#textual analysis

[zarohk]

That explains so much and is a great example of the differences between Judaism and Christianity.

One major Jewish lifecycle event at age 13 is the bar/bat mitzvah*, a ceremony where you read aloud/sing that week’s Torah portion, then give that week’s d’var Torah (“word of the Torah,” a short speech explaining the significance of that passage to Jewish). For a youth reading from the Torah for the first time for their bar/bat mitvzah, that speech might also be about the significance of the passage for them personally (half Torah interpretation, half college admissions essay).

In theory, each week there will be a d’var Torah to accompany the weekly Torah reading, either by a rabbi, an adult who has chosen to read from the Torah that week, or a youth having their bar/bat mitzvah, and the whole Torah is read over the course of the Jewish year. That means in theory, you hear the whole Torah read every year, and so as an adult are expected to be familiar enough with the text that Bible study is textual analysis, not simply learning the text for the first time.

As a Jew, I honestly stopped believing in the idea of "Judeo-Christian" and "we all worship the same God and have the same Bible" when my ex-Catholic husband asked me who King David was.

Like. Tell me you worship the same God as me but then don't know who DAVID is??? No. Absolutely not. You are on some Other Shit.

[gayofthefae]

Thinking about from "I'm the only one acting normal here" to the shoulder punch.

He started thinking what we all think: that our normal is the normal. But between them and now, he realized that "I'm the only normal person" was, by definition, a lot less likely than "I am the abnormal one".

He used to view everyone who didn't see Will like he did as weird, crazy, confusing. Then he realized that he looked that way to them, that he was the odd one out in how he saw Will, that his feelings weren't what you "should" feel and everyone else wasn't matching up, his weird the outliers. And after thinking he was the only normal one his whole life, he didn't know what to do and he didn't know how to correct.

The crisis, always: how much of me is abnormal? Which parts? I know my desire is what's to be hidden, but today I desire to hug him, is that a shameful secret too? Is that a dangerous one too.

I would additionally like to now the timing of Mike's lines and behaviors used so strategically in season 1. This line, "I'm the only one acting normal" is said by Mike only before any homophobia has been levied against him. He was corrected.

But it's that classic story of "queerness exists and is hated but this isn't that, or it isn't in the way theirs is". Often, we didn't think "I didn't experience these feelings and thoughts", we think "every straight person does".

"Mike is just trying to be normal" - Finn Wolfhard on season 4, 2022

My off the top of my head speculation is that he thought it was normal, worried that it wasn't but buried that worry, felt it in an isolated and safe environment where he didn't need to think about its moral or social value (season 2 - one on one with Will), realized as puberty hit and those around him outgrew feelings he didn't that it was worrisome again and became frantically avoidant and trying and hoping to be able to love El as a means of "growing up" and implicitly growing out of those other abnormal things, he realized that he failed to love her that way/by a typical time and that his feelings were in fact abnormal but didn't know which parts of himself or how to hide them

Season 4 is him knowing he feels "abnormally" (some might say queerly) and thinking he should have grown out of it in season 3, not knowing why he didn't, and attempting to rectify it while also hiding the fact that it happened. By the end, he comes to term with the fact that he is different, just like Will describes, and that it is permanent. His journey may continue to be to hide it, but it is no longer to fix it.

He goes from wanting what he is already to be normal to wanting to change it to become normal to accepting that what he is is staying and it isn't "normal".

[karasbroken]

I thought other folks would like this and I had to share just for this line: "after a disastrous rock-climbing excursion with an emotionally intelligent himbo".

Enjoy some Farscape textual analysis in this year, 2025!

https://reactormag.com/farscape-and-the-princess-fallacy

[bricksandmutualaid]

Sin: Capitalism with Extra Steps

Comrades: Final Fantasy X is not just a game about fighting monsters—it's a masterclass in revolutionary theory, a devastating critique of theocratic authoritarianism, and an allegory for how the ruling class gaslights the working class into accepting endless suffering as “fate.”

So grab your oversized sword, your blitzball that you use as a weapon(???), and your deeply suppressed class rage—it’s time to deconstruct the class struggle of Spira.

🏛️ Yevon: The Union of Church and State

The Church of Yevon holds totalitarian control over Spira. It is both government and religion, ensuring that there is no distinction between political power and divine mandate. It upholds its rule.

Manufactured crisis & fearmongering – Sin, an unstoppable force of destruction, keeps the population in a constant state of fear, ensuring their reliance on Yevon. (Sound familiar?).

Banning progress – The church forbids machina (advanced technology) to keep the masses dependent on archaic traditions. Meanwhile, the ruling class in Bevelle enjoys all the benefits of technology, proving their "anti-machina" stance is pure hypocrisy.

Rigid class structures – The Maesters (bourgeoisie) send summoners (working class) to their deaths, brainwashing them to martyr themselves for "peace." Meanwhile, the elite sit comfortably, untouched by suffering.

The Illusion of Salvation – The Final Summoning is a scam. It kills the summoner, destroys Sin temporarily, and the cycle starts again. The system exists to sustain itself—not to fix anything.

The Church of Yevon gaslights an entire civilization into believing that suffering is noble, poverty is virtuous, and only the ruling class can "save" them.

⚡️ Tidus: The Outsider-Turned-Revolutionary

At the start, Tidus is completely disconnected from Spira’s struggle. He is, effectively, the apathetic outsider—your average "I’m not political" guy.

He just wants to go home (apathetic bystander).

He notices things aren’t adding up (early-stage radicalization).

Then he realizes the entire system is a lie and refuses to accept it (fully radicalized revolutionary).

By the end, he helps dismantle the entire oppressive power structure.

Tidus’s journey is a lesson in waking up to systemic oppression and actively fighting back against it.

🔧 The Al Bhed: Radicalized Revolutionaries in Exile

The Al Bhed are Final Fantasy X’s equivalent of anarchist resistance fighters.

They reject Yevon’s control.

They embrace "forbidden" technology.

They actively rescue summoners from being sacrificed.

They challenge the idea that suffering is necessary.

For this, they are vilified, hunted down, and treated as dangerous radicals. The ruling class frames them as terrorists, because their existence alone threatens the power structure.

💀 The Final Summoning: Grooming for Suicide

From birth, summoners and the working class of Spira are taught that the summoner's deaths are necessary "for the greater good." Their sacrifice is celebrated, not questioned.

If you die working, that’s just life.

If you struggle to survive, it builds character.

If you suffer, it’s because of your own failings—not the system.

This mirrors how capitalism convinces workers that suffering is noble, while the ruling class sits comfortably, demanding more sacrifices.

💥 Dismantling Yevon: A Full-Scale Revolution

The party’s fight against Yevon is not just about defeating Sin—it’s about overthrowing an entire power structure.

They expose the Church’s lies.

They dismantle Yevon’s authority.

They destroy Sin WITHOUT a summoner’s sacrifice.

They end the cycle of oppression—permanently.

This is not just a battle against a big evil boss. This is a full-scale revolution that topples an entire system.

🔥 Conclusion: Final Fantasy X as a Revolutionary Blueprint

Final Fantasy X is not just about fighting monsters. It’s a lesson in radicalization, class consciousness, and direct action. It’s about:

How ruling classes use fear to maintain control.

How those in power create artificial cycles of suffering to justify their existence.

How revolutionary change requires rejecting not just the leaders, but the entire system upholding them.

Resistance is messy, painful, and often met with hostility—but it is still necessary.

Ultimately: It’s a story of how to wake up, how to fight back, and how to build something better.

[medilies]

Dustin's insecurity/loneliness is really showing in s2

I've always thought of Dustin's season 1 line 'I know Lucas is your best friend and it's okay, Mike, I get it' as the biggest example of how he feels lonely and insecure despite his friendships...

But idk how I overlooked this line from s2

Lucas and Dustin both messed up, Dustin by lying about Dart and Lucas by telling Max about the Upside Down - and they argued about that! But Dustin is quick to back down, and goes so far as to suggest Max replace him.

Bearing in mind they've only known Max for a few days at this point, and it's already been established that there isn't a set number of places available in the Party since El was added after s1, it's glaringly obvious that Dustin feels replaceable.

(Also, this isn't just an offhand, joking comment to act as a peace offering. By Dustin's tone and the fact he's looking down, avoiding eye contact with Lucas, you can tell this is a genuine worry of his.)

Lucas doesn't pick up on the strangeness of this offer, though, since he's distracted by the 'girlfriend' comment, and it goes unnoticed.

[psychidion]

The parallels between Hector and Patroclus, and between Achilles and Andromache, in the last books of the Iliad:

As I was reading through the Iliad, I was struck by how strongly Hector and Patroclus parallel each other in their last moments.

I'm not exactly making an argument that they parallel each other throughout the Iliad, or saying that Hector does not act like a foil for Achilles throughout the narrative too, but I did find it extremely interesting, especially in association with the parallels between Achilles and Andromache.

They are both first given a grave disadvantage by a god, Athena in Hector's case and Apollo in Patroclus'. Athena interferes with Hector by appearing as Deiphobus and then disappearing when he is in need of assistance. Apollo interferes with Patroclus by striking the breath out of him and knocking off all of his armor, so he stands on the battlefield defenseless.

They bear a similar reaction to the loss of their weapons. Both stand still in shock for a moment, and both of these phrases are at the beginning of a line and are immediately followed by a caesura: 16. 806- στῆ δὲ ταφών: ὄπιθεν δὲ μετάφρενον ὀξέϊ δουρὶ 'he stood dazed. But from behind on his back with a sharp spear...' and 22. 293- στῆ δὲ κατηφήσας, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἔχε μείλινον ἔγχος. 'he stood mute in horror, as he did not have his ashen spear.'

There is a repeated structure of 'three times and on the fourth,' something changes.

16. 784-789: τρὶς μὲν ἔπειτ᾽ ἐπόρουσε θοῷ ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηϊ σμερδαλέα ἰάχων, τρὶς δ᾽ ἐννέα φῶτας ἔπεφνεν. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τὸ τέταρτον ἐπέσσυτο δαίμονι ἶσος, ἔνθ᾽ ἄρα τοι Πάτροκλε φάνη βιότοιο τελευτή: ἤντετο γάρ τοι Φοῖβος ἐνὶ κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ δεινός: Three times did he spring at them, equal to swift Ares, shouting terribly, and three times did he slay nine men. But when he charged the fourth time, like to a god, then, Patroclus, did the end of your life appear. For Phoebus, terrifying, met you in that fierce combat.   22. 165-6, 208-13: ὣς τὼ τρὶς Πριάμοιο πόλιν πέρι δινηθήτην καρπαλίμοισι πόδεσσι: θεοὶ δ᾽ ἐς πάντες ὁρῶντο: Thus three times did they circle around the city of Priam, with their swift feet, and all the gods were watching them. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τὸ τέταρτον ἐπὶ κρουνοὺς ἀφίκοντο, καὶ τότε δὴ χρύσεια πατὴρ ἐτίταινε τάλαντα, ἐν δ᾽ ἐτίθει δύο κῆρε τανηλεγέος θανάτοιο, τὴν μὲν Ἀχιλλῆος, τὴν δ᾽ Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο, ἕλκε δὲ μέσσα λαβών: ῥέπε δ᾽ Ἕκτορος αἴσιμον ἦμαρ, ᾤχετο δ᾽ εἰς Ἀΐδαο, λίπεν δέ ἑ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων. But when they arrived at the springs for the fourth time, then the father held out his golden scales, and placed on them two fates of woeful death, one for Achilles, the other for horse-taming Hector, and having seized the middle of these, he lifted them, and the destined day of Hector sank, and went to Hades, and Phoebus Apollo left him.  

4. The final pieces of dialogue between Patroclus and Hector and then Hector and Achilles follow a very similar formula: the winner lords over the loser, calling him νήπιε (16. 833 & 22. 333), and then the loser as they die, gives a prophecy concerning the winner’s death (16. 851-854 & 22. 359-360) which the winner doesn’t take well. This parallel also clearly functions as one between Hector and Achilles.

5. And what is perhaps the strangest parallel- their final death descriptions are exactly the same.

ὣς ἄρα μιν εἰπόντα τέλος θανάτοιο κάλυψε: ψυχὴ δ᾽ ἐκ ῥεθέων πταμένη Ἄϊδος δὲ βεβήκει ὃν πότμον γοόωσα λιποῦσ᾽ ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην. 16. 855-7 & 22. 361-3

Achilles and Andromache have decidedly less parallels that can be clearly seen, but I think the fact they play the same role of 'the one left behind' is still deeply interesting.

They are both completely ignorant of the fate of their loved one, and did not even expect it to occur.

17.401- 407: οὐδ᾽ ἄρα πώ τι ᾔδεε Πάτροκλον τεθνηότα δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: πολλὸν γὰρ ῥ᾽ ἀπάνευθε νεῶν μάρναντο θοάων τείχει ὕπο Τρώων: τό μιν οὔ ποτε ἔλπετο θυμῷ τεθνάμεν, ἀλλὰ ζωὸν ἐνιχριμφθέντα πύλῃσιν ἂψ ἀπονοστήσειν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τὸ ἔλπετο πάμπαν ἐκπέρσειν πτολίεθρον ἄνευ ἕθεν, οὐδὲ σὺν αὐτῷ: πολλάκι γὰρ τό γε μητρὸς ἐπεύθετο νόσφιν ἀκούων, ἥ οἱ ἀπαγγέλλεσκε Διὸς μεγάλοιο νόημα. Not yet did noble Achilles know that Patroclus was dead, for they were battling very far from the swift ships under the wall of the Trojans: he never expected in his heart  that he was dead, but that he would return back again alive having reached the gates, since he did not at all expect him to sack the citadel without him, nor even with him, for often did he hear things from his mother, who secretly reported the intentions of great Zeus to him.  22. 437-446: ἄλοχος δ᾽ οὔ πώ τι πέπυστο Ἕκτορος: οὐ γάρ οἵ τις ἐτήτυμος ἄγγελος ἐλθὼν ἤγγειλ᾽ ὅττί ῥά οἱ πόσις ἔκτοθι μίμνε πυλάων, ἀλλ᾽ ἥ γ᾽ ἱστὸν ὕφαινε μυχῷ δόμου ὑψηλοῖο δίπλακα πορφυρέην, ἐν δὲ θρόνα ποικίλ᾽ ἔπασσε. κέκλετο δ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισιν ἐϋπλοκάμοις κατὰ δῶμα ἀμφὶ πυρὶ στῆσαι τρίποδα μέγαν, ὄφρα πέλοιτο Ἕκτορι θερμὰ λοετρὰ μάχης ἐκ νοστήσαντι νηπίη, οὐδ᾽ ἐνόησεν ὅ μιν μάλα τῆλε λοετρῶν χερσὶν Ἀχιλλῆος δάμασε γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη. But Hector’s wife had not heard about him yet, for no messenger, a true friend, had come  to report to her that her husband remained outside the gates, but she was weaving in a corner of the tall home, a double-folded, purple web, upon which she had added many-colored flowers, and had called to her fair haired attendants in the house to set a great tripod over the fire, so that there would be a hot bath ready for Hector when he returned from battle. Blind to everything, she did not know that far from any bath  grey eyed Athena by the hand of Achilles had killed him.    

2. Upon hearing that their loved one has perished, they mourn bitterly and both express a desire to never have been born.

18. 86-7: αἴθ᾽ ὄφελες σὺ μὲν αὖθι μετ᾽ ἀθανάτῃς ἁλίῃσι ναίειν, Πηλεὺς δὲ θνητὴν ἀγαγέσθαι ἄκοιτιν. If only you had stayed there among the immortal sea nymphs, and Peleus had married a mortal.  22. 479-81: αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ Θήβῃσιν ὑπὸ Πλάκῳ ὑληέσσῃ ἐν δόμῳ Ἠετίωνος, ὅ μ᾽ ἔτρεφε τυτθὸν ἐοῦσαν δύσμορος αἰνόμορον: ὡς μὴ ὤφελλε τεκέσθαι. But I was in Thebes below wooded Placus in the home of Eetion, who brought me up when I was young, an ill fated father to a doomed child; I wish he had not begotten me.

[lyledebeast]

Textual Criticism and Queer Tavington

It's 1000 degrees outside. Horse owners are putting out signs asking their neighbors, with varying degrees of politeness, not to stress their animals to death making more noise in five hours of darkness than the British and Continental Armies made in five years of war. I am arming myself with summer-y beers and venturing into my yearly rewatch of The Patriot before my yearly sleepless night of thinking James Wilkins had the right idea when he locked his neighbors up in their church and set it ablaze. The horse-killing-est time of year is upon us once again!

This year, I want to take a break from writing about imperialist farmer and deadbeat dad Benjamin Martin and give due attention to the real main character: William Tavington. I know a lot of people share that opinion, but often when I read their interpretations of this character, I find we agree on little else. There are basically two categories of The Patriot enjoyers: men who want to be Benjamin Martin and women who want to fuck William Tavington. I'm neither, and my four years of writing meta and fic for this fandom have been a constant search for others like me, and we are few and far between.

All readers (or viewers) bring their own desires and experiences to their interpretation of any work. There is whole school of literary criticism, reader-response theory, centered around this phenomenon. A compelling case can be made that the reader/viewer's subjective experience matters as much if not more than the writer/director's intention in interpretation of a text. And I don't blame women for taking something for themselves from a film that is giving them absolutely nothing on purpose. But the main form of engagement with The Patriot that I see on this site not only centers one character but one scene that is not particularly revealing about him. He doesn't speak; he's fighting for his life. And I can see the appeal for an audience that wants nothing more than to map its own fantasies onto an aesthetically appealing blank slate. In every other scene, however, Tavington is a sassy, over the top, speech-making murderer of surrendering wounded soldiers, women, and children. The only way he could be more of a Disney villain would be for him to burst into song!

And like many classic Disney villains, Tavington is as queer as the July sun is hot.

I've hesitated to put my thoughts about this into a single formal argument because I've never seen anyone who reads him as straight do the same thing. Even though no one has put this pressure on me in relation to The Patriot, those who interpret characters whose sexualities are not obvious plot points as queer are often held to a higher standard of "proof" than those who read them as straight. In the case of straight Tavington, though, the proof of his sexuality is not in the pudding but in the baker (or stir-er if they're American). His scenes where women are present at all can easily be counted on the fingers of one hand. Only one of these women (Anne Howard) ever speaks to him, and Tavington completely ignores her. I have seen the argument that Tavington's lack of encounters with women is owing to the film's near exclusive focus on conflicts and comradery between men, and I would buy that if Tavington's willingness to target civilians was not one of his most character-defining features. By his second scene he's harassed the populace enough for them to have given him a nickname, and in the main action of the film he burns eight militamen's homes and murders their wives and children. His conversations with General Cornwallis suggest that he is trying unsuccessfully to get information from the populace even between these scenes while forbidden his preferred tactics. That Tavington does not attempt to seduce or sexually menace Patriot women in canon as he does in So Many fics on Ao3 is hardly because he lacks opportunity.

Obviously, lack of interest in women is not inherently queer; what makes Tavington readable as such is his coding. The clearest example of this comes from a scene titled "The Heart of a Villain" neither included in the theatrical release nor added back in the extended edition. It is available in the bonus features for DVD releases of both theatrical and extended cuts and on YouTube. In it, Tavington and Captain Wilkins are taking a break from interrogating a militia deserter. Tavington is admiring the "beautiful country" while examining a purple flower which he then brings into the house. The color purple has a longstanding connection to queer people of all genders in popular culture, as do flowers in general with gay men. Furthermore, why does Tavington need company for this break, and why they are concealed from the rest of the British soldiers outside? The tall stalks they are hiding in are corn. Cornholing is an American slang term for anal sex. Roland Emmerich is not a subtle director at the best of times, and this scene is no exception.

Even if we only consider the most accessible version of canon, Tavington's relationships with men on his own side go beyond professional norms. While he is obsequious towards General Cornwallis early on, he is later able to use Cornwallis's growing frustration with the militia to convince him to allow the use of brutal tactics his superior had previously forbidden. He has to use a light touch with his superior since he lacks power in that exchange, but when Wilkins hesitates to burn his neighbors inside their church, he uses the same strategy of seduction and reassurance that had worked on Cornwallis. Wilkins is not only under Tavington's command but surrounded by his fellow dragoons who never hesitate to follow orders. Tavington does not need to charm him; that's just the way Tavington is.

Finally, we have Tavington's obsession with Benjamin Martin, and the film makes it very clear that is the man he's after, not just victory and advancement. In the final battle, after he attempts to warn his men about the trap, Tavington does not even seem to notice that his side is losing. He only leads them into this trap because he sees Martin and cannot resist charging, with his whole regiment behind him, in pursuit. If Martin were any other enemy, Tavington would have killed him as efficiently as any other, and the end of the film would be much more satisfying. Instead, his desire for connection with Martin is so powerful that it leads to his death. And yet, somehow, slash fans are sleeping on this ship. One of the greatest evils of patriotism, I have no doubt!

None of this is to say people shouldn't create or enjoy canon divergent versions of Tavington. I have certainly done both. Nor am I saying the kind of formalist criticism that focuses on plot, dialogue, images and tropes in the text is morally superior to reader response's subjective focus on the viewer's relationship with the text. I just can imagine how disappointed people introduced to Tavington by fandom must be when they see him in context given how wildly different he is in most fanworks. And it's a shame because he is the best part of the story and for reasons that are actually present within it.

[college-cryptids]

okay so i just had this thought and need to write it down before i forget BUT tma is such a fascinating subversion of the "woo spooky cult is actually just christianity" thing so far. I'm partway into season one so i can't attest to later seasons, but it's such a brilliant example of how to use the trappings of religion without actively condemning that actual, real world religion and risk alienating a portion of one's potential audience. every time that my dude jonathan sims has taken a statement that has to do with the church in some capacity (like that priest's statement in episode... 15, i think? 16?) there's always a moment where the person giving the statement is in some way like "oh i thought this was christianity, surprise this isn't the christian God doing this it's actually something different and MUCH MORE EVIL, woo spooky thing~," which is so interesting in a media culture that is saturated with the default idea of cults being people who just have a grossly incorrect image of the bible's teachings and use that to start killing people or whatever. like, i went into that episode (and the one later about that girl and her roommate who joins a cult) fully expecting the message to be "christianity is bad" and instead it was "this particular cult or thing is actually distinctly different from christianity, but is definitely Very Bad," which is neat and just really refreshing in a way i didn't expect it to be. anyway yeah so i knew tma was cool but now i'm realizing it's cool in different ways than i expected

[thatboreddrake]

Heroism as a Loss of Humanity

Thinking again about how Fate/Stay Night is, at its core, a coming of age story about the sacrifices that the life of a hero inflicts on a person. I mean look at the cast of characters (more below the cut):

Cu Chulainn: a brash warrior who chose to trade a young death for a life of glory.

Heracles: a warrior stripped of his reason, yet he remains attached to his Master as a symbol of the family that he lost to the gods' wrath.

Medea: a sorceress who sacrificed her own family for the sake of love, only to be cast aside in the end.

Medusa: a woman whose humanity was taken from her by no fault of her own.

The biggest example of this imo is Sasaki Kojiro. In the lore of Fate, he's not even a true heroic spirit. The man known as Sasaki Kojiro never truly existed in history. Instead, the Assassin we know by that name is truly nameless, plucked from his own time to assume the name and title of another. Of all the Servants, he lost not only his humanity, but his very identity in becoming a "Heroic Spirit."

This culminates in the dynamic between Artoria, Emiya Shirou, and his future self, Archer.

Artoria chose to take up Caliburn, sacrificing her chance for a normal life for the opportunity to unify Britain and protect it from calamity, only to see her life's work torn apart by her very child, culminating in her death at the Battle of Camlann.

In a similar way, Archer chose to make a pact with Alaya, giving up his humanity and free will to become a tool to be used for the protection of humanity. In the end, however, he found himself broken by the realization that the protection of one group necessitated the destruction of its opposition.

Of all the Servants in Fate/Stay Night, Archer and Artoria were both summoned to the present with the intention of undoing their sacrifice. Having lived the lives of "heroes," their one true wish was to change their decision: to remain human.

Contrast this against Emiya Shirou, a boy who wants nothing more than to become a true hero. For him, the choice to become a hero or remain human, if there ever was one, was made for him when he became the sole survivor of a great calamity. For Shirou, he has no right to live a normal life because he owes too great a debt for those who died instead of him.

And so, when thrust into the events of Fate/Stay Night, Shirou sees his opportunity to finally attain his goal of becoming a hero who can bring salvation for the entire world. Across the three different endings of the visual novel, Shirou makes discoveries and comes to three different conclusions.

In the Fate Route, he remains naive of the sacrifices which heroism requires, inevitably setting him on the path to become the future self that Archer represents.

In the Unlimited Blade Works Route, Shirou comes into direct confrontation with Archer and the pain that will eventually result from following his ideals to the bitter end. However, this does not dissuade Shirou from his path. He looks into the future and sees what he must become, and he chooses to walk that path anyway. This is exemplified in Archer's warning, "Hey, you know that's hell you're walking into." He knows the sacrifices he must make, but he still believes that those sacrifices are necessary.

It is only in Heavens Feel that Shirou comes to doubt his convictions. In each other route, Shirou never has to reconcile the fact that seeking the greater good will often mean personal pain and loss for him. However, when faced with the choice to carry on his convictions and kill the girl he loves, or give up on all else and try to save her, Shirou chooses the latter. It is in this route, and this one alone, that Shirou realizes that he has not been deprived of the right or ability to live life as an ordinary human.

I love Fate as a series, and these same themes carry throughout each of the stories I've consumed. Even Fate/Grand Order questions how much of one's humanity one can sacrifice in the name of the "greater good" before one becomes just another villain to be stopped.

This is what honestly saddens me so much about Fate's position in popular culture. Because there are such rich themes and character development present in its storytelling. But at the end of the day, most people will never look past the framing device. After all, the series began with an erotic visual novel, and the magnum opus of the franchise is a greedy mobile gacha game.

But this franchise is very near and dear to my heart. For the longest time, I've latched onto and identified with Shirou and his desire to help and save those around him. Unfortunately, I can also identify with his desire to ignore/repress his own issues in favor of focusing on helping others. But this is where the messaging of Fate gives hope. For every Shirou, every Archer, every hero who sacrifices their own joy and humanity for a life of pain and suffering in service of others, there's the voice of another, sometimes a character, sometimes the narrative itself, screaming that there's a better way. You have to put on your own oxygen mask before helping someone else with theirs. Other people are just as eager to help you with your issues as you are to help them with theirs. You just have to open yourself up to receive them.

You cannot save the world, no human can. You cannot save everyone, that task is beyond any human. But you *can* save *your* world. You can be a light to those around you. You can be a comforting embrace, a word of encouragement. And in turn, when your world needs saving, when all you need is someone to tell you "it's going to be alright," maybe there will be someone to do the same for you.

The important thing is to keep trying, but don't try to go alone.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ontology of Text

The ontology of text refers to the study of the nature, structure, and being of text, focusing on what text is at its most fundamental level. This exploration can span several philosophical and theoretical perspectives, often addressing questions about the existence, identity, and categorization of text as an entity. Here’s a breakdown of key aspects:

1. Text as an Ontological Entity:

Material vs. Abstract: Text can be considered both as a material object (e.g., a book or a written document) and as an abstract entity (e.g., the content or meaning conveyed by the text). The ontology of text thus involves understanding how these two aspects coexist and relate to each other.

Text as a Work vs. Text as a Document: The distinction between a text as a work (the conceptual or intellectual creation) and as a document (the physical or digital manifestation) is crucial in ontology. For instance, different editions of a book may be considered different documents but the same work.

2. Identity and Persistence:

Sameness and Variation: The ontology of text deals with the question of what makes a text the same across different instances or versions. What remains consistent between different editions or translations of a text? How much can a text change before it is considered a different text?

Temporal Aspects: How does the identity of a text persist over time? This includes considerations of how historical context, authorial intent, and reader interpretation might affect the identity of a text.

3. Structure of Text:

Hierarchical vs. Network Structures: Text can be seen as having a hierarchical structure (e.g., chapters, paragraphs, sentences) or a network-like structure (e.g., hypertext or intertextuality). The ontology of text examines how these structures are constituted and how they affect the nature of text.

Units of Text: What are the basic units of text? Words, sentences, paragraphs, or perhaps even smaller or larger units? The ontological inquiry involves defining and categorizing these units.

4. Function and Intent:

Authorial Intent: The role of the author's intention in the ontology of text is a major consideration. Is the meaning of a text tied to what the author intended, or does it exist independently?

Reader Interpretation: The ontology of text also considers the role of the reader or audience in constituting the text. Is the meaning of a text something inherent, or is it something that comes into being through interpretation?

5. Intertextuality and Contextuality:

Intertextual Relations: Texts often reference or build upon other texts. The ontology of text considers how texts are related to one another and how these relationships affect their existence and identity.

Contextual Dependency: The meaning and existence of a text can be dependent on its context, including cultural, historical, and situational factors. The ontology of text examines how context shapes what a text is.

6. Digital and Hypertext Ontology:

Digital Texts: The advent of digital texts introduces new ontological questions. How do digital formats affect the nature of text? How does hypertext, with its non-linear structure, change our understanding of text?

Versioning and Fluidity: Digital texts can be easily modified, leading to questions about the stability and identity of texts in a digital environment. What does it mean for a text to have a version, and how does this affect its ontology?

7. Philosophical Perspectives:

Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: These schools of thought provide frameworks for understanding the ontology of text, focusing on the underlying structures of language (structuralism) and the fluidity and instability of meaning (post-structuralism).

Phenomenology: This approach might consider the experience of the text, focusing on how it appears to consciousness and the role of the reader in bringing the text to life.

The ontology of text is a rich and complex field that intersects with many areas of philosophy, literary theory, linguistics, and digital humanities. It seeks to answer fundamental questions about what text is, how it exists, how it maintains identity, and how it relates to both its material form and its interpretation by readers.

[keicordelle]

Yuki and Performativity: the autistic mask

(aka the analysis I've been trying to figure out how to format for like 3 weeks)

Okay, so now that Yuki's autism has been ~established~ (here, but I'm just going to pretend everyone was following along), I'm really really interested in the subtle ways that that presents itself in his characterization.

Because Re:member does a really great job of making it obvious, because it's written in Yuki's perspective (at least in vol 2) and so heavily flavored with his own though process. But It's equally present in his characterization in the anime (and I assume the game, but I'm not caught up so we're just going based on the anime here). And a lot of that time, that characterization is so delightfully subtle that I didn't even pick up on it the first time through. But now I'm obsessed and I'm Noticing Things and y'all must suffer with me. so.

I think it's fair to say that Yuki's blunt and cold nature are features of his autism. Also probably the fact that he is extremely awkward when it comes to emotions and, notably for this discussion, expressing them. (oh to be a fire extinguisher)

But he's also really good at acting. And I'm making some assumptions here based on my own experiences, but I figure this comes in large part from the amount of effort he puts into trying to read others. He picks apart other people's interactions to figure out why they're reacting certain ways because he doesn't Get It.

And so he uses that in his every day life. Like, you wouldn't really figure someone so extremely autistic and introverted would make for a very good idol, what with the whole "having to interact with people all day every day" thing -- and he didn't want to be an idol! He just wanted to make his music and have people appreciate it! In fact, he looked down on idols at first, which probably had more to do with him undervaluing their artistic integrity (or at least I imagine that's how he would frame it), but he is very explicit about how he doesn't like how people fawn over him (read: idols) because of their looks rather than on the merits of the music.

Anyway. One of the key features of his characterization is that he's always acting. Always. There are a handful of moments we see him in the anime where he's not playing a role, even and particularly when he's off stage.

I've talked before (here) about Re:vale's introduction and how from the very first moment we see them, they're On. Not just in their initial prank on i7 where they pretend to be serious and scary, but also in the bubbly happy personas they present afterwards. They drop one mask for another, and at no point are they ever not wearing their idol stage personas. This is relevant to i7 for reasons but for this discussion rant it's relevant because this is how Yuki engages with the world. There are only a handful of times where we ever see him truly drop his guard -- usually only when he's alone with Momo, and occasionally around Yamato, which will be relevant in a bit. (And one other very notable time towards the end of season 3, but we'll get there.)

Anyway. He's only ever comfortable when he's playing a role. Which is never explicitly established, and I love it all the more for that, because they're totally content to just let you pick up on that without shoving it in your face. But they introduce it in ways that are subtler than I even thought at first. Because at first I was like, "okay, well he's got his stage ikemen persona, and he's got his sillier tsukkomi routine, and he's got his darker prankster who genuinely seems to be enjoying your discomfort persona (which is probably the one among them that's closest to his reality, because he really does seem to enjoy teasing and making people uncomfortable even when he's not On)

But literally any time he has to engage with someone, he falls back on a performance. A myriad of them, in as many different faces as he needs. And even when he tries to be genuine, he'll fall back on that performative role as soon as someone offers him an out. He will become whatever other people need or want him to be, so long as it doesn't involve being himself.

We see this particularly clearly while Yamato's struggling with his role in Mission and Yuki comes to him in a genuine effort to help

You can see the transformation in Yuki's face : Yamato has offered him a role, and he is now going to take that and run with it.

He steps into that role as easily as that, and from there on out, everything he says, while still true to his own beliefs, is very heavily shaded by his new performance as a criminal psychologist. It makes it easier for him to express himself, because he's no longer Yukito Orikasa, fumbling his way through emotions that he's been told time and again that he doesn't express properly, he's Yuki, criminal psychologist, and that's something he can figure out how to be.

You can even see it in his gestures; from then on, they get extremely dramatic, very much what you'd expect in a stage play (moreso even than in a movie). Which works well considering this is an anime and dramatic gestures suit the medium, and that's probably part of why I didn't really notice that at first. Even his tone becomes more dramatic. You can hear it flowing up and down the scale of emotion, rather than his usual low, teasing edge. Really great direction all around tbh

We see this same sort of transformation in the next episode, while Yamato's staying with him, and honestly this scene makes it a whole lot clearer. Yuki does actually start off more himself in this episode because he's in his own home. He doesn't really want to go out of his way for Yamato, he's mostly helping him out of obligation, so the mask slips a bit.

He flits in and out of a couple different personas fairly rapidly at the start of their interaction. Even Yamato remarks on this, which I actually didn't realize until just now when I was skimming through to find the shot I wanted to reference. He's never fully seen Yuki with his metaphorical hair down before, and the change is remarkable

He offers Yamato some advice, rather against his own will. His countdown here is his "speak now if you want me to listen to your problems or else I'm leaving" ultimatum, and he fully intended to when he gets to zero. But he doesn't (which I think surprises them both), and when Yamato calls out to him, he stops and actually offers genuine advice, no persona there to filter it. And it's harsh, like he usually is when he's unfiltered, because he's Autistic As Fuck and doesn't really know how to be anything else no matter how hard he tries (as is very explicitly laid out in Re:member : he has tried, hard, and he just can't figure it out)

And then he immediately falls into another role, when it's clear he's going to be trapped in this conversation that he doesn't really want to be having. Which is equal parts to soothe himself and to piss of Yamato, I think. Maybe heavier on the piss-off-Yamato side of things, because for all that he's helping him, they really really don't like each other, and Yuki's really kind of an asshole at heart

And from here on out he fully embraces the mocking asshole persona he's chosen to adopt. The same thing happens: he becomes more expressive both in voice and gesture, and it both softens the blow of the harsh things he says and makes it worse.

And you can then see the exact moment Yuki realizes that he's Fucked Up this conversation and pushed things much much further than he expected or intended to

(a shot which is on the screen for like less than half a second and that I had to clip and go frame by frame through to get because my own autism is now Activated)

The next scene is, I think, rather intentionally ambiguous (at least at the start) as to how genuine Yuki's responses are. It's fairly well established that, despite his aichmophobia, Yuki doesn't really have a ton of self-preservation instinct when it comes to fights, so it's seems entirely reasonable that his continued efforts to poke at the already enraged bear are just, what he'd do and not a persona he's putting on

However, it becomes clearer further into the scene that this is indeed another performance for him. First here, somewhat subtly, where in the actual line of dialogue, he calls Yamato "Yamato-bocchan", which, while appropriately mocking, also places him very firmly in a role other than his natural disposition.

From here on out, it becomes fairly clear to me that he's reverted back to his role from Mission. Yukito Orikasa is shed once more (if he was ever truly present here), and Yuki the Criminal Psychologist has taken his place. Yamato's breakdown follows a similar script to his character's here, though his is genuine -- but Yuki reads the similarities and falls back into his psychologist role.

He then offers Yamato some advice that actually references Shizuo's own words, which is... a huge Dick Move in this moment but that is actually a super neat and subtle reference, especially because he genuinely thinks he's helping.

he's not.

And this part is fun because it then becomes a lot less clear if Yamato's clued in to the role he's playing and is now playing along with his part in the movie, or if he's really just genuinely doing this (it's the latter, but it teases the possibility for most of the scene)

But anyway, the point kind of got away from me. You see Yuki fall back on this acting any time he's in a situation he doesn't know how to handle -- or, well. Not just then, actually. Pretty much in any situation. He's more comfortable pretending to be someone else than he is being himself, and he'll default to that whenever he can get away with it. He maintains it even when he's alone with Momo a lot of the time (I have an headcanon about Momo knowing what it is he's doing and allowing him it, as a sort of kindness)

Of course, his dealings with Yamato are hardly the only time we see this so clearly presented. He draws any number of roles over him like a mask, and falls into whichever suits his needs -- perhaps most notably at the very end of season 3, where he dons the caricature persona of a thug in order to try to protect Momo. Which is, uh. Maybe not the best idea he's ever had but hey, it works, kind of, so more power to you, Yuki.

He (arguably) adopts this same sort of thuggy image earlier in the season, for much the same reasons, when he waits outside Ryo's apartment with a baseball bat (that he definitely does not know how to use).

However! Of particular interest is the scene where he confronts Touma, where he's actually not assuming some sort of role. This scene is pure, unadulterated Yuki, and that frightens Touma and Torao exactly the same way as it puzzled Yamato above.

This scene itself is more a commentary on his relationship with Momo than it is Yuki's performative nature, really, because it highlights very well the fact that he's willing to do anything for the sake of his partner. It's pretty clear to me that when he walks into the dressing room and when he first confronts Touma, he's not Yuki the Badass, he's Yukito Orikasa, desperately trying to track down his partner.

Like, this is very much Yuki's real personality, not one of his endless roles

And that is precisely what gives him the edge here. Touma and Torao are really not expecting him to be so cruel and careless. They're used to Idol Yuki, handsome and flippant and appeasing. Not Yukito, entirely willing to stomp all over the law if it means saving Momo from danger

This is one of the only times that Yuki lets his true colors shine so obviously true. Usually Momo or Rinto is there to remind him to be aware of his station and to keep himself in check, but Momo is in danger and Yuki Does Not Care about the consequences, because at the end of the day, he's cold and calculating and absolutely nothing like the friendly persona he puts on, and he's only really doing this because he's passionate about music, not because he loves being an idol

Anyway. I guess all that sums up into: Yuki, first among the Autists, hides behind different masks so often that everyone around him is startled when he drops them, including himself a lot of the time. And that the show (and presumably the game) does a really incredible job of presenting this incredibly subtly

[borninwinter81]

William Blake and Good Omens - an intertextual analysis

Please note: I did another version of this and posted it, but it was quite hurried, way too short, and was incorrect in a number of ways so I deleted it. However it had already been reblogged by the time i did so. If you happen to see another version of this meta that's not the right one, this is the version I'm happy with!

After my previous post re William Blake and Good Omens did so well, and so many people showed an interest I've decided to do a more in depth piece. This is focused upon the TV version of Good Omens, not the book.

Please don't tag Neil in this - although it's mostly textual analysis I do a very small amount of S3 theorising, and I know he doesn't want to see that.

I am in no way suggesting that Neil and Terry specifically wrote Good Omens with Blake in mind, I honestly just wanted an excuse to write more about Blake because I love his work so much, and I thought it would be interesting to try and apply some intertexuality since the works will contain similar themes, both being about God, religion, humanity, and angels and demons.

I also should stress that I am not an expert on Blake, there are people far more qualified to comment on him than I. I'm just a former literature student who loves his work.

There have been many different interpretations of Blake's work over the years, so it's completely fine to disagree with someone else's ideas about it, as with any work of art or literature. And although this piece is likely to be long, I'll barely be able to scratch the surface of all the possible meanings that could be ascribed to it.

Much like the old adage that if someone claims to understand quantum physics they're lying, I'm not sure anyone can truly fathom the full meaning of Blake's philosophy (especially in his later prophetic works, fuuuuuuck those beasts....), so if you're confused by him don't be discouraged, that's perfectly normal!

That being said, I wish to discuss the parallels between Good Omens and The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, my personal favourite and probably the most accessible of his longer works.

"Without contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence. From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy. Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell."

This excerpt is from near the opening and sets out the central idea of the work - that there is an essential duality to humanity, and each person is a combination of extremes. These extremes are not at war with each other, but rather are equally necessary, hence the "marriage" of the title. "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" is a metaphor for the human experience.

Consistently throughout The Marriage... Blake refers to the two extremes as Reason and Energy. These terms could be construed in a number of different ways: thought versus emotion, mental versus physical, restraint versus desire, temperance versus excess, caution versus impulsiveness, and following the rules versus free will.

Blake's use of the word "Reason" in this context may be somewhat confusing, however he likely chose it because of his negative feelings towards science and the Age of Enlightenment. Blake saw literal visions of angels and prophets and the divinity of all creation, and hated that science reduced everything to formulas, calculations, and materialism, leaving the world bereft of wonder. "Art is the Tree of Life. Science is the Tree of Death" as he put it.

His ideas about "reason" are best expressed by his painting "Newton". Though inspired by the scientist, it is not a portrait - instead it depicts a figure deeply engrossed in scientific drawings and calculations, totally ignoring the beauty all around him - see below.

In the context of The Marriage... Reason is "passive" because it involves thought, caution, self-restraint, and doing what you are told, all states which block action. Energy is "active" because it is physical, emotional, impulsive and allows you to act based on your own choices and desires. It's quite clear that Blake feels "energy" is the preferable state - he tells us as much in the next section:

"The Voice of the Devil

All Bibles or sacred codes, have been the causes of the following Errors. 1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul. 2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul. 3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies. But the following Contraries to these are True. 1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age. 2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy. 3. Energy is Eternal Delight."

So the body is an aspect of the soul, not separate from it, Energy comes from the body, it is Reason which places limits upon Energy, but Energy is eternal delight. Physicality, desire, impulsiveness, emotion, sensual pleasure and free will are not wrong or evil, they are aspects of the human soul and it is from them that we derive our enjoyment of life.

This does not necessarily mean that Reason is always bad. After all, Blake tells us that both are necessary for human existence. Sometimes temperance, caution and thought before action are required. But Reason becomes negative when it "usurps its place and governs the unwilling", i.e. when it completely supplants Energy and becomes the sole guiding factor, forcing passivity.

The Angels of The Marriage... are governed by "systematic reasoning", therefore they are wholly creatures of Reason. They are also "all religious" meaning they believe the "errors" stated above. His Devils by contrast "hate religion" meaning they believe the "contraries", which are the true statements according to Blake. It does not necessarily follow that they are wholly governed by Energy, merely that they believe Energy is "eternal delight".

It is worth noting at this point that Blake saw God and religion as totally separate. For Blake, "God" is that connection with divine wonder which was integral to his life; he tells us plainly that "all deities reside in the human breast" and that "the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God". In other words all humans have a direct and intuitive link with God and don't require the church, Priests, or a religious framework and adherence to a set of rules in order to reach moral decisions. These rules exist only to "enslave the vulgar".

The importance of this ability to make one's own choices about a moral course of action is shown by one of the "Memorable Fancy" sections of The Marriage...

Blake relates how a Devil is able to use an Angel's "systematic reasoning" against them:

"if Jesus Christ is the greatest man, you ought to love him in the greatest degree; now hear how he has given his sanction to the law of ten commandments: did he not mock at the sabbath, and so mock the sabbaths God? Murder those who were murder'd because of him? Turn away the law from the woman taken in adultery? Steal the labor of others to support him? Bear false witness when he omitted making a defence before Pilate? Covet when he pray'd for his disciples, and when he bid them shake off the dust of their feet against such as refused to lodge them? I tell you, no virtue can exist without breaking these ten commandments; Jesus was all virtue, and acted from impulse, not from rules."

The Angel has no way to refute the "reasoning" that Jesus was governed by Energy and "impulse", i.e. his own morality, the "voice of righteous indignation", not reasoning and the rules laid down by Heaven. And because Jesus is the Messiah he must be virtuous, therefore Energy is virtuous. The Angel immediately allows himself to be consumed by fire and is resurrected as a Devil.

How can these concepts apply to the world of Good Omens?  This was where my first draft was totally incorrect, as I tried to transfer Blake's ideas about Angels and Demons and Heaven and Hell wholesale, applying "reason" to Aziraphale and Heaven and "energy" to Crowley and Hell.  In fact the divide is slightly different in the GO-verse: Crowley and Aziraphale *both* represent Energy, and it is Heaven and Hell that act according to Reason.

At first glance Aziraphale may appear to toe the line - he needs creative application of the rules to make him comfortable with trying to avert the apocalypse, and when he doesn't like the way matters are being handled by the Archangels he seeks a higher authority and goes straight to God. He'd clearly prefer someone to be confirming the rightness of his actions for him. However this doesn't mean that he won't act on his own.

Immediately upon his introduction to the story he has given away his flaming sword, an action that he took impulsively because he felt it was right, not because someone told him to. It bothers him, but he does it anyway.

In the Job storyline, though he initially looks for some loophole within the rules that will allow him to save Job's children, in the end he directly goes against Heaven to do it, even though he believes he is going to Fall and become a Demon for having done so.

Though he resists it and exhausts all other possible avenues first, he eventually does take an active role in averting the apocalypse in S1.

He hides Jim at great personal risk to himself and against the will of both Heaven and Hell, again because he feels it is the right thing to do.

He is therefore perfectly capable of independent action from a position of "righteous indignation".

On a more basic level, he enjoys worldly pleasures, which all come from "energy" according to Blake's philosophy. Food and drink most obviously, but also books, music, dancing, theatre, art and so on.

Crowley is more easy to place as acting from Energy - in spite of the obvious aesthetic differences between them, he also loves worldly pleasures. Alcohol and coffee, snazzy clothing, driving his car with Queen blaring on the stereo, going to lunch with Aziraphale, Shakespearean comedies. All things he isn't supposed to want or need, and which baffle other Demons, in the same way that Aziraphale's desire for food baffles the Angels.

And he's absolutely willing to act according to his own moral impulses when they conflict with Hell's orders (or Heaven's), be it saving Job's children, ensuring that Elspeth doesn't die by suicide, or averting the apocalypse. Yes, he'll try to hide his "good" actions in order to avoid punishment by Hell, but he's firmly "on his own side".

Conversely, Heaven and Hell are both part of the structure of religion in this story, are strictly adherent to a set of rules, and their inhabitants appear to have no real desires of their own, other than possible advancement within the systems they uphold. They are "passive" in that their functions allow the status quo to continue and the "great plan" to unfold as they believe it is meant to, even though each side expects a different outcome.

Again, applying Blake's philosophy, I would say the reason for this is that "energy is from the body". Crowley and Aziraphale have both been given bodies in order that they can exist on earth, and *have* existed on earth for 6000 years, therefore "energy" - physical pleasures and free thinking - have become a part of who they are.

On a more fundamental level, possession of a body can be equated to humanity, and humanity has been shown as the most powerful force of all in this story, its influence having led to Adam becoming "human incarnate", and thus acting according to what he feels is right, instead of fulfilling the function he was destined for.

Heaven and Hell contain no material objects, and the Angels and Demons are spiritual beings, having no bodies, so they are not open to energy, and therefore are wholly governed by Reason, and the preservation of the religious structures within which they exist. Structures which, as for Blake, may not actually have anything to do with God herself. In S1 she is a distant observer, clearly aware through her narration of all that is going on, but not interceding in any way. In S2 she is barely present save for her voice being heard briefly in Job, and overlaid with Gabriel's on two occasions.

Bearing all this in mind, what predictions can we make regarding S3 by applying Blake's philosophy?

"The ancient tradition that the world will be consumed in fire at the end of six thousand years is true, as I have heard from Hell.

For the cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at [the] tree of life, and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed and appear infinite and holy, whereas it now appears finite and corrupt.

This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment."

The parallels of the cherub with his flaming sword, and the passage of 6000 years should be obvious to anyone reading this - they have of course been lifted directly from the Bible as they are in GO.

I have read some metas which speculated that Aziraphale's bookshop, or perhaps Earth itself, is a metaphorical stand-in for Eden or The Tree of Life. Aziraphale has been commanded to leave his "Eden" and will now be instrumental in causing the whole of creation to become infinite and holy, but Blake tells us this will be done by an improvement of sensual enjoyment, which arises from Energy not Reason.

Sensual enjoyment is something which is intrinsic to Aziraphale's character, and this could make his placement in Heaven very important.

Putting aside all the "final fifteen" theories and taking matters at face value, Aziraphale tells us that if he's in charge he can make a difference - he needs to subvert the system from the inside out. The most subversive thing of all could be that a sensualist who acts according to "the voice of moral indignation" and "Energy" has become the supreme Archangel. We have seen in Blake how a realisation that Energy could be virtuous was enough to convert an Angel into a Devil (incidentally, does the image of an Angel being consumed by fire and emerging as a Devil seem familiar at all...)

We may have seen the beginnings of this already. Gabriel and Beelzebub became open to Energy from such little things as visiting earth, spending time in one another's company, and their mutual enjoyment of a song, which has given them wants and desires beyond those dictated by Heaven and Hell. This is enough to make them wish to leave their roles behind.

It's possible that the same may happen with Muriel. They haven't yet imbibed food or drink, but they have shown an enjoyment of books, which are an earthly pleasure, and open the reader up to new ideas and ways of thinking.

Of course, this would lead to questions regarding the Metatron's statement that he has "ingested things", and whether this means he is acting from reason or energy. Of course the simplest explanation is that it is a manipulation tactic, and he is lying about having done so, but if true that statement has some interesting implications. However, this is now super-long and I'm out of juice, so will leave others to speculate. I may return to this in the future!

There we go, hope you enjoyed. I doubt this will reach nearly as many people as my first Blake post, but if a few find it of interest then my work is done!

[gayofthefae]

You know how I know Mike is queer?

These are the same person. Mike is an inherently caring, loving, and protective person. It's what Will called out in 4x08 and reminded us of with Mike's desire and practice in attempt to be a "hero" and be able to help the ones he loves.

But when El tells him she feels unloved by him, he doesn't comfort her. At all. He defends himself. He doesn't even say "yes I do". He says "I say it". Even when he's arguing that he loves her, he is defending himself, not comforting her. If he was comforting her he would have reacted to her crying at all. He doesn't. He just becomes increasingly desperate and escalates the tactics that are making her cry more.

Because the accusation is that important to him. Not many things could be so important to him that he would deprioritize her or taking care and protecting and comforting those he loves. He even does quite well at it at the start of the scene. We have PROOF that he is pretty stable these days with any sort of accusation or invalidation with how well he takes "you don't understand" and simply asks questions without any sort of offense. So he CAN take it. He takes it IN THIS CONVERSATION.

But when she says he doesn't love him, he stops the "they just don't know you". He stops the "don't say that about yourself, you're lovable," which is what this is really about for her. If he had said that even if he couldn't say it himself, it might have still helped a little bit: frame it as his own fault if he can't. But he couldn't do that. Instead, he went with how it reflected on HIM that he couldn't say it and defended himself AGAINST her. FOUGHT her on it.

There are few things that can make him fight a person. And they've all actually been pretty similar. They're all El:

"You're prioritizing El over Will"

"There is something off about your relationship with El"

"You're prioritizing El over [Will]"

"He's right that your and [El's] relationship wasn't a good one"

"Your and El's relationship wasn't a good one"

"You're prioritizing El over [Will]"

"You don't love [El]"

He is comforting. He is kind. He prioritizes others' comfort and safety consistently. He takes other accusations fairly lightly and focuses back onto the person making them and their emotions. And yet, what does he say in those instances and only those instances?

"SHUT. UP."

"You lying piece of shit. You're crazy!"

"It's not my fault you don't like girls!"

"He's just some crazy old man"

"You're conspiring against me!"

"We're friends! We're friends!"

"You're being ridiculous. What is this?"

People who say his character has gotten worse are stating it under the idea that he is always like this. The entire discovery so many people, including myself, had that he's queer was because we noticed that his outbursts were consistent. People think he's random and angry because they think the situations are random: Lucas, Hopper, Will, Max, El. But they're forgetting to note what each of those people questioned about him right before.

The biggest proof is that he doesn't ever talk like this outside of these situations. It's lighthearted debates and empathetic conversations.

Mike Wheeler is a kind person. If he said "You're being ridiculous. What is this?" it is not just because he's scared of vulnerability or commitment.

[lackingabilitytodothing]

Having recently watched Nosferatu (2024) and intending to pursue a PhD in vampire specific gothic texts (though due to how saturated this field is I may end up going in a different direction) and then seeing the online response to it I have a genuine question. What do people online think the purpose of interpretation is? I'm seeing quite a large divide (especially over on tiktok) between a CSA/grooming interpretation and a sexual liberation interpretation (both of which I believe are supported by the text) and I have no issue with either interpretation as an interpretation per se, but both sides seem to be arguing to discredit each other's interpretation. I think fundamentally this points to a misunderstanding about the purpose of interpretation as an explicit active analytic engagement with a text. While I do think the CSA/grooming interpretation is supported by the text, it's proponents seem to be using this as a moral benchmark for the text, arguing that anyone interpreting it differently is thus ignoring the violence within the narrative. The CSA (if one interprets it as present) is ambiguous enough that I don't believe it's an erasure of a key element of the narrative to interpret events differently the way I would with Lolita. I've noticed also that these proponents are having a closed-ended discussion surrounding their interpretation. The common argumentation goes: "orlock groomed her and abused her as a child -> therefore orlock is bad and interpreting it as a romance is bad". This is uninteresting and fundamentally non-constructive interpretation.

If one does want to disprove another popular interpretation, the way to do that is to argue that the text itself contradicts the interpretation, but since these people seem unaware that texts are polysemous and contain sometimes contradictory and multiplicitus interpretations they argue that the interpretation is invalid on the basis of not being *theirs*, rather than it being incompatible with the text as the object of the interpretation.

So this leads me to ask: what do people believe the purpose of interpretation is? What do people believe the nature of a text is? Obviously random tiktok users will not be familiar with the critical works of literary theory relevant but it's concerning to me that their interpretations are so uninterested in analysis or discussion and more interested in conveying moral content.

[fgatheories]

FGA Theories Episode 1: "What We Know About Boss's Stand"

So. Chapter 32. That final fight between Culto and Boss was really something, right? Emotionally charged, secrets being buried, and, well, toxic yaoi- that scene was a lot. Obviously, we're all going crazy at the reveal of Boss's Stand. I mean, main villain! Hello? This thing is gonna be part of the final fight! But what exactly does it do?

We here at FGA Theories were wondering the exact same thing- but we've done our research, and we think that we might actually have all the information necessary to figure it out. But before you crack your Cultoboss knuckles... we gotta go back a little.

The actual first appearance of Boss's Stand was all the way in Chapter 23: "Sammy's Night Eyes". Let's take a look.

"...Someone- or something- stabs through [Sammy], and he gasps and shoots awake. His body burns. [...] Boss's Stand slips back into his body. Sammy is so dazed he forgets to try and look at it."

So a few things stand out to us immediately. First of all, Boss stabs him with the Stand, and he wakes up. Why? Is it the pain and following burning sensation that gets him to jolt up? Or is it something a little more interesting? We'll talk about that in a second.

Second of all, Boss automatically hides his Stand. We already knew that Sammy'd never seen it. He mentions that in Chapter 18. However, we didn't know whether that was because Sammy doesn't pay attention, or because Boss is trying to hide his Stand from his team. The lines, "Boss's Stand slips back into his body. Sammy is so dazed he forgets to try and look at it..." confirms that hiding it is an effort on Boss's part- it actually seems like Sammy is very interested in figuring out what it is (just like us!).

So... was Sammy's waking up a result of the stabbing, or a Stand ability? Could this be a lead to Boss's Stand ability? To answer this, we actually have to check out Night Eyes's Stand description, as given in Chapter 3: "Eva Max's Night Eyes- Part 2".

"...Most victims kill themselves, unable to escape the horrible reality they believe they are in. This has no effect on Eva- only her injuries reflect. Eva was genuinely unaware that it was possible to break out of Night Eyes’ nightmare..."

We know Sammy definitely didn't break out by himself- when we see Fugo do it in Chapter 3, it's implied he takes control of the dream, as opposed to Sammy, who was most certainly not in control of what was happening to him. Should we assume that maybe Night Eyes assumed Sammy's stabbing was him trying to harm himself, and it let go of him? No. We have only one reference to someone who died to Night Eyes- that is, the woman who started it all, Miss Venus Max- but her story (as recounted by Eva in Chapter 15) is enough to disprove this theory. Let's take a look.

"[Venus Max] lay on the ground in a pool of her own blood, eyes bulging in fear and despair, as the creature Eva would soon know as Night Eyes pulled itself out of her body..."

This quote makes it obvious- Night Eyes doesn't pull itself out until the deed is done. There's no way Night Eyes would let go of Sammy if they knew he wasn't dead. That leaves us with two possibilities. Either Boss's Stand killed and revived Sammy in an instant, effectively tricking Night Eyes into leaving, or his Stand disabled Night Eyes in some way. And based on Sammy's actions right after, and what we saw with Culto, the second option makes a little more sense.

Let us explain ourselves.

It's heavily implied that Blues Traveler has a controlling effect on Sammy. If not because he frequently seems to experience fits in which we can only assume he tries to resist its control over him, then more generally, because we're told his eyes turned blue when Blues Traveler manifested. What color do people's eyes turn when possessed? That's right- blue. We get confirmation of Sammy's possession in a deleted scene posted on FGAfunfactsweekly.

"...Electricity prickles every inch of Sammy's body. He twitches. Obey, says Blues Traveler.

'I'm not allowed to know. I can't get around that...'

[...]

Sammy clenches his twitching hands.

'Boss loves me. I know it. I can't betray his trust.''"

The trigger for this is Van offering to share Boss's (thought to be) real name. We know that Blues Traveler causes people to twitch when they try to resist control. Therefore, we can assume that Sammy actually wants to know, and is being forced to turn Van down and tell him that his loyalty is to Boss- meaning that Sammy, in his possessed form, is merely an extension of Boss's will, and is physically unable to do anything that would go against it. Why, then, does Blues Traveler not stop him from trying to look at Boss's Stand? We know that Boss doesn't want him to see it, and Blues Traveler forces Sammy to obey Boss. It must have been disabled for that short moment.

(Of course, you could argue that Sammy only thought about it, but was too dazed to try, and that's why Blues Traveler didn't stop him. We can't say for sure. We have far more evidence to prove the disabling theory than we have to prove that Blues Traveler doesn't act if Sammy only thinks about disobeying, though.)

That leads us to Chapter 32.

"...[Boss's] Stand materializes around [his hand]... and a searing pain shoots through Culto’s body. [...] Puppet Boy shrivels up and falls away. [...] But that’s fine. Culto can just go back into his Stand...

... Puppet Boy won’t come back out."

We see Culto experiencing the same thing Sammy did; namely, he is stabbed, and then he feels a burning sensation. This is clearly the same attack. Unlike Sammy, though, Culto realizes what exactly the attack did to him, and in doing so, confirms it for us. Boss's Stand disables other Stands for a short while.

How do we know it isn't a permanent effect? Well, we see Blues Traveler in use again the morning after Sammy was stabbed in Chapter 26: "One Big, Happy Family", and we see Puppet Boy return to wrap itself around Culto one last time at the end of Chapter 32.

So there you have it! Call us Culto (r.i.p.) the way we figured it all out using a bunch of seemingly disconnected events. Aren't we great?

[forgottenbones]

it is that deep you just refuse to swim | critical thinking, mickey mouse degrees, book bans...

On a positive note, I love that the mocking of Dr. Louks's work backfired so spectacularly that now many more people are aware of her research and have stopped to think about something they probably never would've considered in literature and media (and by extension in the real world). So, that's very cool for her.