensive of their nests and they protect ferociously against their biggest predator, Humans. We often see them as a pest, taking up all the space in our waterways when, in fact, the ways we have structured our human worlds in the anthropocene often create the perfect place for them to inhabit. On the other hand, the seemingly solitary, quiet, graceful heron is praised and admired. We build sculptures of it (note the small pond by lyman next time you walk by), paint it, and talk about it with an air of reverence for such a beautiful creature. 

An individual heron will nest communally in a large group, usually with dozens of nests (and sometimes hundreds of herons) placed high up in trees. These groups of nests, called rookeries, are loud, smelly, and herons are known to defend them when threatened. Herons tend to be quiet when we see them, but they can be loud, with a call that I have often heard compared to what people imagined a pterodactyl sounding like. I find it entertaining to think of the solitary heron on the pond that everyone seems to admire so much going home to its rookery, located most likely in the nearby Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary, interacting with hundreds of others, calling to each other with their dinosaur-like noises. 

What is it about our cultural understandings of these species that create these contrasting views of the two species? How do we place these two species in our own view of the world, in relation to our own human centered view of the world? In discussions with my peers about the heron, I often noticed a tendency to assign it a personal, english gendered pronoun like “him” to the heron. 

 “Oh that heron!! He is so…..”

This was one of many things I noticed that they did to humanize the heron, granting him personhood in a way, and talking about him less in the expected way most people would think to talk about birds.. One remarked on the fact that “he” is at once so beautiful and graceful, while also being “a little silly”. But, I can’t help but agree with them. The way it sits with its neck scrunched up in an S shape does look really funny, sort of as if it was hunching its shoulders up by its head. 

This is one way we personify the heron, placing it within the context of our human-centered view of the world, in an attempt, I think, to connect to it. By giving it personhood, we in a way are granting it value and agency, as if their relation or proximity to personhood is what determines the importance of something’s existence. Above this, when we personify, we cannot avoid placing it within some sort of human context that inherently has meaning to us specifically? One friend described the heron as coming off as “kind of lanky and awkward” giving the impression that it might be shy, or too anxious to be social creatures. When we personify the heron like this, we inherently place it in a space where we can apply our pre-existing ideas on certain groups of a species. Since Aristotle’s first sketches of the evolutionary tree, humans have felt affection towards animals similar to us, but I noticed here that this works in the opposite direction as well – we as humans find ourselves relating to this heron as a result of our affection for it.

The heron isn’t alone on Paradise pond. Although the Great Blue Heron is one of the most recognizable and charismatic species on the pond,  they are just as ecologically important as non-charismatic species. Birds, like mallards, mergansers, and canada geese share the waters they use for food, and other species, like toads, turtles, and muskrats, similarly share the marshlands as a home. All these creatures rely on the wetland and each other to live, and this balance can easily be thrown off. 

When European settlers arrived in New England, they enjoyed hunting Great Blue Herons for game as well as for their beautiful plumage. This took a significant toll on their population numbers. European settlers also hunted the Beaver in extreme amounts in Massachusetts, which is important because their tendency to build dams on rivers and flood areas is a meaningful function to the ecosystems of wetlands. When the fur trade was at its height, Beavers were hunted and trapped until they nearly disappeared, making a significant and damaging impact to the whole landscape of New England. This obviously took a significant toll on herons as well, with many of the marshes and wetlands they rely on fading away, leaving them with no place to hunt, and no source of food. So they left. 

These factors combined meant that by the 1870s, herons were not believed to nest in Massachusetts anymore. They were occasionally seen as migrants, but no nesting sites were known, and they were a pretty rare bird to find. The aforementioned Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), makes it illegal to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, or [use for commercial purposes]” any migratory bird in the U.S (Transect), making it illegal to capture, possess, or cause harm to a Great Blue Heron or its nest or eggs. This made it safe  for herons to return and repopulate. However, the return was slow. There was one rookery recorded in 1925 that survived until it was destroyed by the hurricane of 1938, but no other colonies were documented until 30 years later, in the 1960s.

It took the reintroduction of beavers for this change to become meaningful. As beavers repopulated,  they brought back many marshy areas with lots of dead plant matter, the perfect environment for herons to feed. The return of beavers to Massachusetts, as well as more stringent protection of both the herons themselves and the wetlands they depend on, resulted in an increasing return of the heron. Currently they are considered a low concern species on endangerment metrics, considered an unequivocally increasing species in Massachusetts. Their repopulation was joined closely with many other species of marsh-dwellers – including the canada goose. 

Deborah Bird Rose’s concept of multispecies knots imagines the encounters we have with each other in the world across species as one piece of a larger story in the history of our species’ coexistence. The idea of an individual in a species existing not only as itself, but as a link in the chain of the species history, with endless history stretching back into the past and into the future, as well as entwined with our own species history. That first visit to the pond back in September, when I sat at 6 am observing Paradise’s heron, feels different when I think about it contextualized as one encounter that has been shaped by the infinite history that we share. When I consider the trust that heron must have had in me to let me sit that near, when its ancestors were hunted by mine. When you think of the fact that I was drawn to be out there, admiring the beauty in its routine, almost inspired by its existence when it was just going about its daily life. It was a completely unique interaction that has never happened before exactly like that and will never happen again, just one thread that weaves the story of our collective existence. Just two creatures in the world, passing by each other. Noticing each other I sometimes find it hard to conceive every single interaction I have with anything ever can be seen as just one link in the chain of the world. One thread in the tapestry of our shared existence, that all together form a larger story that none of us will ever be able to see. Not even the heron.

Yet, the heron on paradise pond continues to go about its life. And I walk up, away from my pond, back to my homework, back to dinner with my friends. Just more threads forming the tapestry. I find it only fair to give the Great Blue Heron five stars.

★★★★★

Works Cited

ABC Birds. “Great Blue Heron.” 22 September 2021, https://abcbirds.org/bird/great-blue-heron/?psafe_param=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAgK2qBhCHARIsAGACuzkBLa83htftDmVxYU8En8DwNvK97dtGckGC1_o2qUMylqN2F9XaojAaAk04EALw_wcB. Accessed 10 November 2023.

Dankosky, John, and Lily Tyson. “The History of Beavers in New England With Ben Goldfarb.” New England News Collaborative, 2 August 2018, https://nenc.news/ben-goldfarb-the-history-beavers-new-england/. Accessed 10 November 2023.

Green, John. Anthropocene Reviewed: Essays on a Human-Centered Planet. Perfection Learning Corporation, 2023.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Pp. 1-47

Hejnol, Andreas. 2016. “Ladders, Trees, Complexity, and Other Metaphors in Evolutionary Thinking.” In: Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet: Stories from the Anthropocene. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, Nils Bubandt, Elaine Gan, and Heather Anne Swanson, eds. Pp. G87-102. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

IUCN. “Great Blue Heron.” 2 October 2022, https://www.iucnredlist.org/fr/species/181500967/181565357. Accessed 10 November 2023.

Massachusetts Audubon. “Find a Bird.” Find a Bird, https://www.massaudubon.org/our-work/birds-wildlife/bird-conservation-research/breeding-bird-atlases/find-a-bird?id=948. Accessed 10 November 2023.

Massachusetts Audubon. “Great Blue Herons.” Mass Audubon, https://www.massaudubon.org/nature-wildlife/birds/great-blue-herons. Accessed 10 November 2023.

Native Languages. “Native American Indian Heron Legends, Meaning and Symbolism from the Myths of Many Tribes.” Native-Languages.org, http://www.native-languages.org/legends-heron.htm. Accessed 10 November 2023.

Rose, Deborah Bird. 2012. “Multispecies Knots of Ethical Time.” Environmental Philosophy 9(1):127–140.

Transect. “The Bald Eagle & Migratory Bird Treaty Acts (2023).” Transect, https://www.transect.com/bald-eagle-migratory-birds-act. Accessed 10 November 2023.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. “Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 26 April 2020, https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1918. Accessed 10 November 2023.

[shakespearean-snape]

The interesting thing is when I read the "so long as its legal" tag my mind immediately went to those parts of the world where gay relationships and lgbtqia+ content is still criminalized and thought, "Oh yeah right, because some people do have to worry about their governments arresting them for writing or drawing anything not strictly hetero or even looking for it depending."

That's the problem with censorship in fiction, more often than not it is a conservative excuse to explicitly target lgbtqia+ creators and those of us who have been "othered" in some way (racial, ethnic, etc). It's an extension of the current US conservative push to demonize drag performers, trans people, and essentially just anyone under the lgbtqia+ umbrella with their "They're all groomers! Think of the children!" projection (because let's get real, they're the ones out there grooming children in their churches and indoctrinating them with their far-right politics to the point it has worked its way into popular discourse and we have kids here on Tumblr unconsciously echoing their conservative purity hypocrisy).

So much of fiction is holding up a mirror to our reality and either interrogating things or finding a safe medium to explore the good, bad and ugly of the human condition in all its many facets and forms and yeah, there are things that should be illegal (talking about child porn here because it involves actual real children and exploits them in extremely horrible and harmful ways) because they do bring real harm or should come with some kind of general disclaimer (The Birth of a Nation comes to mind and Mein Kampf where no one should be going into those things blindly without some context and a deeper understanding of the history and real harm because those are not just simple harmless works of fiction but firmly entrenched in very real moments of our history) but there are works of fiction that are shocking or dark or difficult to grapple with that are important because we're supposed to think and there are those works that simply take things that we wouldn't celebrate or promote in real life and turn them into thrilling or unforgetting story pieces and it should just be common sense that if you can enjoy watching a horror movie and acknowledge you're not advocating for what happened in, say, Scream to really happen irl then you can also encounter dark fiction and dysfunctional relationships and, yes, even kink and acknowledge that it makes for good fiction without fearing anyone thinking you're endorsing those themes or plots outside of fiction.

tl;dr Fiction holds up a mirror to reality in a funhouse mirror kind of way that bends and stretches and shapes our reality in all kinds of different ways to tell a story and if you can't tell the difference then that may be a very personal matter of perception you're struggling with that you may need to resolve because there are valid cases of people who can't distinguish fiction from reality but for the most part people do more harm trying to assume creators are advocating for "all the things" that occur within their fiction or fans of said fiction are doing so and target them for harassment or push for sweeping censorships that legitimately only benefit conservative pundits who look for every reason to ban content from lgbtqia+ and poc creators.

"You can't ship that!"

lol what are you gonna do, climb inside my mind and shut off the imagination switch?

[light-lanterne]

Ayo Angel who do I have to fight? 😡 😤 I can't stand when anons wanna talk mess instead of minding their actual business trying to police what people write! They do realize that writing is literally the safest way to explore certain "bad topics" without having to actually commit the deed right? If they love Marvel movies or detective dramas or basically anything that even showcases a smidgen of violence etc then they're a hypocrite cuz does that make the writers of ST fucked up for all the torture they put their underage characters through? S4 legit had a grown man slaughter lab kids and Hawkins teens but are they called sickos or deranged for writing it? S1 showed us El killing folks and she is like 12 years old but the writers aren't considered disturbed? Newsflash, horrific shit happens ALL THE TIME 24/7 and people shouldn't write about it like huh what make it make sense?

Anon truly doesn't fuck with horror movies then or crime detective TV shows cuz that always displays violence. It is a hard truth but violence doesn't discriminate no matter the age, gender, location. It is a universal experience and instead of targeting I dunno actual criminals that use violence to control and destroy - like war criminals, people getting trafficked, those that glamorize real life serial killers and demonize their real life victims - they choose this fake ass activism of silencing and policing a fanfic writer. Performantive moral high ground distraction cuz anon is choosing to focus on something that isn't a real issue cuz if you don't like keep scrolling. Internet etiquette 101. You aren't forcing folks to read unlike real violent people who exert power nonconsensually to others. You're tagging those that fuck with it and using the tags/keep reading button as last resort warnings if said anon chooses to engage with the triggering content. Just saying irl there is no trigger warning, you just gotta deal with that in real time.

Anyhoo keep doing you Angel my evil twin 😈 my angel 😇 and as my people say "must be doing something right cuz I got haters 😝😏🤪" and ofc the other slogan being "oh you mad? stay mad then" lol

hi lex ~ yay to everything you said ~!! most of the media we consume nowadays has some level of violence or amorality and that's all fine since it's fiction ! it is through fiction that we can all explore different facets of the human condition that are either too grim and depressing to think about in real contexts, or that hide some lessons about the things that truly matter and are often just taken for granted in our day-to-day lives.

so yeah, exploring violent, uncomfortable or heavy topics is important to fiction as a whole, and it is nigh impossible that anon (or anyone else) has never consumed any type of creation that showcases these stories to some degree.

ultimately, the perfect ethical piece of media doesn't exist and trying to force people (not even filmmakers, showrunners or published authors/artists; random internet people who create things for free) into abiding by some wacky, sanitised, morally upright set of rules made up by a conglomerate of people who lack media literacy is absolute madness and it only serves to destroy creativity and limit self-expression >.<

,,,anyway, thanks for the message lex !! ^-^ you don't have to fight anyone, don't worry. i get these messages twice a week so i've grown used to them and can handle them ~ ! hope you're doing fine and are having a great day !!!

[yangsharperavery]

my non carmy/sydney thoughts on season 2

it's very different than the first which is interesting bc the structure they had in the kitchen last season worked so seamlessly.

i think this season was lacking that frequency and flare. i think because of that it suffered a bit. i think the viewership did too for that reason.

it was nearly impossible to recreate the magic of the first season without the constant buzz and intensity and immediacy of food service.

i do think that they still could have retained some of that energy by incorporating more demo/planning/training via the familiar staccato, regimented and frenetic pacing of the scenes WHILE also showing the more slowed down exploration of each character being pulled away to get the skills needed to advance the team and its mission.

but it's like they slowed the story telling all the way down immediately.

even opening with marcus and his ailing mother felt like such a specific and poignant choice in that vein.

almost like the theme of the season was going to be all types of grief, preemptive and reactive.

i think they dropped the ball having everyone so spread out over the course of the ENTIRE season and not making the ones that were together exist in the heightened energy we're used to from this show.

here are some things i loved about it:

•  richie's growth. i love an asshole character that is held to account, actually takes correction and impact and works to evolve and improve.

• marcus in copenhagen. he's so sweet and demure. i loved him getting the one on one attention. him exploring the city and staying on the boat. i was worried he'd be forgotten about in the story so its nice to see that someone bts fought for that not to happen.

• sydney's chicago food tour. the cinematography was STUNNING during these sequences. i read someone say that those moments felt like such a deliberate love letter to the culinary industry and i wholeheartedly agree like it made me SO happy to see.

•  the christmas bottle episode. listen. LISTEN. if you have ever lived in or been subjected to a nuclear family/household that operated like that, i know you watched that entire episode with a pit in your stomach. it was devastating and poetic and maddening and SO deeply fucking impactful. it painted the perfect picture of exactly why michael, natalie and carmy are the way they are. i SOBBED. and i lightweight think that's the episode that's giving this season such critical acclaim and the 100% on rotten tomatoes. it was SO strong and sooooo deeply harrowing.

• natalie's presence. i love her. just her being around was so comforting to to me. i enjoyed how sweet she was to fak.

• tina singing. they still underused her but i loved seeing her shine outside of her element and having the full support of her classmates. i love confidence baring moments for characters who've struggled, felt second or been ignored. that moment and sydney asking her to be sous were so special!

• the “bears are aggressive but sensitive, compassionate, deeply empathic” line. i've thought about it several times since finishing the season. because wow. also richie's dialogue about purpose. olivia coleman's character's conversation with richie about rebirth and timing. there are so many gorgeous lines that speak to the ingrained grief, brevity, import, ability and power of this human experience and all its many facets. the writer's really do SUCH a wondrous job highlighting the humanity of it's characters and their struggles, obstacles and heartache.

• the fucking chocolate banana. i absolutely CRIED. they need to stop playing around and calling this show a comedy because c'mon. that was such a good callback for cisero and richie.

•  pete crying. when i tell you that shit was so deeply powerful. to see him hurting so acutely for natalie. knowing how much he loves her and how much her mother's conditions impacted her entire life. so much so that she hadn't even known nat was pregnant. like that scene GUTTED me. the actor only had .3 scenes this season but that one was an absolute stand out.

• ayo's performance. this girl is an ACTOR. like i know she's a writer and a comedian but she is SO exquisite in the role of sydney. i'm endlessly enamored.

what i didn't like:

• them completely dropping the ball on ebra's storyline. so he disappears for WEEKS from fear and then returns and has a 3 second convo with tina? and then is all of a sudden back in an apron in the kitchen. please don't piss me off. wasteful.

• lack of gary screentime. he should have had as much screentime as fak minus the christmas episode. sidelining two of the black men was foolish and wholly unnecessary.

• the AMOUNT of claire/carmy scenes. like i totally get it. i get why it had to happen, i get the point they were trying to make and the consequences they were driving home but the sheer enormity of the claire/carmy scenes and how LONG they were was dumb. we could have been shown carmy was distracted/absent without having to see those two together for these elongated ass scenes. and them kissing in front of the fireworks? like GAG me. PLEASE BE SERIOUS RN.

• i need to see my babies breaking bread and having found family dinner at least once per season, if not more. thx.

this is just part 1, part 2 will be carmy/sydney focused.

[goddamnitlopori]

Wolf (2021), disaster or masterpiece?

Short answer: neither. 

I recently saw Wolf, an indie film about people with species dysphoria undergoing conversion therapy at the hands of a sadistic doctor. Though not without its flaws, it was enjoyable, especially when watched with friends. I wanted to write a review from the perspective of someone who on the whole, liked it. (film spoilers ahead!)

I’ll try to summarise as best I can, what the film got right and where it failed (imo). Plus neutral observations. 

The positives: The acting, the actors really carried the story, ran with it. The protagonists are all likeable, they had the vibe of their animals which is a fun touch. Rufus, the German Shepard, has a doglike energy and gregariousness. Jacob, the wolf, is more serious and brooding like stereotypical wolf people lol. Judith, the parrot, likes to copy people, somewhat reminiscent of autistic echolalia. Whether that was on purpose I don’t know. I think it’s likely an accident, as Judith mimics more deliberately. When the residents moved around like their particular animal when “shifted” so to speak, they did a very convincing job. They were trained by Terry Notary, who is a movement coach for mocap actors etc, he knows his shit. You can tell when Terry has worked on a project.

This might surprise some, but I genuinely find it a sympathetic portrayal. Though very exaggerated and goofy at times, when characters sat down and spoke of their experiences it was accurate. There’s a scene where Annalisa (panda) reads Jacob’s poetry about his dysphoria, it could’ve been ripped straight from a therian forum thread. Annalisa herself also talks a lot like us. There were some really poignant lines for me personally, too. The film makes it abundantly clear that none of these people should be locked up. Everyone is varying levels of animal-person, ranging from a kid who really likes ducks to people with a more extreme, behaviourally outward condition. All of them mistreated the same way, and none of it justified. They want us to root for these characters, they want us to want their freedom to be themselves. There is no mistaking what the message is.  And that leads me to the negatives, it is almost too obvious who the good/bad guys are. The antagonist, Dr. Mann, is a pantomime villain in his mannerisms. It kills suspension of disbelief. While I'm sure there are sadistic quacks in medicine irl, he lacks personality and complexity. There was one scene that hinted at Dr. Mann maybe being a closeted animal-person himself, but that was never further explored. This is a common flaw in the film, the pacing is all over the place, scenes escalate instantly, ramping up the drama or horror in a second. A character or plot point gets introduced only to never be mentioned again. I reckon there might have been a lot of footage that never made it to the final cut. The plot could really use some fleshing out, an extra 15 minutes on the run time would have done it wonders. Though their intentions are clearly good, I think the film leans too heavily on trauma being the single explanation for species dysphoria. In reality it’s multi-faceted. I’m not mad though. 

Other observations: It so kinky!? The dynamics between Dr. Mann and his patients, the props, the costumes, may as well be BDSM. Hard to tell if it’s intentional or just being artsy? Interestingly, rather than the doctors reminding patients that they are human, they defaulted to “boy” or “girl”. Leaving the facility a boy or girl is the end goal. Which could be interpreted as an allegory for repressing transgenderism. The film wasn’t really meant to be analogous to gender etc, but there are bound to be many comparisons with real life phenomena, hard to avoid. Institutionalisation is touched upon too, through Wildcat’s character. The “therapy” the patients undergo involves constant mixed messages, and it’s a bit heartbreaking. I especially feel for Jeremy (squirrel), poor lad never catches a break. As rewards for good behaviour they get to dress up as their animal, but once they act out, they’re severely punished. I think to shame them for wanting the animalistic rewards? A lot of it was of course, cartoonishly over the top. But the underlying ideas are near identical to actual antikin insults, “if you’re an animal, then why don’t you act like one? Oh you can’t, ahahaha checkmate”. Crap argument, a human body/brain and human socialisation are not insignificant factors, it’s a subjective identity. Couldn’t run a successful medical establishment built on such half assed rhetoric. Good thing it is so unrealistic, eh? In summary, I would give this film 3/5 stars. Not bad, not great, but entertaining. And at times rather touching. I just wish the film was better paced and didn’t spoon feed the message too much. 

[cardentist]

I haven’t been in the star trek fandom for very long (I’ve only just started binging the series in the last couple months), so it’s been pretty surprising to find out just how negative the perception of the reboot movies are.

this isn’t coming from the perspective of someone who grew up with the series, so it hit different for me than it might for people with a different relationship to TOS, but I thought it was genuinely clever and Respectful with how it was handled.

To quote leonard nimoy: “Well the alternative timeline gives them license to escape from canon concerns. I can’t see people saying ‘they shouldn’t do that because…’ or ‘that doesn’t tie in to such and such’ because it is a different time and place. Am I right about that?” [Link]

the entire Premise is that the original series happened as it was presented in TOS, but an event late in Spock’s life caused the creation of a parallel universe in which everyone’s lives were significantly altered through two key changes to the timeline. this gives them the freedom to Both revel in fanservice And explore different facets of the characters and their relationships. 

the destruction of vulcan Vastly impacts the characters and the plot moving forward, and its a detail that a lot of people take issue with. but the emotional impact of sarek admitting Directly to spock that there is value in his humanity, that his feelings Aren’t wrong, that sarek married amanda because he Loved her cannot be understated. you can read all of these things into sarek as he was in the original series, but he Never had an open conversation about these things with spock. this creates a Believable and Rewarding change in their relationship, where we get to see a different facet of them Because of the changes made. and that’s exactly the appeal. showing us pieces of these characters that we never got in TOS that are nevertheless undeniably Them.

everyone is Different yes, but they’re also fundamentally the same people at their core and that matters.

kirk’s personality obviously takes the biggest change, with him experiencing trauma at a young age, losing his father, and having an implied abusive father figure after that point. he has a harsher personality in reaction to harsher conditions, he’s spikier and harder to love. but he’s also still fundamentally a Good person whose willing to risk everything to help people. he still has what made kirk prime a good captain and a good friend.

I’m not gonna say that it’s the most nuanced story in the world, but it explores a version of kirk that was born from even Less fortunate circumstances than kirk prime, exploring a kirk brimming with potential who learned to bite back after he was kicked down. exploring those themes of trauma and loss, of insecurity and growth, and coming to the conclusion that Fundamentally He Is Capable Of Good isn’t a Bad thing. you don’t have to like it, but his growth into a better person is The Point. they deepened his flaws (all of which were present in a less exaggerated form in TOS) To Show That Growth.

and then of course there’s his relationship with spock.

people are totally justified in not liking that they had a rough start to their relationship, I usually don’t like to see that kind of thing in reboots or hollywood adaptations either, but the way people talk about it is just unfair.

Yes kirk and spock and bones have a very strong relationship in TOS, they also already know each other by the time the show starts. to look at them having to learn to get to know and trust each other when they first meet and say that it’s Bad because they were already full on ride or die for each other in the og series is silly. TOS kirk and spock had to meet and fall in love with each other too, it didn’t just happen over night kings.

secondly, the entire point of the first movie is that Even With reality itself being altered to pull them apart they are fundamentally compatible people that are Bound to each other. they meet each other on bad terms because of circumstances outside of their control, and yet they’re still pulled into each other’s orbit and find the other slotting into place next to them as if they always belonged. one of the first things that spock prime says in the movie is “I am and always will be your friend,” spock and jim are Meant for each other and the movie goes out of its way to explain that. which is what makes it so Weird to see people complaining about how they don’t like each other.

it’s a Different relationship, but it’s absolutely no less steeped in yearning or queer subtext. 

speaking of queer subtext ! some people are Very unhappy with spock’s relationship with uhura.

first thing I wanna say is that making the argument that they’re doing anything that the original series hasn’t done is just, completely untrue. kirk has fallen in love with more girls in the og series than he knew what to do with, leonard nimoy was a heartthrob in his time (and he deserves it, awooga) and spock reflects that ! Spock usually turns the women who come onto him down (or when he doesn’t it’s because a plant has literally altered his mind), but there are exceptions to even that. all of three of the main boys have plenty of romance subplots, it happens. if that takes the possibility of them being queer off the table for you (which it shouldn’t, m-spec people exist) then I’m sorry to say that TOS is not exempt.

now, I can understand why Specifically This Relationship could rub people the wrong way or being disappointed that they didn’t outright depict kirk and spock as having a relationship (if not in the first movie then in the following ones after they’ve gotten to know each other), but even in that context the way I’ve seen people talk about it comes off as insensitive.

no, the relationship did not come out of nowhere. they considered having spock and uhura date each other in the original show (and you can see signs of this in the earlier episodes, where uhura very obviously flirts with him and they spend time together in their down time) before they decided against it, and spock was originally going to kiss uhura until shatner insisted that he wanted to do it (because it was the first interracial kiss on tv). [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3]

nichelle nichols was asked about this exact thing (spock and uhura’s relationship in the movie), you can read the interview in full here [Link] but I’d like to highlight this paragraph in particular:

“Now, go back to my participation in Star Trek as Uhura and Leonard (Nimoy) as Spock. There was always a connection between Uhura and Spock. It was the early 60’s, so you couldn’t do what you can do now, but if you will remember, Uhura related to Spock. When she saw the captain lost in space out there in her mirror, it was Spock who consoled her when she went screaming out of her room. When Spock needed an expert to help save the ship, you remember that Uhura put something together and related back to him the famous words, “I don’t know if I can do this. I’m afraid.” And Uhura was the only one who could do a spoof on Spock. Remember the song (in “Charlie X”)? Those were the hints, as far as I’m concerned.”

the film makers looked at the fact there were Hints for uhura and spock, that they were Interested in exploring an interracial couple for the first time (both before and immediately after interracial couples won the right to legally get married) but Couldn’t because of the circumstances of the times and decided to Make that depiction. you don’t have to Like their relationship just because of that fact, but it’s Incredibly reductive to play down it’s significance as just a No Homo cop out. explicitly queer relationships are not the only progressive or culturally important relationships in fiction.

moreover, if you can’t imagine polyamory in the communist utopian future that’s on you.

moreover, this perception that this was a soulless cash grab is just, unfounded.

leonard nimoy returned to the role as spock for the first time in 16 years (since 1991) and this was Entirely because of the respect they had for nimoy, spock as a character, and the franchise as a whole. 

Lets look at some quotes from nimoy in interviews regarding the film:

Leonard Nimoy: When I first read the script (...) I immediately contacted J.J. and said “I think it is terrific…I think you guys have done a wonderful job. There is still work to be done, but it is very clear that you and your writers know what you are doing and you know how to do this movie and know what it should be about….and I am very interested.” Then as time went by we worked things out with Paramount, but the most important things were J.J. and the script. (...) I am very pleased about that and I am very comfortable with where this is going. I think the writers have done a terrific job. They have a real sense of the characters and the heart of Star Trek and what it is really all about.

(...)

TrekMovie.com: Now in the case of the new movie you have been retired from acting for years. What was it about this one that made you want to act again and go through the make up again? What was it that made you say ‘I really want to do this?’

Leonard Nimoy: You are right, this is a special situation. First it is Star Trek and so I have to pay attention. I owe that to Star Trek. Second place is that it is J.J. Abrams who I think very highly of, he is a very talented guy. Then came the script and it was very clear that I could make a contribution here. The Spock character that I am playing, the original Spock character, is essential and important to the script. So on the basis of those three elements it was easy to make the decision. So those three things: Star Trek, J.J. Abrams, and an interesting Spock role.

[Link]

Praising the cast playing younger versions of characters from the original 1960s TV series, he [Leonard Nimoy] said: “Let me take the opportunity to say this. Everybody at this table [the cast] are very, very talented and intelligent people.”

“They found their own way to bring that talent and intelligence to this movie, and I think it shows. (...)  When Karl Urban introduced himself as Leonard McCoy and shook hands with Chris Pine, I burst into tears. That performance of his is so moving, so touching and so powerful as Doctor McCoy, that I think D. Kelley would be smiling, and maybe in tears as well.”

“The makers of this film reawakened the passion in me that I had when we made the original film and series. I was put back in touch with what I cared about and liked about Star Trek, and why I enjoyed being involved with Star Trek. So, it was an easy way to come on home.”

“[In this Star Trek] they said things and showed me things, and demonstrated the sensibility that I felt very comfortable with, and I think that shows in the movie. I like it.”

[Link 1, Link 2]

again, you don’t have to like it just because leonard nimoy did, you don’t have to Agree. but the idea that nobody working on the film Cared is provably false. near everyone working on the project was already a fan of the series or were excited to be involved and did their homework. it’s genuinely a Miracle just how much of a labor of love this was, and in my opinion you can feel that through the movie itself. I’d highly recommend looking into interviews and behind the scenes details about the movies. they had a respect not just for the source material, but for leonard nimoy as a person.

there’s definitely more I Could say about this, but it’s 4 am now so I’m gonna shelve it jklfdsa

that said! it’s Fine to not like the movie, not everything is going to be suited to everyone’s taste, but the specific criticisms I’ve seen feel very off base

[4ragon]

Sorry, someone sent me a DM and I couldn’t figure out if they wanted to be credited so I’m doing it this way. If you want me to like tag or something just let me know and I will.

Alright so about Kristoph Gavin’s Black Psyche-Locks

Kristoph Gavin is my favorite villain, one of my favorite villains in any game. He’s a fun character. He’s charismatic, and ruthless, and yet I think if you really dig down into him, he’s still, ultimately, a very human monster at the heart of it all. But why is that? What is it about Kristoph Gavin I find so interesting? What secret motivations lie at the heart of this man that would drive him to murder, drive him to attempt to erase a literal child? Well, let’s explore this man in a little more depth, shall we?

So let’s start at the beginning. The Black Psyche-Locks. Kristoh’s Psyche-Locks were the first of their kind to appear in the series. When pressed, Kristoph explains he killed a stranger because he was “an evil human being.” It isn’t until Phoenix’s final accusation that suddenly, the Psyche-Locks click into place. “...I have to know. Why did you kill Shadi Smith? No... Zak Gramarye!?” Above all else, the reason Kristoph would go so far as to kill, his motive, is what prompts the Psyche-Locks to appear. But why, you ask? Isn’t it obvious? He killed Zak Gramarye for a whole host of reasons. To cover his tracks. To get revenge for being snubbed. And yes, those are all correct. Yet they fail to answer the most important question of all: What exactly is Kristoph keeping from himself? 

According to Pearl Fey, “A red Psyche-Lock protects a secret that a person is consciously trying to hide. If the person folds under questioning, the lock breaks and the truth comes out... But a black Psyche-Lock protects a secret from the deepest place in a person's heart... ...a secret that that person isn't even consciously aware of… According to my research... A black Psyche-Lock is like a heavy chain wrapped directly around one's heart. If they are ripped off by force, it could cause permanent damage to a person's soul.”

So Kristoph killed a man, and he justified it. He’s vain, and he’s selfish. But that is all stuff that Kristoph is aware of. Conscious flaws. He’s a selfish, cruel man who justifies hurting those he perceived as wronging him. But what secret does he hold so deeply that it could shatter the very foundation of who he is?

So what, ultimately, does break the Psyche-Lock? It’s hard to say, as we never see Kristoph’s particular Psyche-Locks again once we take control of Apollo Justice. But we do see a breaking of sort: A Witness Breakdown. The series is full of them, to varying degrees of, uh, aggressiveness. BUT! It’s rare to see someone break down as completely as Kristoph does in his final moments on the stand. It’s not throwing a toupe and passing out. It’s not whatever the fuck happened to that goose hat in DGS. No, it is a complete and total breakdown. Screaming, hair disheveled. And laughter. Uncontrollable laughter.

So! What prompts this?

In the technical sense, it’s the reveal that Phoenix Wright outsmarted him. The jurist system, a system that went against all of Kristoph’s beliefs, implemented by the man whom he had already defeated once. It’s this one little detail that puts the final nail in his coffin.

But there are other little details around this moment that caught my attention. His reaction to the jurists, calling them “Riff-raff” or “a mindless, emotional mob of irrational mouth-breathers.” And then, there’s one last line, not from Kristoph, but from Klavier.

“Except for you, Kristoph. You aren't changing. You've stopped. You're not needed anymore.”

You’re not needed anymore.

And there. I think we found it. I think we found the chink in Kristoph’s armor. Kristoph, while vain, and entitled, and cruel, and monstrous, desperately needs to be needed. Not only that, Kristoph needs to be in absolute control of those around him. Kristoph is better than the people around him. Kristoph is better than Klavier. Kristoph is certainly better than Phoenix Wright. He is the most important man in the world, and anything that can threaten that is a threat to his very being.

Kristoph is a man who thrives on control. You can absolutely see it in the way he talks to Apollo, Phoenix, and Klavier. He needs to be the smartest man in the room at all times, even with the people he loves. Hell, especially with the people he loves. He needs them to look up to him. He needs them to need him.

Sometimes, people talk about how Kristoph didn’t love Klavier, and I don’t know if that’s the whole truth. I think that Kristoph loved an IDEA of Klavier. An idea of who he was and how he was supposed to behave. He loved a facet of Klavier, and that love was entirely conditional on Klavier behaving exactly as Kristoph thought he should. Klavier is the one who betrayed Kristoph first, you see? Klavier is the one who refused to be ‘lesser than,’ to adhere to the perceptions in Kristoph’s mind of who he should be. And every deviation from Kristoph’s control made him want to control Klavier the more.

It’s important to note that, before Phoenix even entered the picture, Kristoph began to pull the strings. I don’t subscribe to the notion that Kristoph was always willing to pay his way to victory, or murder anyone who got in his way. But this fight against his little brother was something that he could not lose, no matter what. He had to win. He had to win and take back control. Klavier was spinning out of his control. Klavier was rejecting him. He needed Klavier to obey.

There seems to be an element of control with every one of Kristoph’s personal relationships. His mentorship with Apollo was very much the same, though to a lesser degree. He was kind on the surface level, but quick to find ways to put Apollo down, to undermine him, to demand Apollo do what he say. I can’t imagine he was any different with Klavier, honestly, just with more time and more chances to slowly wear away at Klavier’s sanity.

On the other side, Phoenix Wright was a ‘friend’ he ate dinner with once a week. He was the only member of the ethics board (which HAHA Kristoph on an ethics board) to stand up for him, trying to frame himself as Phoenix’s savior, inserting himself into the story so as to never lose control of the situation. Once again, it comes down to control. 

I was talking with a friend once, about the similarities between Kristoph and good ol’ Manny von Karma. Both have this weird obsession with perfection, but I think they come from wildly different character flaws. Manfred is a man who believes he is perfect, and nothing anyone says or does can shake that. Any challenges to his perfection are a threat, of course, but only because he feels entitled to the world bending to his will. He is perfect. Meanwhile, Kristoph is deeply insecure. His veneer of perfection hides a deep terror of being anything less than. A threat to his perfection is a threat to his very sense of self, sense of worth, and that must be destroyed at all costs. Still entitled of course, just also with the threat of collapsing in on itself at any moment.

Anyway. Uh. Hope that was coherent. I really like Kristoph.