#its not really a problem that needed solving imo

[maxx-doodles]

I just think they're neat

[cloudbends]

new pokemon episode!!!

[centrally-unplanned]

So because I tend to be described as "center-left" by the forces of all that is evil and unpure assailed against me in their limitless and merciless cruelty, the way the far-right in the US misuses economic statistics tends to find no sympathy from me - in ways that I find difficult to even engage with. (Also, for balance's sake, true libertarians tend to be the ones who make this mistake the least, a solid W for them - they average the highest on this kind of economic literacy alongside the technocratic left). I am on the other hand more sympathetic to the reasons some on the left have for this mistake - but it is still unproductively misguided.

The idea from far-left is is essentially that the US economy is and must always be broken in all ways, because that is a premise that implies the platform of reform they endorse. This is a stance that, imo, most leftists will have because they want to help the poor. They will discuss child poverty and homelessness in the same breath as "living paycheck to paycheck" and the "immiserated middle class". They see these things as united, both causally but also practically - that the solution for the homeless and for the working class are the same, the bonds that will form a united front strong enough to cut the chains of capital in one fell swoop.

This is not only not true, but it is the opposite of true. A middle class that believes itself immiserated and struggling is one least likely to support the redistributive policies necessary to address chronic poverty because they are in fact very different problems. Those people are going to ask for tax cuts! They have jobs, they don't think they need welfare checks, but they do (correctly!) think lower taxes will help them. Cheaper grocery prices means cheaper wages for workers in the grocery industry, the current economy has been really good for the lower income working classes as the tight labor market has boosted their relative wages. Which middle class white collar people haaaaate, because it raises their prices. And since you want lower taxes but the money has to come from somewhere, you are more willing to cut things like welfare to pay for them.

When the problems are real they can align - like yes the housing market in the US is pretty busted, "everyone" will benefit from just making more houses. But even then, the "everyone" doesn't include all the incumbent upper-middle class housing owners, and it particularly doesn't help new home owners who have a mortgage to pay off that are banking on rising real estate prices. All these policies have real tradeoffs. Opportunities for solidarity do exist, don't get me wrong, but its not the default state. You think America won't raise taxes on the rich just to expand the mortgage tax deduction? In your heart you know we would.

Obviously none of this applies to you if you think the world is corrupted root to stem and only the blood of the capitalist class can water the soil of revolution and birth the flower of a new age, or whatever. But unless you want that you are gonna need accurate policy analysis to actually solve the problems within the system, and they will have tradeoffs. And a middle class that thinks itself too poor to help is not an asset in that.

[jules-makes-stuff]

Been seeing ppl on reddit argue about magic in fantasy for a while and I don't want to lose 3 hours bickering over there but I have *thoughts*

By now hard and soft systems are pretty well known but people ague againt hard systems because it "takes away the, well, MAGIC of magic". I think people aren't considering tone and the overall goals of a work and are conflating personal taste with truth again.

In my mind it really depends on the above though. Say you are Hoffman writing The Golden Pot. You want your work to be dreamlike, ethereal, like a half remembered song. Everything operates on dream/fairytale logic and emotion is reality. You should absolutelt NOT explain magic. It should be a strange force adhering only to narrative and emotional forces.

If you are writing a magical realism piece, like One Hundred Years of Solitude, the magic again is there to emphasize the absurdity of reality people at the time faced. Explaining anything takes that away. Same with horror or something like Metamorphosis. You don't know why this is happening and that means you cannot stop it or it doesn't matter how it happened, only the consequences.

Then there are more classical fantasy stories like Lord of the Rings. Magic is something ancient and grand and mysterious.... and none of the hobbits have it besides stray magic items. That is what people miss, I believe, when using this example. Gandalf isn't our pov character. Most characters there do not have magic or only have limited magic w very specific limitations, tools essentially. So we can follow along and anticipate how these will be used. There is big, scary, unknown magic, but it is usually something used by the opponents or characters that come in and out of the narrative. And I think that's a good balance! Its fine that we dont know the science of magic, because we understand enough when we need to, we can make predictions and there is enough wiggle room for something like Gandalf the White to happen. A looot of fantasy had followed this setup: the mc has only a few well defined spells and magic items, the world has more deep magic.

But, I personally do like harder magic, if the mc is supposed to be a wizard (or the equivalent). I would call most battle shonen hard magic (I think this is where ppl might want to kill me) becauss in a good battle shonen we know what everyone can do and we can plan along with the characters and predict how the fight will go. When a problem is solved in an interesting way we can go "I should have seen that comming!"

In BAD versions people yell really loud and whoever yells loudest about friendship (once we wasted enough screentime to call the third act done) wins. And this here is my problem. Because I have seen stories where characters do the same with magic and it breaks my immersion. When magic used by the mc can suddenly do anything and everything what is the point? I'm no longer following a story w interesting twists and turns, Im waiting for the author to say "ok thats enough we can push the win button now". And listen, obviously its a made up story, none of this is real or matters, but its the authors job to keep the illusion alive that it isnt.

This is different from creating a mcguffin that can do anything once and having a quest about it, there getting the item is the challenge, not using it.

And a system being hard doesnt mean we need to know the science behind it, just that we need to know what it can do and the limits. In avatar they can manipulate the elements w martial arts. Period. Why? How? The spirits said so. Most ppl fuck up hard magic imo by starting to write a thesis about magical physics or overcomplicating it instead of taking 1 simple idea and exploring all the cool things that it can do. Witch Hat feels super magical and yet all there is to magic is drawing magic circles and we actively learn how to draw them in the series and the way the characters problem solve w magic and their try-fail cycles are super fun!

The point of this ramble is that I need structure that fits the narrative goals of the work. If we're doing a dream like narrative throw away explanations. If Im a wizard playing mind chess w other wizards you better tell me what chess pieces we have.

[lazycranberrydoodles]

its prosecutor jiang wanyin!!!! oh fuck!!! / gifs + au rambling below the cut / follow for more mdzs x aa crossover stuff :3

all the gifs i made (poses traced off franziska):

hes so similar to franziska when you think about it. theyre both deeply insecure tsundere adoptive younger sibling of successful main characters. who carry whips. something something edgeworth choosing death and wwx actually dying also

his share code is HWFEFF if you wanna use him in a trial! you can't share backgrounds but heres the scenery from the donghua i used.

the easiest way to put custom stuff into objection.lol is to send it in discord and then use the link from opening it in your browser :)

a whole lot of AU stuff

the art im making is for if mdzs was an ace attorney game, playing from WWX's POV to solve various mysteries/cases over the course of the plot. so this scene would be from turnabout goddess, which would loosely cover the dafan mountain mystery.

cases include:

Turnabout Revenge (Mo Manor, quick introductory first case)

Turnabout Goddess (Dafan mountain, the good times flashback)

Turnabout Saber (the man-eating castle (omg hiii nhs))

The Blind Turnabout (Yi City arc)

Turnabout Deviation (the Koi Tower conference, Empathy on NMJ ala turnabout memories or beginnings. opening cutscene is his qi deviation)

The Blood-Soaked Turnabout (second Burial Mounds siege, flashbacks: Xuanwu, Sunshot, YLLZ, Nightless City massacre)

Turnabout Lotus Seeds (testimony about JGY, tree scene, golden core reveal, bathtub scene. opening cutscene could be JGS' death but that would make it canon rather than ambiguous)

Turnabout Confession (Guanyin temple)

the problem with splitting novel!mdzs into turnabouts is that flashbacks are a huge chunk of the book but they don't have mysteries/ cases to solve so they've gotta be lumped together with present day stuff. imo? many of the flashbacks would likely have to be abridged so they could be retold ala DL-6, SL-9, or the fourth grade incident, where characters talk about it over some pieces of art. this is really difficult when theres a metric ton of unspoken, complex, and signifcant history between every character lmao

there's not as much of a problem with the cql timeline but i have not finished it. so.

the opening cutscenes in ace attorney always show the murder and/or the murderer plotting. the first cutscene of the game would be MXY summoning WWX, muttering about getting revenge on his family (it would also be good for him to mention the yllz being dead because that's how the novel starts.) cut to WWX's POV as he wakes up covered in blood and the investigation segment begins.

for investigations of monsters (goddess, saber, etc) the cutscene would be a scene of some poor throwaway cultivator getting their shit wrecked.

it would be cool to make a breakdown for JGY but again I need to review that scene cause I don't know who I'd base him on. maybe Vasquez or Dahlia.

tell me your thoughts!! i'm working off of a mdzs summary/ skimming the novel because i don't remember it too well so if i get anything wrong please yell at me

Jin Ling's sprites & Nie Huaisang's sprites / masterpost

[coldgoldlazarus]

Not that we need a third Metroid II remake, but given how disparate the existing versions are from each other, I kinda have to wonder sometimes what another go that tries to combine the best of each might look like.

AM2R is probably the strongest overall package and embraces the series' lore in a great way, but does feel sometimes (to me at least) like it's still going a little too far in trying to force Metroid II into Super/Zero Mission's mold, most noticeably with the cool but jarring geothermal plant sequence.

Samus Returns spectacularly misses the mark with the tone and ending, but there are also a whole heap of other things I really like the handling of in the first 95% of it. (I have a whole list, in fact, buried somewhere in my drafts.)

And the original Metroid II, for all its early installment weirdness and hardware-induced shortcomings can make for an awkward experience, it also used some of those same limitations very elegantly to create a thematic sense of darkness that neither remake really matches. (Even if AM2R does wind up closer, IMO it still falls short in some ways, in trying to solve problems that the original had turned into features.)

Realistically speaking, all three are kinda very different beasts despite their shared core, and hard to reconcile easily. Even so, I do find myself thinking about whether it would still be possible to create a marriage of the best traits of each, and if so, what exactly that would look like.

[baltears]

"since we are finally talking about pervert posers, can we finally talk about trans posers please. nobody can deal with the people who look exactly the same as before "coming out" and just go by a nickname now. come on. its fine to be cis. it will not make you uncool. its morally neutral."

lets put aside the fact that this is a rephrase of the tried and true "transtrenders" argument that we've already been through a dozen times, because maybe this person hasn't heard of "transtrenders" or "truscum" and is just voicing a thought. i guess this person saw the post about kinks seeming to run on trend cycles and discussion of kink not always feeling earnest because there's so much showmanship involved and basically just projected that logic onto trans people. like, ok, if you're trans, show me the money. show me the surgeries. show me the hormones. show me that your life is materially different from that of a cis person.

lets also put aside that it's a very, very different scale of accusation to ask someone if they're really as into femdom as they say than to ask someone if they're really as attached to their gender identity as they say. i think that stands on its own. in general it's really not appropriate to bring up either one of these questions apropos of nothing in personal conversation, but we're talking about one, so lets talk about the other. you're talking to my mutual about it, which means you might as well be talking to me, so we'll talk about it.

i'm one of these people, a so-called "trans poser." (very funny wording by the way. i will be transposing all the way to my grave.) i look cis, i sound cis. some people (straight people, but still) can't even clock me as queer at all. i have not and probably will not ever medically transition. i "go by a nickname" now, aka i submitted all the relevant documents at the appropriate times, made all the phone calls, went to the courtroom and stood in front of a judge who agreed that i was allowed to change my name.

so if i didn't want to medically transition, why would i do all that? why would i still call myself trans? is there anything wrong with being cis? do i think it would make me uncool or morally lesser? and why don't i want to medically transition? don't i have dysphoria like "all" trans people do?

ill answer the last question first. yes i do have dysphoria, although i don't agree with the postulate that this is something all trans people must have. (imo that idea just comes from simple ignorance of the true depth and breadth of what the trans experience is and can be. if you think this way you need to be hearing from more trans people.) my dysphoria just doesn't look the way a lot of other trans people's dysphoria looks. i'm genderfluid nonbinary, which means that i sometimes feel body dysphoria and i sometimes don't. this means that rather than simply "solving" my dysphoria with medical transition, medically transitioning has to be understood as a series of roughly equal pros and cons – essentially, i can only solve one set of problems by creating a different set of problems.

does that make me less trans? you tell me.

i'll go ahead and say, even though i really shouldn't have to, that i don't think that being cis would make me uncool or morally lesser. actually, one of my favorite things about being trans and having a trans understanding of gender is that i find myself very drawn to and fascinated by all kinds of gender expression, including those of cis people. cis people have a huge variety of ways to express their gender, and just like trans people, no two cis individuals will want to express their gender in precisely the same way. don't you think i would have scoured all those expressions, looking for a way for me to fit in as cis? don't you think i'm aware that there are infinite ways to present yourself a cis woman or man while still being a cis woman or man? don't you think i puzzled as a child, once i unraveled my internalized misogyny, over the fact that i knew i loved girls and women in every way it was possible to love them, that there was nothing at all shameful about being one and that in fact girlhood and womanhood were wonderful ways of being, and yet somehow i still couldn't be one of them? if i don't hate women, if i love women, why wouldn't i want to be one? if i thought i must be cis for most of my life because i didn't know there was another way, why couldn't i just keep on doing that, but be gender-nonconforming or otherwise visibly queer? didn't i try? why don't you tell me if it sounds to you like i tried?

so why did i do all that? why bother telling anyone at all that i'm trans when strangers on the street wouldn't know and my body doesn't look androgynous? why do i now "go by a nickname" (god, a nickname, what a way to talk about the vital trans experience of deciding on a name), not just in the minds and hearts of all my loved ones but also in the records of the state? why have difficult and fraught conversations with my parents about the areas of my identity they aren't interested in understanding? why come out to everybody, not just once as bi but again as something that still barely has any visibility in the public eye, much less any understanding? why feel how i feel? why be what i am? why put up with people calling me a trender and a poser when i could just close my mouth and change my name back and be cis?

i don't know, why don't you tell me?

[lunachats]

this is what ive been into lately... btw... a dungeon crawler browser game based on minesweepers...

cute simple premise that's also been helping with my brainfog due to all of the little arithmetic and deduction problems...!

it kinda boils down to an exploration game where you try to efficiently expend your health to reveal squares and level up! the win condition is reaching 13 hearts (level ~16?) so you can beat the dragon ofc. attacking/revealing a square with a higher threat level than you have in hearts will kill you, hence you need to solve the board, or make educated guesses, so you can figure out your next move. and you also need to find heart scrolls & xp point items--level ups heal you, but they're not enough on their own to win the game!

there's a lot of simple little tricks & strategies that come from monster knowledge & are pretty satisfying to apply... e.g. understanding how the lil eyeball dude's obfuscation region works so you can take it out after encountering the ? spaces. or hunting down the sole level 10 lich so you can take its scroll and disarm the mines, which offer additional xp! even dealing with the mimic (looks the same as a loot chest, but has threat level 11) is a fun little addition that imo really adds to the dungeon crawling experience! anyways. love finding stuff like this on itch.io... and i love games with really simple premises that are nonetheless quite engaging!

[sarbesaline]

So, the away ship right? (Ignore Kido's forehead, this ain't about him).

It's interesting to me how it seems to be shaped almost like a trion soldier. Especially that front part with what looks to be giant camera's looks very reminiscent of a Bamster's face.

There's also some interesting things we can infer about how it travels and what sort of medium the space between the planet nations in the neighborhood is based on its design. (assuming, ofcourse, that I am not going insane and reading way too deeply into it) For starters the lack of any visible lifting body type structure (wings etc) aswell as the way the landing legs don't seem to be something that gets stowed away but rather just hang from the ship permanently suggests to me that whatever is being traversed is very empty so aerodynamic forces don't really apply.

But the lack of windows to me suggests that there is still a risk of stuff like some sort of debris hitting the craft, in which case having a window is a real liability.

So that to me suggests that the void in the neighborhood is very similar to space. Which implies that this thing night also be capable of Interplanetary travel if you got it into orbit somehow? Which has funny implications imo.

Like, Border might just have cracked the tech needed to just go out into space to different planets with ease, and all but solved scarcity thanks to the fact that they can fucking print flour using trion (as comes up in the Away Mission training Arc). And they're just like... sitting on this tech that could solve 90% of the world's problems and only using it to fight a war. It seems like the scope of the story won't be focusing much on the rest of the world outside of Mikado City, but if it ever does, I hope this gets brought up.

[kradogsrats]

This might be spoilers for what happens later in your Lissa centric fic but do you ever see Sarai as a better leader than Harrow was in Canon?

Interesting question! I feel like when a lot of the fandom looks at Sarai, they see her anti-dark magic stance and challenge of Harrow's characterization of the magma titan as a "monster" as her most prominent character moments and interpret that as her primary character trait being compassion for all people and creatures, like a fully-matured version of "incapable of killing" Rayla.

Which like... fair! The series goes out of its way to associate them, two characters who will never meet, to the point of Rayla repeating Sarai's lines. Also "Does it think? Does it feel? Does it have a family? Is it the last of its kind?" is a real banger, hitting right at the one of the deepest core themes of the story, so it's not surprising that it's what stays in everyone's head. But the really important line for understanding her as queen in relation to Harrow as king is later in the scene: "You said you want to build a better world, to really change things, but that's going to take decades of hard work. There's no monster you can slay and solve all your problems." The novel has an additional sentence in there to reinforce the point: "There's a special kind of courage that you need for consistency and perseverance."

Both Harrow and Sarai are interested in systemic change. The novel describes them as having had "long, late-night discussions" during which they planned how they were going to solve the problems they identified. (All of this kind of says something about King Atticus, too.) However, she self-describes in narration as an "optimistic realist" to Harrow's "idealist." She believes that as king and queen, they can change the world—but it may take a lifetime, and will involve a lot of hard decisions.

Really, I think the key difference between them is life experience. Sarai married Damian and chose to have a child with him, fully knowing that he almost definitely wouldn't live to see that child grow up. Harrow, when they meet, has probably never had a serious relationship. Sarai comes from a military background (IMO), so she has both given and taken orders she might not fully agree with—something we see from her accompanying Harrow on the mission. She made her case to him, he made his decision, and she follows through on that decision without a single complaint, even though we know it's one she dislikes. Harrow, as he knows, was born a prince—for all his training, it's unlikely anyone gave him orders, and they probably took his opinion as having more weight. He's somewhat aware of his privilege compared to most of his subjects, and kind of overcompensates with his ideas of compassion and servitude.

Not to go all American politics on everyone, but it's kind of the same misunderstanding a lot of liberals have about the presidency—if we can just get the right person into that seat, they'll be able to tell everyone that [insert social policy] and it'll happen. The reality, as Sarai knows, is that big changes takes years of lobbying, boots-on-the-ground activism, and lots of little changes that still require fighting tooth and nail to get them done. She's absolutely right that it takes a special kind of courage to do that work and keep doing it without falling into despair and resentment. You also have to know how to pick your battles, something that Harrow is definitely not used to doing.

Ultimately I do think Sarai would probably be more successful than Harrow was as sole ruler, if that was a situation that somehow occurred, BUT it's important that she never denigrates Harrow's idealism or thinks of him as naive. I think she values it, and loves him for it—for things like "reject history as a narrative of strength, and instead have faith that it can be a narrative of love," which is 100% pure Harrow. Like Harrow believes she makes him better, I think she believes that he makes her better. Sarai's more effective but Harrow's more inspirational. So, idk... make of that what you will.

[kajaono]

BBC Sherlock taking John and Sherlock’s relationship for granted creates a rift in the narrative

I have already pointed out in previous post how disappointed I was that John and Sherlock relationship never developed, in a way it should and would have been justified by the narrative

In this point I want to look at how their relationship started and how this was already created the first problems. This review contains multiple spoilers for other Sherlock Holmes shows.

When John and Sherock meet for the fisrt time in ASIP they immediatley start working together.

No hesitation. They both went full in, from minute one onwards. This is a nice way of showing how well John and Sherlock work together, and that they think alike. But on the other hand it feels like Mofftiss took the relationship for granted and said: "These are John and Sherlock. Of course they work perfectly which each other. We do not have to talk about that."

But imo that was TOO fast. There is no conflict. They never have time to discuss where they stand in this relationship. And because Mofftiss pretend, that they work perfectly together, from minute one onwards - even though they just met - it is hard to further develop their relationship from here on. Because it is already perfect. You would need something really big to happen for them to redefine their roles in this relationship. We kind of had that in season 4, but we knew how messy that went. And there was never a TALK after that. Thats also a main problem in this show. John and Sherlock never really talk. It is John who often sits down and talks and Sherlock is not listening. Of course the relationship is developing, but the show never uses its whole potential.

So what would have been a better way of handling their first meeting? A first meeting that allows them to naturelly grow into the relationship... and further develop their relationship?

Elementary

Yeah I am gonna drag Elementary into this again. BBC Sherlock and Elementray share a really similar set up. They meet each other for the first time, and immeditaly move in and start solving cases together. But Elemenetary gives John and Sherlock time to grow into the relastionship.

This moment defines the Joanlock relationship imo. It shows that Joan is ready to confront Sherlock and call out his bullshit, that Sherlock listens and is effected by what Joan thinks and says, that Sherlock still has a lot of work to do. AND - most importantly - that a Johnlock relationship takes effort and is nothing that you can take for granted.

And this show was on air for 7 seasons, with 22 episodes each. Nevertheless the relationship was developing the whole time. In future seasons they are recalling their first meeting, honoring how much they have grown.

Resulting in:

gif by: @marlahey

This is something we never got in BBC Sherlock. We never saw them honoring the growth they made, recalling their first meeting, and having a satisifying conculsion, aka: "I love you" (in what way doesn't matter btw. The Joanlock moment wasn't romantic either).

Of course you could agrue now: "But Elementary did had the time for stuff like that, BBC Sherlock only had 4 seasons, with 3 episodes each."

So let us look at The Irregulars next:

This show starts as a usual crime detective show... with a supernatural twist. But slowly you learn that the core point of the show is the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.

The show is set years after Holmes and Watsons first meeting. Actually when we first meet John his relationship with Sherlock is over already, broken and ruined. Later we - the viewer - get multiple flashback scene, showing us how they first met, how their relationship developed, and why they are not talking with each other anymore, resulting in this glorious moment:

But the show doesn't stop there, it even goes further and shows us how John and Sherlock slowly get closer to each other again. Sitting in the dark, discussing their relationship, the mistakes they made and most important: apologizing.

Still angry at Netflix for cancelling the show.

Of Course we also have other approaches. RDJ Sherlock.

Like BBC Sherlock it leans much more into Crime aspect of the story. But the story still centers around Holmes and Watsons relationship. When we first meet them they have been together long, probably for years. They are already settled in their relationship. They both know their roles in this relationship and they both feel comfortable with it. They behave like an old married couple. And when they fight, it is never serious. The first real problems erupt when Watson decides to marry. And thats the whole core problem of the first movie: Watson moving out of 221B to marry a woman and how Holmes deals with that. He develops from more or less boycotting the marriage to accepting it and gifting Mary and Watson a ring.

The second movie is him trying to accept that his love of his life best friend is married now and trying to solve cases on his own, without Watson. Eventually sacrificing his own life to safe Watson AND Mary. So even though the movies are crime movies, the Johnlock relationship is still the heart of the story.

If the movies wouldn't focus on the Johnlock relationship, the story would be a different one.

Many Johnlock moments in the movies are non-verbal, so excuse the extensive use of gifs here. But there is so much happening on a non-verbal level!

For example the wedding, which is a huge Johnlock moment. John being super nervous before his wedding and you see that Holmes is not happy either, but he still nods, letting Watson know that it is okay and that Watson is making the right decision.

But nevertheless he has to look away when Mary and Watson kiss. The message is clear here. He isn't happy, he is sad because he is loosing the most important person in his life.

Then we have moments like this, (see below) where - during a moment of danger - they cling to each other, making sure the other one is safe. Not being afraid of physical contact. This is something I was also missing in BBC sherlock btw. Physical they always made sure to stay away from each other. When they hugged it was like... a big thing. Which - set in modern times - felt a little bit off. Because in contrast to Miss Sherlock (see below) Holmes was never shown to be actively against physical contact. I wish the production team would have allowed more friendly touches. I mean... ACD Johnlock walks around arm-in-arm and John gets nervous everytime Holmes comes close, because "poeple might talk." Nah...

I think A game of shadows, peaked when Watson and Holmes danced. Because it shows that they have a deep connection. They came from a place where they acted like an old married couple, then being all nervous because of the Watson/Marry wedding, having to re-identify their relationship towards each other, to this finale dance, where - symbolically- they are a couple again. Everything came full circle. It is like: No matter what happens around Watson and Holmes, they will always find their way back to each other. They will always be the center of the story. It will always be them against the rest of the world, no matter what. No excuses.

But acually, the adaptation most close to BBC Sherlock is Miss Sherlock. I mean... it was basically a female japanese copy of BBC Sherlock.

But still... it improved a lot of things. When Sherlock and Wato (Watson) first meet they really can not stand each other. This Sherlock is also rude, but it is really clear that she is on the autism spectrum. She gets overhelmed by too much light and by loud noises. She is really against phyisal contact.

And the most beautiful thing about this adaptation: It knows that in the end Watson will always be Sherlocks weakness. It will not say: "Don't try to drown in the well. Good luck. I am off hugging my sister." (season 4 shade). In Miss Sherlock the finale conflict is: Watson being manipulated to work against Sherlock. Showing, that in the end, it all boils down to their relationship again. And this adaptation wrote a scene that is just.. chef kiss!

When Wato is around, Sherlock is all grumpy towards her. But during the finale Wato is kidnapped. And the show gives us a short look into one of Sherlocks most private moments. The moment she realizes that Wato is kidnapped. A moment where Sherlock is completly alone. And we see a honest and extremly vunerable moment. This one:

Sherlock screaming Watos name in agony. Knowing that she NEEDS Wato. And then she goes and risks everything to save Wato. EVERYTHING!

Her reputation and her life. She is even ready to be killed by Wato.

TL.DR:

So what am I trying to say? That BBC Johnlock has no relationship development? That there isn't any trust between them? Nope, course not.

We see John and Sherlock growing into the relationship, we see Sherlock getting softer because of John, we see John healing because of Sherlock and on the other hand we see Sherlock opening up, telling Watson whats really on his mind. Trying to be a better human, being more social. But imo that should have been the plot of idk... the first season, maybe the second one. Because thats just the beginning. A Johnlock relationship is so mch deeper, holds so much more story potential. Yeah, John and Sherlock belong to ecah other and are good for each other. We know that! Is Sherlock ready to confess his (plantonic) love for Watson by the end of the show? Is Watson so jealous of Sherlocks love interest that he opens a rift in the universe? Is Sherlock having a break down, screaming out Watsons name in agony? I don't want to see John being replaced by a balloon in season 4 (!) and it is played for a joke. Their relationship should be so so so much deeper at that point. For me BBC Sherlock felt like, they stop mid-relationship-development. It feels like Mofftiss said: "John and Sherlock work well with each other and are best friend. What else is there to say?" SO! MUCH! MORE!

They had all this potential, and went nowhere with it. And i don't necessarily mean romantically btw. Eveen Hilson drove into the sunset together eventually...

[noangeleither]

"fixing" the panic attack scene to be more platonic ™

im extremely active on twt and have been noticing a sydcarmy tweet go viral multiple times a week (like w thousands of interactions its crazy), and its really great to see how much people love and see it for this ship. recently carmys panic attack scene went viral again, and naturally, some ppl gave their piece about how we are all dumb for interpreting it as romantic. that sydney represents his love for his job or his duty to the restaurant (*sigh*).

this scene imo, is the most concrete proof of this ship. i can excuse (not really) interpreting every interaction between them thus far as platonic but this scene....i just refuse. this is gonna be a long post, not analyzing the scene per se because i can't possibly say anything that hasn't already been said but more "fixing" the scene to fit the narrative of antis, and i hope in doing so really shows there's no other way to interpret this scene as other than romantic. again its gonna be a long post bc im just ranting and i think i will lose my mind if i dont type this out.

lets go.

so first off i like to think of this scene as an equation/experiment. simply a problem that needs to be solved.

problem/reason of panic = ...we will discuss this...

solution # 1 = claire -> failed

solution # 2 = sydney -> worked.

Problem/Reason

s02e09 opens up with carmy and claire finally consummating their relationship, with an interesting song choice might i add and carmy dissociating, looking sad, or broken (???) after. because many have said carmy pulling memories of sydney from his psyche to calm down have to do with work i always remember that, it really doesnt make any sense?

carmy is clearly having a panic attack due to him not being "fixed" as soon as he made it official with claire. he felt pressure from his family both currently and in the past to date claire because she is amazing and perfect. add mikey also being a part of that crowd, and carmy so desperately trying to connect with him when he cannot, is why i think he looks so despondent after that scene. i truly think he thought he would be a changed person after everything with claire and when that didn't happen he flipped...

we know this is the reason bc his panic attack starts with their sex scene and the lyric "I dont know" from strange currencies by REM.

this isn't to say that he isn't nervous or stressed about the soft open but its clear that he's not having a panic attack about work nor have we ever seen him have a work-related panic attack (correct me if I'm wrong). in s1 he has one or two due to him greiving his brother.

platonic fix: To make it about work I would have added scenes like when Carmy started that stove fire in braciole, his meltdown in review, some scenes of his horrible time at EMP, and him grieving his brother. i think these would represent his fear of failure, falling back into old toxic habits pertaining his career, the fear of fostering a toxic work environment like the ny chef and also the idea of "failing" mikey

but theres a reason why none of this occurs bc its not about his job or the opening of the bear. this is explicitly about his personal and romantic love life.

Solution # 1 : Claire

carmy proceeds to try and calm down by thinking of claire through literal rose-coloured glasses...

the music is distorted, he's thinking of his abusive family, he remembers every one pushing him to date claire bc shes a #goodthing.

again...this is not about his job and wouldnt make sense to think of sydneys place in his work life as a soultion to his clear personal problem....

platonic fix: in the story of carmys love life claire and sydney act as narrative foils. they have been compared and contrasted for all of s2. my platonic fix for this would be making the NY chef this first "solution" of a work-related panic attack. he represents a horrible time in his life but also represents a time when carmy was at the height of his career. when carmy gets locked in the walk in and has his monologue, its alluded to that he will revert back to that mind set in order to not let everyone down.

NY chef abused him for so long, it makes sense that carmys psyche would readily go back to his insults and the time he himself was an isolated 'psycho' bc it yielded results.

nothing is black and white and i DO think sydney represents a healthier approach to the toxic mess that is the culinary world and does represent that for carmy. if the show was invested in that, sydney and the NY chef could be overtly contrasted like sydney and claire have been.

BUT again this isnt about his job and dedication as a chef...thus why he tries to think of claire to solve his personal problem, and it fails.

Solution # 2: Sydney

LMFAOOO.

carmy then in a crazy plot twist starts thinking of his platonic work bestie sydney adamu....the love song dedicated by the show to his relationship with his girlfriend is then made clear highlighting some pretty damning lyrics about desire and love.....all platonic btw. yes you are dumb if you think otherwise (*wink*)

I actually have two platonic fixes for this...

platonic fix # 1: if we only wanted to focus on sydney as a person who calms carmy down because shes his work bestie who represents his responsibilty to the bear and the postive change they are trying effect in the culinary world, i would add scenes where they are...you know actually cooking???

i think its pretty crazy how the memories carmys immediately jump to are ones that have little to do with their jobs. when they first meet (would also like to note that when carmy first laid eyes on Sydney, he forgot she was there for a job, so this is his raw reaction to seeing a pretty girl lol) and when she comes back after she quit and their break up fight.

i would add their scenes in carmys kitchen (even tho this is extremely damning bc they were flirting DOWN - they don't make this easy at all). this represents their collaboration skills and the way they WORK and bounce ideas off of each other seamlessly. specifically the scene about him wanting to give her a star, representing his duty to her and the restaurant.

*and no shade to carmy but if his responsibility to the bear/syd as a co-worker was bothering him this much and calmed him down wouldn't he have just immediately called the fridge guy.....anyways*

platonic fix # 2 (the best one): if i was chris storer and joanna calo and i REALLY wanted to sell it that carmy isnt in love with sydney then i would put every single member of the OG beef crew + Nat to calm him down not just Sydney.

im talking to them laughing at family, carmy giving tina his chefs knife, richie in his new suit, carmys one on one w Marcus/trying his donut, nat telling carmy shes pregnant (signifing rebirth/wanting to rid all the toxic abuse from his family), carmy trying sydney risotto, and her face when he said it was tremendous etc etc...you get the gist

and honestly?

even as i type this out im tearing up a little bit bc that would have been really beautiful. carmy is changing. he can and is getting rid of old toxic habits from his family and the mess that is the culinary industry. things are changing for the better....that would be beautiful....IF his panic attack was about any of these things lol.

and to even look at this scene without this need for symmetry and we entertain the idea of carmy thinking about his job as a solution for his personal problem...carmy has said himself (s02e01) that this isnt fun for him. i dont think that means he hates cooking i kinda disagree with the ppl who think he isnt passionate about it. i just think currently its something that doesnt bring him joy but i do think its something hes starting to or at least could have started to enjoy if he just committed to working with syd...

conclusion

theres a lot of....delusion? denial? straight up bias? yes all of that, going on.

idk what is happening bc this show is really great at being subtle. but i dont know whats more in your face, dumbed down, even a toddler could understand, than this scene. if you dont come out of this understanding that carmy is falling in love/currently in love with Sydney...and i hate using this term..but you just arent media literate.

bonus: bc it makes me laugh and connects the purpose and solutions.

i think we need a Snyder Sydcarmy Cut™ of bolognese and omelette.

the start of the episode is when sydney and carmy fight over claires inclusion in the menu, and also when sydney randomly asks him to define his relationship with Claire. the episode would continue until we get to the table scene.

i think its WILD how as soon as Sydney asks him to define their relationship, carmy starts calling claire his girlfriend. then the show proceeds to insert sydney in their romantic montage, shows her tattoo about heartbreak and someone getting in the way of your relationship...THEN proceeds to have carmy compare these two women in his mind and only calms down after seeing Sydney.

i could talk about this scene for AGES. wheres the straitjacket....

[azaharinflames]

tbh two things bother me the most about 'eddie HAS to be gay!!! it'd explain everything!!!' that BoBs do.

the first is just the fact that it feels like waaaay too many people are willing to excuse stuff like misogyny if someone's gay. i get that its probably rooted in this 'well, at least he's not dating/marrying women!' but like... gay men still have women in their lives? some of the fucking abhorrent shit that some of them say is still misogyny and needs to be called out. but also fucking double standards because 'eddie being gay would explain his shitty behavior because repression' oh, like how tommy said and did shitty things because he was closeted? that he fully acknowledged were shitty things later on and that he wasn't proud of the person he was then? things the show implies were forgiven by the people he hurt enough to invite him out for drinks after work? like ok BoBs i see you

the second is like. okay, say eddie IS gay. why would that bring chris home right now? eddie's a single dad, there's struggles that will come with that (esp when he's a literal firefighter... like... that man works long ass hours and we know this), and the idea of finding love again in general can fit into that. but, idk, with eddie there's two things that really need to come first and its chris AND his own wellbeing. get that man into some grief counseling or some sort of support group for widows or something. regardless of his sexuality, he needs to address his issues first and repair his relationship with his son before he can think about introducing someone else into their lives. imo the best person for canon eddie would be a single mom who can both understand what he's gone through but also call him on his shit when need be, but that's just me!! man needs to deal with his issues, period. him being gay and kissing buck wouldn't bring chris home, it'd probably just piss him off more and make him think his dad still doesn't care about him (and probably make him hate, imo, buck for not telling eddie to get his shit together and be the dad that chris wants him to be).

idk i just think its a dumb fucking take to be like 'but if he's not gay then he's just another misogynistic straight man!' like... yeah? those do exist? and this is pretty much the forgiveness and redemption show, eddie's flaws can be overcome if the writers care enough to do it. (and also, like i said... he'd just be a misogynistic gay man if he was gay lmao like misogyny does not disappear just because u aren't straight?? lowkey feels like proof that some of them have never actually spoken to queer men at all to know that they're still diverse in personality lmao).

Hi, Nonnie! Sorry for taking so long to answer, this past month has been something lmao

Yeah, gotta say - that is my biggest issue with it. Being gay never gives you a pass on being misogynistic, and it wouldn't give Eddie one, either. Justifying his misogynistic tendencies and passing them as: oh he just doesn't know how to behave with women, he's gay, is an extremely harmful rhetoric. And one way too many people adopt. No one gets a pass on this, and even if Eddie were to be gay, he wouldn't either. Instead, he would have to acknowledge his bad behaviour and work on it. But it doesn't seem like even the show acknowledges this misogynistic tendencies, so I highly doubt it'll ever be addressed.

and to your second point: yes. yes yes yes yes yes. Even if he were gay, dating Buck would solve 0 of his problems. What Eddie has to do is work on himself for real, because the bs we saw in 806 was not it. He hasn't worked on his grief over losing Shannon, and he hasn't done work with Chris other than considering moving to Texas... not to mention, in canon Eddie is a shitty (romantic) partner. This we know for a fact! And being with Buck wouldn't fix that; if anything (in my opinion) it would make things worse, not better. And yeah, most likely Christ would hate it, because to him it would mean losing Buck too, at some point.

Overall, nonnie, I heavily agree with everything you said! Sadly, Bobs are the most hypocritical and dense creatures I've ever encountered, so even if presented with this, they won't care.

Anyway. My inbox is open for ranting, venting, giving opinions, or confessions!

Take care <3

[yourqueenb]

As a continuation of this ask that I responded to, all the things I mentioned are just parts of the overall issue I have with Blades…. which is that, in the grand scheme of things, I feel like MC is simply a plot device for the other characters rather than a fully developed character who has a fully developed and satisfying arc herself. It’s clear that Nia’s is the story the writers really wanted to tell considering how intertwined her characterization/development and the overall world building are. They basically even admitted as much.

So my question is why not just make her the MC if that’s really what you wanted on the not so down low? They still could’ve incorporated the skill mechanic. Why create a whole player character just to have us running to solve everyone else’s problems/support them while acting like everything that happens to us exists inside of a vacuum in the meantime? So far, all we’ve really been doing in this book is reporting where the group needs to go, telling them what to do, having heart to hearts with them when they need help moving to the next stage of their development, and then being spoonfed information through the lore tablets, which are apparently more for the players’ benefit than MC’s since they barely affect how we respond in game anyway. I’m fine with being the leader or the glue that holds everyone together, but to me it’s unsatisfying that that’s all we are as the main character.

We somehow become more competent due to the skill mechanic but no less clueless at the same time. We have all this terrible shit happen to us, but are only offered a few lines’ description of how that’s affected us. And then the rest of the attention goes to setting up the light vs. shadow conflict and our friends, who get to have personal and compelling conflicts of their own. I mean I feel like MC is more of an emotional support animal to them than an actual person with dreams, feelings, and a (minimal) background. Imo the only character who’s getting shafted almost as much as us is Imtura.

And all of this might make it sound like I hate Blades, but it’s quite the contrary actually. It’s still one of my favorite series and has a lot of fun moments and lovable characters. But I think at this point, its flaws have become too large for me to ignore. So that’s still affecting my enjoyment a bit and probably the reason why I’m so upset with how certain things are being handled. Of course I’m aware that Blades isn’t the only book that has some of these issues though. I think it’s just a little more disappointing because I expected more

[ahamkara-apologist]

it's also wild because like. Mara Sov is outright manipulative. she outright says she has plans to kill you if you go astray. she has plans to kill everyone, actually. she gets information she has no business having just to do that even iirc. meanwhile Osiris is a stressed out gay old man who is trying to save everyone except himself.

Okay I WILL defend Mara here and say that while she is a manipulative bitch, yes, that's actually a good thing to have handy. The Young Wolf is fucking dangerous and so are many in the cast of Destiny, so having contingency plans to kill people as needed is kinda necessary (just look at Eris in the dark future). But Mara is out here playing games of 4D chess with the Witness and the likes of Savathun- she needs to play god like that because it's basically her job. The major issue with her is the fact that she doesn't know how to NOT play puppetmaster, and takes it into her personal life- what she did to Uldren was a prime example of that, and while I have many thoughts on why that is, the fact of the matter is that Mara is a person who does what she needs to do with the coldness and cruelty of a deity because that is the niche she's carved out for herself and what she needs to be to ensure the survival of humanity.

Osiris, on the other hand, is NOT playing 4D chess with the Witness- he's a soldier, a defender, a blade. And not only that, he acts the way he does because he's driven by anxiety, paranoia (well-placed paranoia too!), and the fact that for the longest time, he's been alone. He was outright exiled from the Last City! He was alone in the Infinite Forest with nobody other than Sagira and his own mind! That's a lot of centuries to be by yourself, and don't forget that those centuries were preluded by social isolation from his peers and betrayal beforehand. Osiris operated the way he did because his OCD had him constantly running on the assumption that the worst-case scenario was going to happen, and he had the experience from his time as Vanguard and his subsequent exile to show that not only did nobody believe him, they also didn't take it seriously (or took it too seriously) and wouldn't help him with it. Like, no fucking wonder he's always running around acting like he's the only person who's taking things seriously and throwing his all into solving the problem. His mind is hardwired to assume the worst and he has proof that people will not help him with it (though LF has him confronting that)

Like, I myself have OCD, and those repetitive thought spirals are no joke. Imagine that you're confronted with a problem, and your brain automatically jumps to the worst-case scenario for that problem. If you've gotten cognitive therapy for that, you know this isn't the case, but knowing doesn't change the fact that your mind is CONVINCED that the worst case scenario WILL happen, and it will get lodged to the forefront of your mind with all of its gory details while you try your best to ensure that it won't occur. Doesn't matter if you have to shift to doing something else- that fear, that worry, that will always be right in front of you. Meds and cognitive therapy have worked for me on that, but Osiris doesn't have those, and on top of it- he's got prophetic visions! I can't IMAGINE how awful that would be to deal with!!

That's also why his character development after Sagira's death is so big imo- as tragic as it was, Sagira dying for him forced him to really slow down and realize that rushing into things without thinking about his own safety harmed others, not just himself, and his subsequent reminder of his own mortality forced him to be reliant on others instead of refusing to let them help him. Part of why he was so impatient and brusque in Lightfall was because he had to rely on the Young Wolf and Nimbus to deal with an issue that he considered his own, and while it didn't go exactly as planned, I think that's also why he's softened up significantly since then. That, and him being unable to rush headlong into things and to just sit and enjoy his time with Saint (which he never allowed himself to do before because if he had the Light, what was his excuse for not fighting the Darkness) helped him tremendously. It forced him to face his flaws, learn that he could rely on others, and to slow down in life, and he's been doing much better as a result of it.

Osiris has only ever harmed others by completely disregarding the harm that he did to himself, and recent events in the story have forced him to reflect on that and change it. And maybe by being a bit of a blunt, extremely-honest ass that nettles sometimes. That's pretty much the extent of his flaws imo

[jgmartin]

What do you believe is the most effective way to explore fear in writing? How do you tap into universal fears while keeping your stories unique?

Great question. Thanks for the ask!

Fear is such an interesting emotion. Oddly enough, its closest relative is (IMO) humor. Both rely on subverting expectations to be fully effective, and both work best with 'punch lines' you don't see coming.

In that sense, I think the best way to explore fear is to consider what your audience is most unnerved by followed by what they'll least expect. Mash these together, and you have an effective scare.

For example, if you're writing sci-fi, your audience might be spooked by the concept of alien abductions. The typical set-up involves a flying saucer descending and little green men zapping up pedestrians and then probing them in... Well, places.

But what if, instead of a flying saucer, it was a solar eclipse?

And what if everybody who looked directly at the eclipse had aliens beamed into their minds?

What if the aliens didn't abduct people, but people inadvertently abducted aliens, and now both parties suffered as a result?

You see what I'm getting at.

These psychic entities could torment a person in a language they can't comprehend (maybe shrill tones, high frequencies, insanity, etc.), and all of it kicked off because they broke a social taboo by looking at an eclipse.

This is a rough example, but it shows how you can flip concepts on their heads using familiar concerns. Throw your audience off their game.

Nobody's scared of vampires or werewolves because we know too much about them—they're a solved equation. To really terrify readers, you need to unbalance them. Present them with a problem without an answer. Force them to discover the answer for themselves, and in the process, they'll explore all the horrible ways it might go wrong.

The real trick giving people the proper puzzle pieces. Once they have them, they'll build their own boogeyman, one more terrifying than words could ever conjure. Stephen King might have said that... or maybe it was somebody else.

I don't remember.

Point is, you'll never beat out a person's imagination when channeling their greatest fears. Your best bet is to give their psyche a bit of ammunition, then sit back and let human nature do the rest.