#it doesn't make sense to remove intention from the equation

[luck-lasts]

Please correct me if I am wrong because I am slightly fuzzy on the details, but why is it assumed that the actions done by JGY were purely in self preservation? I don't think we can believe all his claims at Guanyin Temple, because A) He was already established as a manipulative character and B) He was trying to convince LXC, his only potential ally, of his innocence. I am genuinely asking because from how I interpreted the text (purely subjective), it doesn't seem like we are supposed to believe everything he says.

And once again, I am fuzzy on the details, but the curse on Jin Zixun, or even the killing of Nie Mingjue doesn't make sense as an act of protection, because if I recall correctly, JGY had been in the process of somewhat regaining the trust of NMJ, which would have allowed him to turn the situation in his favour. Also, if we do talk about his primary motive to get to a position of safety, how do we determine what this position is? Is Chief Cultivator the only position where he is truly safe? Or would the future reign of Jin Zixuan, who treated him better than his father did, mean a better, safer position for JGY, if he had bided his time? Power means safety, absolutely, but at what point do we say his actions stopped being for protection and started being solely for power? I think that depends a lot of how individuals intepret the Guanyin Temple scene, so there won't be an objective answer.

In matters of intent, I am unfortunately a corp lawyer who really misses studying criminal law, and any discussion of mens rea will have me rambling way more than anyone would want. So to summarize my views, I would say intention matters because without intention it becomes very difficult to determine the morality of any action ( basic example would be why there is a lesser punishment for manslaughter than for culpable homicide). How dangerous someone is does matter, but your culpability for causing that danger again ties back to intention. (which is why someone who is legally unsound may be more dangerous than a legally sound person, but is seen as less culpable) (also relevant is that it is indicated that WWX, by a point, had become unstable, and while not unsound, was not fully in his right mind either).

Basically, from my perspective, WWX made horrible, horrible choices, which caused a lot of damage. If he had done so with malice, the consequences would be far far worse, and I agree, the Wens would not have survived because it would have triggered even worse escalation. JGY also made horrible, horrible choices., some of them out of necessity. But as per my interpretation (again, very subjective), he didn't just do it with the aim of self-preservation, he did it with malice, for political gain. And intention cannot be eliminated as a relevant consideration, because once we do that, we reach a slippery slope of essentially legal and moral chaos (not going to expand because I guarantee, I will end up rambling, but this is the most agreed upon perspective in most branches of jurisprudence, not sure about it works in moral philosophy).

Really sorry about how all over the place this reblog is, just putting my thoughts out there. TLDR; The veracity of JGY's claims is doubtful, and his actions show malicious intention. Intention absolutely matters, and that is what sets WWX and JGY apart.

As much as I love and appreciate fandom metas, especially in mxtx fandoms, a lot of times I find myself thinking "the book is deep but not THIS deep". There are many layers, but there is clear intention from the author in portraying things a certain way. Acting like Wei Wuxian is a villain and Jin Guangyao is a poor meow meow who did all of this because he was poor just detracts from the fact that both characters had a certain level of autonomy and they used it in very different ways. Despite his flaws, Wei Wuxian used his abilities to help the innocent. Jin Guangyao, despite how much he sufferered, chose to murder and destroy lives because he wanted to be at the top. His background humanizes him, it isn't intended to justify his actions.

[arcane-ish]

@blood-starved-beast

My concern with ViCait isn't really that it's bad or illogical or unhealty.

It's more like:

“We finally get to answer ‘What would Vi do if she didn’t have anything left to protect?’” Overton says. “She would choose Cait.”

Source

This bothers me due to:

1.) imo it has consistently felt like Amanda feels possessive over ViCait vis a vis Vi&Jinx. That ViCait and Vi&Jinx is a contradiction, it's a competition. And that is always going to rub people the wrong way who either think it shouldn't be a competition (why can't Vi have both? Why should Jinx being in Vi's life be a threat to Cait? Is that kind of fucked up way where Cait has to possess Vi completely and there can't be anybody whether Jinx or Vander or whoever to take away Vi's attention or emotional energy?) or that if it's a competition then Vi should choose her sister and it's immoral to not put her sister first.

(I personally don't care that deeply, but imo that explains some of the fan reactions)

2.) Even if you see it as a competition. Of it's "Jinx versus Cait". And as a romance you NEED to have Vi pick Cait over Jinx. The fact that Vi chooses Cait only after she has (passively) lost Jinx, after Jinx has forcefully and against Vi's will removed herself from the equation lessons the romantic power of the choice. Yes from a character point of view Vi choosing Cait over her sister is more fucked up. But from a romance POV the bigger choice is Vi does it proactively and with intentional agency, because she loves/wants Cait just that damn much because the promise of a life with Cait is just that damn appealing and not because everything else has been taken away from her first. That feels like Vi is being cornered into that choice rather than Vi making that choice as a big powerful statement. (even if the cornered choice is something that Vi does genuinely enjoy and likes, the fact that she has been cornered into it rather than proactively choosing it makes Vi and the romance weaker)

3.) Some of Arcane feels like fanfiction made real. That doesn't have to be a bad thing. Ekko going to the happy AU is pure fanfiction plotting but imo they pulled it off. There's a reason why so many reviewers name it as their favorite episode. Because they did pull it off.

But part of me looks at season 2 in particular and feels like somebody writing a Vi Whump Fic. And there you just run into the problem that there are just some thing, some cadences of emotion and plot that make sense in fanfic (like ie exhaustive curtain picking fics) that just don't work as well as a main work. (ironically that's one thing I really noticed in the 50 Shades of Grey movies, that they follow the cadence of a fanfic [main character gets threatened and saved, then they have sex, guy gives her a gift, then they have sex, main character has an unpleasant run in, then they have sex, guy gives her another gift, then they have sex], that fanfic/porn plotting, and that's why the pacing of those movies feels super weird for a normal movie, why it's hard to put them into a traditional act or character arc structure).

I don't really begrude ViCait as a little bit of "my weird, messy, slightly kinky side thing", but if on some level you were trying to write the big BAMF f/f OTP of all times, the Han and Leia for the gays, imo general, shared audiences are always going to favor agency and proactiveness.

I don't dislike ViCait and I can still like them as the messy chaotic thing. But imo the squee over ViCait has been muted compared to what it would have been (imo) if Vi had just been a little bit more proactive and forceful.

(admittedly, that could just be my youtube algorithm throwing way more "Ekko and Jinx is zomg so deep!!!" analysis videos my way compared to undiluted and unmarred ViCait squee)

[softshuji]

I saw a post that said I don't get jealous in the angry sense, I just get jealous in the sad sense. Where everyone likes everyone else more than they like me, and I don't blame them. And God someone put it in words omg. I don't get jealous in the sense where I want to hurt something, I just get sad and upset about it, especially if it's something I don't have a right to upset about. Whenever it's intentional, somehow it does feel like a rejection, or a way of someone saying "look at how much better I can have than you, look at how replaceable you are, look at how much I can hurt you" and even if someone isn't trying to say or do that, I think my own issues with like abandonment and attachment makes it seem like this person is trying to say that. So whenever I get jealous, especially if it's someone making me jealous intentionally, makes me run in the other direction rather than want them more. Because I think "if staying around this person means being replaced, and they're going to make me feel replacable, then I'm going to remove myself so I don't have to feel that". And you can't exactly talk about it to the person who does it cos jealousy is such a horribly ugly thing to feel, and sometimes people feel even better about themselves when they make you feel like that, and making themselves feel better is more important (for the sake of Ego) than the other person's feelings. I just really don't like it. I don't like feeling jealous, I don't like making others jealous either, if anything, the minute I feel jealous I'm removing myself from the equation so I don't get hurt. It doesn't give me that kind of explosive anger, it just gives me a bone deep sadness.

[pregnancykink]

Happy Dadfucker Friday, Spike!

I’ve been ruminating on this one all day, so hopefully it makes sense:

Looking back on Dream A Little Dream of Me, Dean’s perspective of his father changed the further he got from John’s death. Do you think that Dean ever found himself thinking his dad was a predator, or do you think that was the one part of John he kept close to his heart?

Hi Milo!! What a great question!! Sorry for how long this got

I'd also like to note this is my personal interpretation of J/D; I know other people see it differently and of course there are infinite ways to interpret this show and the relationships therein!

Hmmm, I think this one depends for me. While Dream a Little Dream of Me certainly shows us Dean starting to let John slip off of that pedestal a bit, I don't think it's really till season 8(?) where Dean lets himself really come to terms with the reality of their childhood.

John is such a complicated character. He did the best he could with what he had; sometimes, doing your best is doing uhhh...giving your 10 year old a gun and sticking him in charge of his 7 year old brother in the face of potential monsters. This is relative best not like, the universal best. Ultimately, I do think John loved his kids and he was handed a difficult situation. I also think he, y'know, did the things he did.

So in the face of J/D, I've talked about this before, there is a pre-existing power imbalance there that I do not believe to exist between S/D (while one does sometimes have more figurative power over the other, this flip-flops so constantly it practically stays at equilibrium). Father/son incest aside, I do think Dean was in a position where saying no to John wasn't an option. Not in the violent or even coercive way, but I truly do not believe it would have EVER crossed his mind to deny John anything.

Ergo, when their sexual relationship starts up (my answer re: that here), is there a predatory aspect to it? Inherently, yes. Caveat, and I've talked about this before, but everybody in this show is in circumstances extremely far removed from reality (and they exist in a show about family horror), so it's hard to equate stuff to real world abuse in a 1:1 manor (and this is also putting aside the age gap, since we already have the dad/son -> husband/wife thing going on, it feels redundant lol). But as I see J/D, yes, there is an inherently predatory aspect to it, even if John did not intend to predate on Dean, which, I think is crucial to J/D: I do not think there was malicious intent behind it. The outcome, however...

...HOWEVER, whereas Dean may begin to come to terms with the fact that his father really did put too much on him back in s3, I think their relationship and everything that went into it would take MUCH longer for him to pull apart. I think John was Dean's first love. He gave him everything. He starts to learn that that aspect from a parent & child perspective was messed up, he understands what John expected of him was too much, but the relationship part? I mean, I think Dean has such a tangled up idea of his own self-worth sexually and romantically (not to mention like, at-large) and he had something with his Dad he's never had before. I think it would take a really, really long time for him to hit the "hmmm, maybe I didn't exactly have a choice in that" or "maybe there was a power imbalance there" (even if he doesn't think these things in these more cut & dry terms).

[megpie71]

This is going to be long.

So I've been thinking about how we change all this, and I think it has to be a long-term project (because, let's face it, getting things to the point where we are now has been a long-term project as well - we're looking at something like fifty to seventy years of deliberate, sustained work opposing anything that had a detrimental effect on shareholder returns, plus endless centuries of cultural effort put into creating optimal conditions for the moneyed classes[1]). We need to start from the premise that this work will not be completed in our lifetimes - that it may not even be fully begun in the lifetimes of our great-grandchildren. (But to paraphrase a rabbi, the fact it won't be completed in our lifetimes doesn't mean it isn't worth doing).

We have to start with education, and we have to start by teaching children - all children, the children of the poor and the children of the rich - that everything is interconnected. That you can't just change one thing without changing everything around it. That nothing is atomised and individual, that we are all part of a wider society, that our behaviour has effects on others (both positive and negative), that we all lose when everyone tries to act on their own, and that we all gain when we work together. The message that everything is interconnected has to be at the heart of all our teaching, all our learning, all our pedagogy, all our science, all our storytelling, all our advertising, all our philosophy, all our music, all our performance, all our cultural messaging.

(This is part of why it's going to take a long time to get this out there - we're going to be working against the flow of the cultural tide at present, which is very much intent on presenting to us the idea that we are all atomised individuals with no connections to anyone except those we make through deliberate purchases of products, and that the only meaningful form of connection is through purchase of product).

So we start with the idea that we are all connected. The second idea we want to start introducing into the public discourse is that we all have a responsibility to each other as fellow human beings - that ideally we have a responsibility to make other peoples' lives better, but at the absolute bare minimum, we have a responsibility not to make anyone's life worse. You don't have to like someone on first sight (or at all), but you do have to take on the commitment not to make their life worse. Again, this is going to be swimming against the cultural tide, which is currently pushing the idea that nobody has any responsibility of any kind toward anyone else, and that expecting even the bare minimum of civil behaviour from other people is being entirely too demanding for words.

Now, I think if we can get these two ideas solidly grounded in our culture as part of the cultural bedrock, we'll be able to start moving in the correct directions, because a lot of what we're looking for (namely, an economy which is built on a recognition that economic progress does not happen in a vacuum, that perpetual growth is not a reasonable expectation, and that looking after the people outside the investor class is a good idea) will actually flow on logically and philosophically from these two ideas. But we have to start by changing the bedrock assumptions of our culture.

I'd argue we also have to change the bedrock assumption that "all pleasure is morally suspect" as well, because this is and has been used as an argument against just about any type of effective social welfare system on the grounds that providing people with happiness, or removing suffering from the equation, is somehow morally damaging. So we'd need to work on actually endorsing the idea that it's okay to be happy, it's okay to have fun, it's okay to enjoy yourself, and that doing so won't mark your soul as eternally corrupted and destined for hell.

[1] Once again, I am using "class" here in a sense synonymous with "set" in the mathematical sense. So "the moneyed classes" are "the set of all groups who are focussed on making surplus money well beyond what they need for survival" - or in other words, the group of people who are looking to get or stay rich.

While I'm writing things that I've been intending to write for a while... one of the things that I think that a lot of people who haven't been involved in like... banking or corporate shenaniganry miss about why our economy is its current flavor of total fuckery is the concept of "fiduciary duty to shareholders."

"Why does every corporation pursue endless growth?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations treat workers the way they do?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations make such bass-ackwards decisions about what's 'good for' the company?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The legal purpose of a corporation with shareholders -- its only true purpose -- is the generation of revenue/returns for shareholders. Period. That's it. Anything else it does is secondary to that. Sustainability of business, treatment of workers, sustainability and quality of product, those things are functionally and legally second to generating revenue for shareholders. Again, period, end of story. There is no other function of a corporation, and all of its extensive legal privileges exist to allow it to do that.

"But Spider," you might say, "that sounds like corporations only exist in current business in order to extract as much money and value as possible from the people actually doing the work and transfer it up to the people who aren't actually doing the work!"

Yes. You are correct. Thank you for coming with me to that realization. You are incredibly smart and also attractive.

You might also say, "but Spider, is this a legal obligation? Could those running a company be held legally responsible for failing their obligations if they prioritize sustainability or quality of product or care of workers above returns for shareholders?"

Yes! They absolutely can! Isn't that terrifying? Also you look great today, you're terribly clever for thinking about these things. The board and officers of a corporation can be held legally responsible to varying degrees for failing to maximize shareholder value.

And that, my friends, is why corporations do things that don't seem to make any fucking sense, and why 'continuous growth' is valued above literally anything else: because it fucking has to be.

If you're thinking that this doesn't sound like a sustainable economic model, you're not alone. People who are much smarter than both of us, and probably nearly as attractive, have written a proposal for how to change corporate law in order to create a more sensible and sustainable economy. This is one of several proposals, and while I don't agree with all of this stuff, I think that reading it will really help people as a springboard to understanding exactly why our economy is as fucked up as it is, and why just saying 'well then don't pursue eternal growth' isn't going to work -- because right now it legally can't. We'd need to change -- and we can change -- the laws around corporate governance.

This concept of 'shareholder primacy' and the fiduciary duty to shareholders is one I had to learn when I was getting my securities licenses, and every time I see people confusedly asking why corporations try to grow grow grow in a way that only makes sense if you're a tumor, I sigh and think, 'yeah, fiduciary duty to shareholders.'

(And this is why Emet and I have refused to seek investors for NK -- we might become beholden to make decisions which maximize investor return, and that would get in the way of being able to fully support our people and our values and say the things we started this company to say.)

Anyway, you should read up on these concepts if you're not familiar. It's pretty eye-opening.

[snapscube]

hihihi ok. so i’m in my last of us fixation mode and i’m being extra silly about it but i NEED to know what’s ur current opinion on the last of us hbo?? also i logged onto tumblr and saw a lot of rly good points defending joel’s final choice and i remember during the last of us pt1 playthrough u had differing opinions so i wonder if u think the show’s differences affect that at all? btw i LOVE ur stuff and cannot wait until u do last of us pt 2 wehehehehe!!! anyway besides all that i just want u to know that u are one of the things in my life that makes it easier to get up in the morning

I still feel exactly the same about the final events as I always have! The show didn't change it for me, and actually being able to remove myself from being in control of the situation in the game and actually just watch the events play out in show format solidified that further. The connection I have to Joel as a player when I play the game really helps me understand his perspective more and stomach the goal a bit more easily, but without that immediate intimacy it puts into perspective for me how kinda monstrous the whole thing is from every angle. Obviously I don't ever lose that sympathy for him, and I never stop understanding why, because the whole point of the conflict is that no one is in the right. Ultimately I think the damning thing for every single person involved is that they removed Ellie's agency from the equation, and I still stand by that. They all should have talked to her. They should have told her the truth. All she wants is for her immunity to matter, and I believe that they may have been surprised at the lengths she's willing to go in order to make a difference, whether it's ultimately the right call or not.

I don't know what arguments you've seen exactly in defense of Joel's choice, but personally I don't really agree with one I see a lot and I'd expect will pop up again now that the show is over, which is the whole "well who's to say a vaccine would have worked anyway?????" angle. I think, while reasonable from a meta standpoint, completely ignores the intended framing of the story in order to more conveniently justify a protagonist that the story through its entire runtime is trying to tell you is a little bit of a piece of shit. It's pretty clear and safe to assume that the ultimate intent here is that... yes, the vaccine WOULD have worked. Maybe not in the sweeping way they hoped, but Ellie's sacrifice absolutely would have done something. The whole moral dilemma of the situation really does not make any sense unless you give them that as fact imo.

So then, assuming that is true, you have to wrestle with the idea that Joel is willing to take down the entirety of humanity for Ellie. And not really for Ellie, because none of this is what Ellie wanted. The game AND the show QUITE LITERALLY SPELL OUT for us that Ellie really really really does not want to go back to Jackson without finishing what they started, regardless of the cost. Joel's reasons for saving Ellie, while understandable, are ultimately selfish and rooted in his own trauma and having just seen the light at the end of his grieving over Sarah. Again, incredibly sympathetic, but it's selfish. I know we like to joke as much, but Ellie IS NOT his daughter. They share a similar bond after everything they go through, but by the end of the game you can already feel Ellie pulling away from that notion because she's starting to realize Joel doesn't have the same commitment to the idea of her immunity being meaningful as she does, they're only a few miles away and he's already asking her to give up and go back to Jackson with him.

Then, of course, I think what ultimately damns Joel in my eyes on a poetic/storytelling level is his decision to lie to Ellie after it's all over. That's the nail in the coffin for me. It would be one thing if he said "they were going to kill you on that operating table without even telling you what was going on and I couldn't let them do that", but instead he lies to her to make sure she's still able to see him as the father he desperately wants to be again. It doesn't change anything. He tells her her worst fear has come to pass: her immunity, this unexplainable thing that has taken so many of her loved ones from her, is completely useless. Not only that, but now even more people are dead. Including Marlene, who's known her since birth. The only thing his lie changes is the fact that he's responsible for it all.

Anyway, part of what I love most about The Last of Us Part II is how it follows up on these threads and you may be pleased to know that I actually just started streaming the game last night after the HBO finale premiered cause I was so pumped up I couldn't wait any longer haha. So you'll be seeing VODs for that soon :)

[strangerthanyou011]

idk if someone has posted about this before, but can we pls acknowledge just how often mike, will, and el are placed on posters to represent their love triangle?

like, hello??:

they are the three main characters, but this doesn't feel like a coincidence??

for s1 el is between will and mike, which makes sense bc while mike's main focus throughout the season is saving will, romantically he's focused on el. for s2 will is between el and mike, which makes sense bc el is hidden away in hopper's cabin and mike spends most of his time watching over a possessed will. for st3 el is between will and mike, which makes sense bc mike is focused on 'swapping spit' with el and neglects will. i really believe this placement is intentional, bc while it makes sense to emphasize the three of them on the posters regardless of a love triangle, the fact that the order always lines up with the season really proves it for me. the duffers are smart.

also:

triangle!!!!!!! again!!!!! el is in between mike and will and mike is staring at her disgustedly,,,

but....

now we have a line. i know there's a post about the triangle imagery in the st3 poster and how el has been removed from the equation in the st4 poster, but i havent seen anyone post the other posters so!!! enjoy<3

[calypsolemon]

like fsm and ras having a similar principle just coming at it from a slightly different angle/ from different positions of power would make SOOOO much sense too. We don't know enough about Ras yet but his people were clearly almost wiped out by those not of his kind, and FSM was a child who desperately tried and failed to stop a destructive, near apocalyptic war between the two species which bore him. At the end of the day the both of them seemed to have come out of those experiences with the idea that nothing good can come from attempting to mend torn bonds - once things are broken, they can only be managed apart.

Of course I think FSM's intentions with this are much more altruistic in nature, even if he is INCREDIBLY wrong on this account. For him, its clearly about preventing conflict, maintaining some sort of tenuous peace for as long as possible. That makes sense, given that he holds this massive responsibility over the world as its God, that he would choose the "easy" solution rather than be responsible for a war on the scale of the Oni/Dragon conflict. I think with Ras, its much more about wrenching a sense of control from that which is uncontrollable. Deep in his psyche, i think he still feels like that scared isolated little kid from years ago, and he is simultaneously grasping for power so he can never feel weak again, and looking to remove any threats - any outsiders - from the equation.

But even in this, its like.... at the end of the day, both of them arrive at separatism as a solution, which is undeniably the WRONG one. Especially so considering how easily it all crumbles. FSM dies and the serpentine war inevitably breaks out without his careful guidance, the merge gets triggered too early based on circumstances unforeseeable, one realm attempts to devour another and an unrelated third realm gets wiped out entirely in the process. It doesn't matter how meticulously one manages the pieces, the slightest movement topples the gameboard and leaves it all scattered on the floor. You can either accept that this will happen, accept that different cultures WILL cross paths and intermingle and yes, sometimes, have their conflicts, which can only be resolved by open communication and a willingness to learn. Or you can spend your life fighting it, wrestling for control, exerting your will, and becoming a worse, more prejudiced, more paranoid person, until it fucking kills you.

honestlyyyyy the ninjago merge desperately freaking needed to happen bc ninjago as a society was wayyy too perfectly divided into remote little pockets where different cultures and species rarely if ever met and interacted healthily. This is one of those reasons why I hope my theory that the realms were originally one and were split on purpose is correct - because the world's structure itself only makes sense if there was considerable, conscious effort put into keeping people divided and isolated from each other, on a false pretense of securing peace.

[the-road-from-calvary]

👥👥👥💖

I've hinted at it in a few of the few little things I've written but- I feel like Mia has just. Slowly left random things at Antonia's haven. A book here, this shawl, those decorative pillows, a bracelet there. Antonia's not really sure if it's intentional or not, but she doesn't tend to move them, unless they are somehow in the way. It creates a sense of familiar occupation in her space, and she likes it.

There's a bit of a code to the language changes. Early on, endearments in Spanish were often an admission she was feeling vulnerable - she'd never been in the practice of using Spanish in business, or with other kindred - only her family. So in some unexamined part of her mind, it always felt like anything she said in Spanish was safe, that only people she trusted would understand. Her efforts to learn French are solely for Mia's sake, so when she's using French, it usually means she's feeling Exceptionally Fond. English endearments are the rarest - as a result of the two aforesaid functions, English feels less intimate. But it also feels like making a statement - that it is Public Knowledge, for people other than the two of them, and that making such a statement is a commentary on feeling secure, even if no one else is there.

Early on, Antonia attempted to downplay any sort of direct protectiveness - Mia had made it very clear that she objected to people she cared about getting hurt or endangering themselves for her sake, and that Mia was not afraid to remove herself from the equation if she thought it would keep people safe. This did not actually change that Antonia, like any good Ventrue, figures that anything she cares about is under her protection and care, nor the fact that she was taught with a Lead From The Front ethos. There was a non-zero amount of fear after the Rohanne situation that she had overplayed her hand - it doesn't get much more Endangerment than crossing an elder eight times her age. But Mia didn't run away, so that's a reassurance, even if she still considers the extent of her protection to be No One's Business But Her Own.

[whencallstheheart]

One thing I really don't comprehend is why Liz picking Lucas was really that much of a shock for Nathan stans. I mean, she had expressed just as much interest in him than she did Nathan, if not more at certain times so why is team Nathan acting like Lucas never existed in Elizabeth's affections and that he was never even a choice?!

I get that they interpreted things in a different way, but I know Team Lucas (TL) wouldn't have been SHOOK the way Team Nathan (TN) was if it was the other way around. I know this because we all resigned ourselves to the fact that they were going to go that predictable route in the penultimate episode and while we had HUGE reservations, we didn't act blind to the fact that it was always kind of a possibility.

Now this merely stems from what I've read and seen on social media, but we didn't ignore the reality of what was happening in comparison to TN. We didn't ignore Elizabeth's chemistry and interactions with Nathan, or the small symbolic gestures they shared or the very intent way Nathan pursued her. However it truly baffles the mind that the other team really went out of their way to ignore every time she ever looked, smiled widely, laughed, yearned and had fun & some real passionate chemistry with Lucas. I mean talk about selective watching. 😂

All Lucas stans hear is how Lucas is shady, but Nathan's enormous lie about Jack is brushed over and twisted into a noble sacrifice, whereas I guarantee had it been Lucas, he would have been painted as an opportunistic conman who took advantage of a widow's pain and loneliness, a man who wormed his way into her life in a completely questionable and frankly dishonest way. The truth is that his one lie is bigger than any lie Lucas or really any other character has ever told Liz and that already set off alarm bells for me personally and is just one of the many problems I have with Nathan's character, however we don't have time to go through all my issues with him.

As for the way the story was told, I'm not sure why certain fans think that TN was inevitable and that his reward for apparently just existing and taking care of Allie would be Elizabeth, who has been having intimate after intimate moment with Lucas. Seriously, she went on more dates with Lucas, she would even make the first move with him like taking his hand or being open to maybe kissing him and it was LUCAS that stopped it. I mean maybe in the penultimate episode when Lucas literally put Liz's happiness above his own, I can understand why TN held out hope but to act like EVERYTHING that happened between her & Lucas before that wasn't an honest appraisal of her feelings is just so odd and it kind of came across as denial.

It is also bizarre how TN could ignore and excuse SO MUCH of what she did or said, how she conducted herself and how she would retreat from Nathan more often than not, how he would keep pursuing her and how she would barely give anything back. I mean, how much can you really just blame her fear of getting hurt on her rejection of him? That's a bit too simplistic, because that fear existed equally in her opening her heart to Lucas, plus it seems that TN care more about Nathan's happiness than whether him and Liz really belonged together and if she truly wanted to be with him. 🤷‍♀️

I mean even reading your analysis, I noticed it was based on how Nathan deserved her after everything, but she's not a prize and while I know you did not mean it that way, it just doesn't seem like a good enough reason for them to be together & nor is Ally. I've noticed that TN just adored the neat perfect family 'appeal' they had because Liz has LJ and Nathan has Allie who ironically Lucas helped him adopt with the money he offered.

However, that is not a sustainable enough reason for two people to build their lives together. They have to have that kind of love, spark and connection that is incomparable and cannot be broken.

I think all three characters deserve partners who truly loved each other for who they are intrinsically and not anything else, not Lucas's money which apparently is the only reason she could ever love him, because she's apparently a spineless gold digger, who couldn't possibly love him for his compassion, his unwavering friendship, sense of humour, loyalty and patience 😂 or rather Nathan's automatic dad appeal and the land he purchased and the complete nuclear family they could have created, which I again could understand because that is a tempting offer also and she already loved Allie so it could have fit her too, had she wanted Nathan in that way.

Don't get me wrong, I don't love how long it took to get us here & I do agree that it should have been concluded earlier in the season & Elizabeth doesn't come off looking great. Although in a way, with everything that she has been doing with Lucas, it could have looked a lot worse for her character to have discarded him too, but I suppose that is all a matter of perspective. I don't however believe that Elizabeth is some kind of monster which is apparently what some of TN have landed on because she rejected Nathan. It's like we've forgotten that a woman doesn't owe love or a relationship to someone just because they've put the time in, not Nathan and not Lucas. It would have also been okay if she had just decided to keep them both as friends, that is her right as a woman. Just because she didn't pick what certain fans wanted, they have dragged her unfairly when she was also really struggling with not only mourning her husband and the life they had, but having to pick up the pieces and carve a new life out for herself, whilst struggling with the immense confusion surrounding her feelings for both men. I don't think the cobwebs really cleared for her until Lucas removed himself from the equation, I think that is when she really opened her eyes to whom she could not, rather did not want to live without.

Anyway sorry for the long rant, you just seem like you love to analyse shows and characters the way I do. 😆

It all boils down to perception.  That’s it.  It also doesn’t help that people were essentially forced to pick sides.  Everything became black and white for people.  If one man was a certain way, the other was the opposite... even if that wasn’t true.  But that’s what we’re conditioned to think.  It’s like politics.  The lines may be more gray but people are going to only believe what they want to believe or are told to believe by others within their party.  Nobody’s gonna listen to the other side because they’re the “enemy”.  That’s not really a great strategy for a tv show largely about community.  The show is so proud of the fandom that was built but yet they actively worked to divide it for the past 3 years.

I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that Lucas did get all those interactions with Elizabeth.  He got the dates.  He got the almost kiss.  He got the hand-holding.  Nathan got NOTHING romantic with her even though we were led to believe he would at some point since it was supposed to be a triangle.  If she had picked Nathan, at least Team Lucas would’ve had all those moments to hold onto.  At least they got something along the way.  Team Nathan didn’t.  And because he wasn’t getting much along the way, it made people think that it had to be coming.  That they’re putting him through all of this because it’s going to end in his favor.  It felt like the natural course of the storytelling (but now we know there wasn’t even any planned storytelling... they just made it up along the way???).

The two teams are never going to get along now.  People have made up their minds and they will continue to believe what they want to believe.  No side is better than the other.  You have issues with Nathan so why can’t people have issues with Lucas?  That’s hypocritical.  You have your reasons and others have theirs for believing certain things about the characters.  At some point you just have to agree to disagree because this is how things are now thanks to how it was all written and how it was handled on and off screen.  We don’t need to be pointing fingers at the fans.

[dent-de-leon]

Hey there Leo, if it's okay with you, I wanted to ask about your thoughts on that bedroom scene. I don't know why it just doesn't sit well with me- it's just that to me keith seems too reserved and... sad... not relieved or open until the very end when the "as many times as it takes line happens". Maybe it's just me because I guess I expected a more im-so-relieved-youre-alive-hug scenario? something just felt off about that entire exchange and I can't point my finger at what.

I think a good way to read shiro’s bedroom scene is to compare it with Lance’s scene in Keith’s room. Because the fact that we get one almost right after the other is definitely intentional, and on some subconscious level, I think you’re meant to compare the two. It’s even a case of two former paladins talking with their lion’s successor. And while Lance’s talk with Keith is kinda touching and it’s really nice to see the two of them opening up more, I still think it has a distinctly different vibe from Kuron and Keith’s. 

For one thing, we start off outside in the hall. This is different from Lance’s scene, where we begin in Keith’s room and see the new red paladin just walk in. In the case of the latter, we feel like we belong there. However, with the former, we feel more like an outsider looking in. We hear just snippets of their talk at first, like we’re listening in on a private conversation, a fact that accentuates just how intimate and personal this scene is. It’s like the viewer is uninvited and these words are just meant for Keith and “Shiro.”

When we finally do see someone, it’s this extreme closeup of Kuron. This really highlights how downcast and drained he looks, how his hair is all long and matted and unkempt, how exhausted and defeated he is. There’s no closeup like this with Keith and Lance’s scene, a fact that really makes this shot stand out. It’s a sign that Keith and Kuron are more intimately familiar with one another. 

Another thing–in the later scene, when Lance walks in, he has to kind of give a reason why. Keith even points out it’s a surprise to see him stop by–“Must really be bothering you if you’re coming to talk to me.” This is not something that happens usually. And yet, Keith’s talk with Kuron bypasses this part completely. There’s no equivalent to Lance awkwardly knocking and trying to start up a conversation with Keith, because these two are already on a level where having quiet talks with one another is the norm. Because honestly, seeing Keith in “Shiro’s” room during his recovery is just something you’d expect. It’s not something surprisingly uncharacteristic or a shift in dynamic, so there really doesn’t need to be any explicit reason for it. 

Now, I’m certain that Keith’s place in the first scene is equal to Lance’s in the second. And likewise, Kuron’s role in the conversation is taken by Keith later on. So, let’s compare them. Keith removes his jacket before Lance stops by, and that doesn’t seem like much. But visually, we can see he’s kind of being more casual and open. He’s also wearing black instead of red, which equates to Lance seeing him as the leader–and by extension, the black paladin. But, that being said, everyone’s seen Keith without his jacket before. In contrast, Kuron is dressed down in an undershirt that makes him seem a lot more bare and vulnerable, because no one else has seen him when he wasn’t completely put together. 

Similarly, Kuron still looks disheveled and haggard. He doesn’t feel the need to cut his hair or shave in front of Keith, has no reason to keep up appearances the way he does with the other paladins. Around each other, they can just be themselves. This is emphasized by the fact that Kuron is still lying in bed, and remains painfully honest with Keith about his condition. He says, “I’ll try,” instead of some comforting lie like, “I’ll be fine.” He’s in a position of weakness, And Keith is noticeably standing above him. This makes Kuron look especially down and defeated, and added to that that Keith is put in the role of his caretaker, his protector–clearly, the lines between successor and mentor are very blurred. 

Typically, Keith’s position could be seen as having power over someone, as being some kind of aggressor. And yet, he’s taken on the role of Kuron’s guardian, his knight in shining armor. We can glean from Keith mentioning that the others would love to see him that so far they have not, that only Keith has been allowed in Shiro’s bedroom during this delicate time. That he’s the one who not only rescued him but is taking care of him, is staying at his bedside. There’s an intimacy here that’s quite rare. Kuron has really had it rough, but he still doesn’t hold himself back in front of Keith, doesn’t try to maintain a facade. He can allow himself to be exposed and fragile and he knows Keith would never take that trust and shatter it. 

Now, let’s compare that to Lance’s scene. Right away, a different dynamic is established. They’re both standing on equal ground, but still noticeably closed off and distant at first. There’s an uncomfortableness, an unfamiliarity to their interactions that you don’t get in the previous scene. Kuron lying down in bed with Keith standing over him undoubtably puts him in a more vulnerable position. But he’s okay with that because this is Keith, and Kuron trusts him to see this side of him. In comparison to that, Lance and Keith both seem very guarded around each other. Their walls aren’t down the way Kuron and Keith’s are. 

The tone is also very different. Keith and Lance, while discussing Lance’s insecurities, manage to still inject humor into the scene. For instance, the little thing Lance does where he adds his right index finger and then instead of taking away that finger he just fucking??? removes the pinky from his left hand?? And lmao it just like looks so out of place and silly and it’s really endearing and cute and I love it?? Like, little visual cues like that help to put the viewer more at ease. Lance’s expression is also gold. They’re covering a meaningful topic here, but they do it in a way where it doesn’t feel too heavy. 

Now, real quick let’s talk lighting. Kuron’s room is darkly lit, and everything is bathed in this abysmal, dark green hue. It doesn’t feel normal or comforting, it’s like…nervous anticipation. Like something here is very wrong and both Keith and Kuron are just waiting for the other shoe to drop. But again, this is a quiet, completely serious, bleeding open heart to heart in a dark lit bedroom. That feels way more revealing and intimate than two friends talking in a brightly lit, more casual atmosphere. There’s no sense of intensity, heartbreakingly overwhelming emotion, or overhanging danger with Keith and Lance. It’s two friends just having an honest talk and trying to help each other out. 

Also, the point of Lance’s talk is very different from Keith’s. Lance goes to Keith to talk about himself, to express his inferiority and do what he thinks is best for the team. So yes, he does this because he cares about the team. But this doesn’t manifest as “Hey, I know things have been rough lately, and we just got Shiro back and he seems really hurt–are you guys doing okay?” it’s “So, maybe the best thing I can do for the team is step aside.” Lance is a good kid and his heart’s in the right place, but at the same time, I think he kind of assumes everything is his fault somehow. So he’s being very understanding and trying to do something selfless, but really, this is more so about his own problem than Keith’s. 

Now, compare that to Keith, who’s asking Kuron how he’s doing, how he’s feeling, what the hell happened? Lance talks to Keith because he’s worried about the rest of the team, and is so wrapped up in his own insecurities he tries to take the blame for everything and reflects it all back on him. Keith in contrast, never makes the conversation about himself, and focuses completely on Shiro’s wants and needs, on trying to reassure him–something that Keith also does for Lance instead of the other way around. Now, this doesn’t make either Lance or Keith better or more caring than the other. It just means that the focuses of these two talks are very different with very diverging outcomes. Likewise, you can tell that Kuron and Keith are a lot closer by their conversation. It’s easy for the two to open up and reach out to one another. Keith’s heart also goes out to “Shiro” in a way that you just don’t really get from his interactions with Lance. 

Now, let’s talk about the end of both scenes. Because even then, there’s another parallel. Right when Keith is about to leave, we know Kuron calls him back. Similarly, Keith does the same with Lance. And then? Both Kuron and Keith make a kind of joke that’s meant to put the other person at ease. In the case of Keith, this is especially interesting, because Kuron’s just done this for him. So, when he sees things might end on a bad note, what does he do? Take a page out of Kuron’s book and try to cheer Lance up with a little joke. Now, that being said–while we know it makes Lance smile, there’s nothing that really grabs you about “Leave the math to Pidge,” in the way that “How many times are you gonna save me before this is over?” does. Again, Kuron’s talk with Keith is heavy. Even the humor is somewhat dark and foreboding. 

Of course, it’s also very deep and heartfelt. Kuron might not be Shiro, but he has a lot of Shiro’s memories. He remembers Keith always being there for him, remembers Keith rushing in to save him, remembers the overwhelming relief when Keith promises that he’ll be alright, that everything will be okay–that he’ll make it, that nothing’s going to happen to him. It’s incredibly sweet and heart-wrenching. And again, rather than feeling like something you’d hear about someone’s bro, this brings to mind a fairytale romance. Shiro teasing Keith about being his brave knight and always running in to save him. And Keith’s promise that he’ll rescue Shiro “as many times as it takes,” while looking back at Shiro with a smile so warm and fond and completely confident in their happy ending? Yeah, there’s just an aching tenderness to this scene that you don’t usually see. And it certainly feels more in line with something you’d expect from Shiro’s love interest. Regardless of intent, this scene really does read as romantic. 

There’s also the fact that, when Keith makes his promise to Kuron, he’s stepping out of the darkness and into the light. Kuron might be left behind there in the “dark,” but Keith is still shown as the person that can bring him back out into the “light.” 

[prydoniantrash]

oooooh your questions are making me so happy you don't even know. I've been bouncing up and down about this one since I saw it (literally! I had to remove myself from my flatmates and go to my room and go :):):):):)). These are really good questions omgg

So how I think of the whole synesthetic versus non thing; to me it's kinda like someone getting a headache when a storm's coming in versus being able to actually see the pressure gradients. They're both valid ways of sensing the world around you, but one gives a lot more information than the other! I think everyone can sense animaic waves to some extent, it's just a question of what that extent is- people who can see/hear the full animaic spectrum are synesthetic, while everyone else is stuck with a very basic understanding. so people do have a sixth sense that's tied to the waves, a little like eyesight, but for most it's not, like, actively attached to a different sense, and it doesn't really make a difference in how they perceive the world versus in how we do.

Amplitude only applies to light! I think the two spectrums are very closely related. my other thought is that lowering your amplitude literally makes you less 'sensed' - that sixth sense is probably best on picking up amplitudes as opposed to frequencies (synesthetics can do amplitudes AND frequencies, however), and lower amplitude makes you less visible to the brain. I think there's an average amp that most things have, and deviations from that average tend to need to be intentional.

one function CAN neutralize/destabilize another, and that is wavefunction collapse, you nailed it!! well, I think that's what it's called, but in reality it's very different from quantum wavefunction collapse, which idk how much you remember but that's a probability collapse, not a destabilization of the whole wavelength.

in this case, high energy light can destabilize a wavelength, perturbing it! this is NOT the real life definition of perturbing a wave, but the idea here would be the frequency would begin to wobble back and forth, so you'd have an oscillating frequency. I think this would spiral, oscillating more and more until it just turns into something that isn't quite a wave and turns you into probably something a little body-horror esque, changing the state of matter in your body entirely.

I think small perturbations in wavelength, ones that don't oscillate, are normal. I also think wavelength frequencies tend to evolve a little over time! but sudden shifts in frequency are REALLY bad for you, and can have both physical and mental side effects.

on a cool physics side note, I think, being similar to EM waves, animaic waves might follow a corruption of maxwell's equations! This would be REALLY interesting, because it implies that certain types of E or B fields could actually affect one's wavelength! this is assuming that whatever a wavelength is made out of is charged, though, and I'm not sure it is. (the wikipedia page on electromagnetic radiation is super interesting for thinking about this hehe)

are animaic waves a particle-wave like photons are? or are they just pure waves? if they resemble EM at a high frequency, then you'd think they'd have to be both. maybe the standard model of this u has a fifth boson! Just some food for thought for you :3 I'm not sure of many of these answers myself, but I think it's something I'd like to figure out heheh. I am going into astro-HEP, so maybe someday I'll find someone much smarter than me who can answer some of these questions >:3. I love thinking about stuff like this, so ty for coming on this thought experiment with me!

tldr; I have no idea about the real physics and math but I think these are an uncharged particle-wave that uses some sort of mysterious new particle in the standard model? maybe the vibrations between atoms in idle matter emit these! However, I do want these waves to correlate a little bit with the memory of an object (it's literal path through time I think), so what if it was a particle that got emitted just as matter traverses through time? that wasn't a tldr but it WAS a game theory from yours truly. I like. need to get back to actual e/m for real XDD but yeah!

god send me to this u let me study the waves pLEASE

raising my hand politely. i would like to hear about sigma

heheheh. heheheh. heh. Guy who I am just So Normal about right now. So ty for asking! Anyways. This is sigma :3 (art done by the wonderful @alzheimersparrotroute go check them out! they do some really good one piece stuff but ANYWAYS)

and he's a little freak of nature! to talk about that I gotta talk about how this u works heheh so here's a tldr:

in this world, matter is made out of/emits something called 'animaic waves', colloquially known as soulwaves

certain types of matter emit wavelengths at certain frequencies, basically. each element is made up of one wave at a certain frequency. one wave as in. just a sine wave that's all it is :3

things that are NOT just basic elements tend to emit more than one soulwave. well, that's a lie. they still only emit one, but the wave is a summation of a number of other waves. so, humans have seven component waveforms, that add together to form a summation wave.

google fourier series, that's what this is! I also actually made a little graph in desmos that gives an example of a three-wave fourier series (see here) (works best on pc). In this example, the black wave would be the 'summation wave'. Everything else would be components!

each human/thing has a slightly different summation waveform. the waves make the person. every one is unique. with some

everything has a prime number of component waveforms. this is a rule of nature. primes are stable.

god I sure hope nobody comes around and fucks that fundamental law of physics up

jk guess who. it's my boy. my wonderful son. remember how I said that humans have seven component waves + a summation? sigma has fourteen. woah sig why does mom let YOU have double the amount of component waves

well. that's because not that long ago, two people, one Wren Laplace and one Del Clarke fucked up very badly. This whole story takes place during a "semi-apocalypse" where life is still going on as normally as it possibly can, but roughly two years back these creatures called Ianis began to appear from a rift in-between dimensions and kill people by tearing apart their waveforms. wren was trying to stop this, del was actually working for the government in an attempt to learn more about what caused this to begin with. both ended up at two separate copies of a machine built back in the 40s that was powered by an ancient alien relic. things went very wrong. wren and del died that day, but their waveforms lived on...

fun sigma facts:

when sigma first wakes up it's impaled by a branch and without any memories! well, almost without memories. he somehow knows a LOT of basic societal information and random facts. this is somehow worse than total amnesia.

this man is disassociating CONSTANTLY and this only gets worse throughout the course of the story

literally JUST finished making this venn diagram of likes between him, wren and del so now I'm forcing you all to see it too <3

uh yeah! that's my guy :3 thank you all for listening!! and I am always very open to questions about the plot/other characters, literally I've been rotating this man around in my head nonstop since december it's really bad XD

[erabundus]

his  newfound  presence  in  this  world  is  an  ENIGMATIC  one,  forgotten  by  all  but  a  select  few.  though  his  misguided  efforts  have  led  to  memory  of  his  past  being  erased  from  public  consciousness,  the  scars  gouged  by the balladeer's  wicked  talons  still  remain.  pain  is  not  something  so  easily  resolved,  mistakes  do  not  disappear  with  the  metaphorical  wiping  of  the  slate  and  the  sins  that  weigh  on  his  shoulders  are  as  numerous  as  ever.  the  blood  on  his  hands  is  the  only  thing  the  wanderer  has  to  DEFINE  himself  by  in  this  new,  confusing  existence  —  and  so,  trying  to  fix  what  harm  he's  wrought  the  hard  way  is  the  PURPOSE  he's  given  himself  to  cling  to.

yet  it's  always  just  a  bit  awkward  whenever  he  encounters  someone  he  has  a  history  with.  

the  astrologist  —  he  remembers  her  well.  remembers  the  HEADACHE  she  gave  him,  and  how  close  he  came  to  removing  the  traveler  from  the  equation  were  it  not  for  her  efforts.  ren  stares  at  her  just  as  she  stares  at  him.  why  is  she  looking  at  him  like  that?  it's  strange.  he  can't  help  but  wonder  if  there's  some  scrap  of  recognition  there  —  for  if  he  could  see  into  his  intentions  before,  does  it  not  make  sense  that  she  could  perhaps  peer  beyond  irminsul's  tampering?  the possibility bothers him enough that he can't help but SAY SOMETHING — sharp tongue instinctively drenching the words in a thick coating of poison. not the smartest way to strike up a rapport, but the wanderer assumes if she knows who he is, it's only a matter of time before the conversation turns ANTAGONISTIC ... and if she doesn't, he'll no doubt sour things with his brusque personality regardless.

❝  excuse  me  —  ?  ❞   he's  just  starting  to  feel  a  bit  IMPATIENT  when  the  astrologist  finally  responds  —  yet  what  he  gets  in  return  is  the  last  thing  he's  expecting.  his  hat?  a  hand  comes  to  rest carefully  on  the  edge of the kasa in question  (  gesture  unconscious  )  while  ren's  features  twist  in  a  look  of  annoyance.  petulant,  like  a  child.  ❝  my  hat?  what  about  YOURS?  ❞  of  all  the  hypocritical  things  to  say.  ❝  at  least  i  don't  dress  like  a  circus  performer.  ❞ hmph!

@erabundus sent: ❛ if you have something to say, spit it out. ❜ ┊ ┊ ⋆˚ dialogue prompts ( accepting ! )

The astrologist looked him up and down, observing the individual before her. She didn't particularly have words to say to him, but his outfit was rather obnoxious, making it difficult for her not to stare impolitely. On top of it all, he had an aura about him that sort of spooked her. She wasn't able to place it immediately, but there was something. . . off.

Whilst lost in her thoughts, a chuckle escaped her lips, wondering what would happen if there was a gust of wind. Would he fly away? If there was rain, would his hat act like an umbrella? Silly little questions occupied her mind, which ultimately led her to this rather uncomfortable conversation.

❛ Oh, are you speaking to me with such a tone? I'll have you know that I wasn't planning on engaging. . . I do have to say one thing though. That hat is ridiculous. ❜

[familyabolisher]

it’s interesting what this appeal to ‘porn’ is expected to do as a qualifier to the mere presence of ‘misery’ or ‘trauma’ in a text (which are not in themselves necessarily condemnatory properties—that they are pornographic in nature is the appeal to narrative failure being made); drawing on reactionary presuppositions about who makes and consumes erotica and why to position the (satisfied) audience as voyeuristic & somewhat licentious & the text itself something intended to titillate & the creator as similarly participating in/enabling this effective orgy of spectacle. & this criticism is deployed to in part push back against the sort of accusation of audience voyeurism that that framework makes; like, paradoxically applied to at once position and resist the positioning of oneself as titillated & implicitly condemned consumer (like: "this pornographic affect is bad, and anyone who enjoys this work is in effect bad by virtue of being positioned as the unethical consumer; my condemnation of the text removes me from this category.") whilst at the same time communicating particular assumptions about the intentions of the creator. (imo, a criticism which rests on unverified appeals to creator's intent or lack thereof is often flimsy at best, but that's not the only dimension to all this, so.) like, a criticism whose bedrock is that eroticism is a de facto debased and condemnatory state.

but, like, the suggestion seems to be that a narrative in which a series of traumatising / upsetting / violent etc. events take place with little, let's say, "point" to them, such that their emotive drive never reaches a state of catharsis (with the caveat that catharsis is highly subjective and many would say that the Misery Narrative, as it were, is generative of catharsis on the part of the audience!) or some other kind of narrative tapering-off wherein their presence feels justified is one which can only then be engaged with through the framework of voyeurism and titillation that the 'trauma/misery porn' claim provides. which i don't think is true! and i think harboring suspicion towards anyone compelled by such a narrative is an easy slip into reactionary thinking.

i guess i just don’t buy the suggestion that the presence of trauma or suffering that can’t be made edifying or otherwise placated in-narrative is de facto a narrative failing, or that a person's engagement with narratives that deal heavily in trauma or suffering is fair cause for them to be be painted as some kind of lecherous voyeur (or even that like, what you could call the Sickos Response is bad, or one that needs purging from one's critical faculties. not to state the obvious but fiction isn't real, in the sense that what is happening in a narrative is not a literal transposition of actual real-world events taking place coterminously.); like, just calling something 'trauma/misery porn' and calling it a day does not make for a substantial critique. it's a very mathematical approach to narrative; anything that doesn't factor into an imagined equation wherein the narrative is made critically legible (ie. you found the 'answer') is superfluous, and that perceived superfluity is problematised when it invokes discomfort in its audience such that it has to be explained away via a gratuity that we then have to position as odious.

i'm not arguing universally in favour for these sorts of narratives, because i think that would be as reductive as attempting to write them all off under one umbrella of very broad and specious claims about their morally suspect character; i'm just like, thinking about the conditions that giving 'trauma porn'/'misery porn' that particular critical currency begins to set & the assumptions (about porn, about eroticism, about what it means both to create & engage with erotic works) that go into the claim that a work being pornographic is indicative of its being bad. i think spectacle and exploitation (and the question of how + where/whether we can we draw hard boundaries between spectacle that exploits our emotional faculties & spectacle that appeals to and enhances them & whether the latter category could fairly be called spectacle—i could follow this train of thought for hours frankly lol) are highly valuable touchpoints for evaluating art, but i'm very suspicious of the language used to effectively skim the surface of what could be far more interrogative conversations.

terms like "trauma porn," "misery porn," etc as presumed indictments of a text are like ... such unserious gestures towards "criticism" lmao