#they actually have a lot in common actually conceptually

[chloesimaginationthings]

FNAF Monty and TADC Gummigoo are so alike!

[bidisaster-peanut-romano]

Curious if you think Johnny, peanut, and Lola have/had siblings or if they're just only children. Personally I always hc johnny and lola as only children but felt that peanut had a younger sister who passed away.

why hi anon!!! this such an interesting question, thank you!!

i remember reading that hc, yep!!

i hc all the three of them, however, to be only children (i think they're the only greasers that i do??). in fact, for all three of them, this fundamental isolation is their childhood is, in the way i read it, what shaped some of the way they socialize and influences a lot their interactions.

as for johnny, the thing is that his parents were both in the drug dealing circles of new coventry, hence why they were in prison for a while- his father was actually pretty important in the neighborhood, while his mom mostly helped and did other legal jobs (which is also why she got out earlier). and johnny learnt both how to be a man and how not to be a man from his father- he taught him strength and roughness and to never take a hit but punch harder. but he also taught that johnny didn't want to hit his woman, didn't want to leave the house for a smoke to cool his head when she was crying and threatening to hurt herself because of him, didn't want her to be his slave.

in this framework, i think that him having, say, a brother would sort of... scatter the relationship his father has with him, the attention and, almost, the pressure to be worthy of being treated as a peer. which is something i really like to read for johnny. and i also like the idea of him having had his mother as the only woman in his life, before lola. call him a mama's boy, but he learned to take care of his mother before he even questioned how to deal with an eventual girlfriend. so he has learned to take care of the people he has around himself, such as peanut, almost in a way that replaces a paternal figure as protector of the house. but also internalized some very specific notions about masculinity and virility that he totally projects onto the relationship with lola.

ultimately, i think, the whole point is that the way he lives the relationship with lola in particular is basically a result with having grown up with the only reference in his house of close human interaction as his parents, and having to sort of step up where they lacked in the sole spousal relationship.

with peanut, my hc is that his mom had him when she was very young, sixteen years old, and she was... basically on her own, really; the boy she had had him with had fled as soon as he had a chance, her dad was on the other side of the ocean and her mom was basically mia (i still have to figure out the logistics of this, since, when i first elaborated it, i forgot for a while that Laws Existed, LMAO, and i was already too far in the creating process to change that), so she had to raise him on her own. and peanut spent most of his childhood in his living room, waiting for his mom to come back home, watching the vhs she had rented for him and reading the motors magazines. it's there that he fell in love with greasers, crushing on marlon brando and james dean, the shiny motorcycles and the raw leather jackets.

he basically had to live with himself, you see. also bc his mom, so young and unprepared, was very overwhelmed most of the time, and- i did post a quick snippet of a scrapped chapter of my fic already, actually, so you can get a broad but more detailed idea of their relationship if you want!! either way, point is. larry had to learn to tend to himself at a very young age, dealing with the loneliness and his own sensitivity, running from eventual kids of the neighborhood, who liked to take advantage of him being much smaller than most of them, trying not to take up too much space and upset his mom.

so of course, when he met johnny, older, proud, powerful as a sun, promising to take care of him, it felt almost unreal, something he never thought he could have wished for nor something he thought he deserved. some kind of care and protection hed never learnt to receive, and that he hang onto for dear life because suddenly... he wasn't on his own anymore.

(sometimes parents are just Contextual Objects. other time they are fully fleshed ocs with a backstory and a whole personality. turns out despite everything immacolata romano is really my child and i am so so fond of her and id have soo much more to say abt her relationship w peanut. but i digress)

and lola- i'll admit, shes the one i bounced back and forth about the most, in trying to imagine her family's situation. (in fact, if you see any reference to her family in my older fics/post, no you dont) at some point i even considered the idea of her having a much older brother who would sort of fill in for some absent father figure, but then i scrapped it. i think that, in her case as well, having grown up alone with her parents' relationship as a reference makes potentially much more sense than any other possibility i considered.

lola has a quote, in which she says "i'm so old, my life is almost over!" when... she's just?? sixteen??? seventeen??? i think it's because, see, her parents got married and had her when they were young, maybe nineteen or twenty- yknow, as soon as it was legal for the both of them without too many loopholes. however, the relationship was very unbalanced and fundamentally deteriorated, perhaps not from the beginning but very soon. her father being dominant, violent, arrogant and such. and her mother has always been bitter, subdued but angry and resentful at her husband, at the golden expectations she had, at her womanhood and, of course, at her daughter. she's always seen her as living proof of her own wasted beauty and youth; but, especially as soon lola started growing up to the age at which girls start being looked at by the boys, which we unfortunately know how soon it is, saw in her what she felt she'd lost. so she'd often remind her how lola was the reason why she is now a ruin of a woman, why she went from a beautiful and promising girl to an old and unattractive hag.

again- her being the only child helps focus on her the kingpin of this dynamic, especially on her mother's part. so lola grew up knowing what can happen to women, what remains when the fairytales of the princess marrying the prince crumble with the remnants of childhood. she realized at eleven, twelve years old how men were starting to look at her in the street and she knew what the next step would have been. she was reminded every day of her life. so, when she walked into bullworth, into the relationship with johnny, all she knew is that she wouldn't have ended up like her mother. knew that she wouldn't have fallen in love, wouldn't be tricked by the sweet words and the dreamy gazes. and she knew that she had no weapons to defend herself but the very thing that could've otherwise been the death of her, that being the male attention. and finding a way to use johnny's attention specifically, with his blind devotion mixed to the obliviousness, to her own advantage... well, that's what her whole arc is about, isn't it.

as i write this, i'm starting to realize that her having, perhaps specifically a brother, might function as a tool to highlight the difference in treatment between her, a daughter, and an eventual son. however, i stand my case that i really like the idea of this whole dynamic of her parents and her mother in particular resting on her and her only, creating this sort of... tunnel vision in which her very isolation in front of her view create her idea of how the world works.

thank you so much for the question!! it was a lot of fun to answer + it helped me make some order among some concepts i had in my mind <33

[mortalityplays]

This is a dangerous sentiment for me to express, as an editor who spends most of my working life telling writers to knock it off with the 45-word sentences and the adverbs and tortured metaphors, but I do think we're living through a period of weird pragmatic puritanism in mainstream literary taste.

e.g. I keep seeing people talk about 'purple prose' when they actually mean 'the writer uses vivid and/or metaphorical descriptive language'. I've seen people who present themselves as educators offer some of the best genre writing in western canon as examples of 'purple prose' because it engages strategically in prose-poetry to evoke mood and I guess that's sheer decadence when you could instead say "it was dark and scary outside". But that's not what purple prose means. Purple means the construction of the prose itself gets in the way of conveying meaning. mid-00s horse RPers know what I'm talking about. Cerulean orbs flash'd fire as they turn'd 'pon rollforth land, yonder horizonways. <= if I had to read this when I was 12, you don't get to call Ray Bradbury's prose 'purple'.

I griped on here recently about the prepossession with fictional characters in fictional narratives behaving 'rationally' and 'realistically' as if the sole purpose of a made-up story is to convince you it could have happened. No wonder the epistolary form is having a tumblr renaissance. One million billion arguments and thought experiments about The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas that almost all evade the point of the story: that you can't wriggle out of it. The narrator is telling you how it was, is and will be, and you must confront the dissonances it evokes and digest your discomfort. 'Realistic' begins on the author's terms, that's what gives them the power to reach into your brain and fiddle about until sparks happen. You kind of have to trust the process a little bit.

This ultra-orthodox attitude to writing shares a lot of common ground with the tight, tight commodification of art in online spaces. And I mean commodification in the truest sense - the reconstruction of the thing to maximise its capacity to interface with markets. Form and function are overwhelmingly privileged over cloudy ideas like meaning, intent and possibility, because you can apply a sliding value scale to the material aspects of a work. But you can't charge extra for 'more challenging conceptual response to the milieu' in a commission drive. So that shit becomes vestigial. It isn't valued, it isn't taught, so eventually it isn't sought out. At best it's mystified as part of a given writer/artist's 'talent', but either way it grows incumbent on the individual to care enough about that kind of skill to cultivate it.

And it's risky, because unmeasurables come with the possibility of rejection or failure. Drop in too many allegorical descriptions of the rose garden and someone will decide your prose is 'purple' and unserious. A lot of online audiences seem to be terrified of being considered pretentious in their tastes. That creates a real unwillingness to step out into discursive spaces where you 🫵 are expected to develop and explore a personal relationship with each element of a work. No guard rails, no right answers. Word of god is shit to us out here. But fear of getting that kind of analysis wrong makes people hove to work that slavishly explains itself on every page. And I'm left wondering, what's the point of art that leads every single participant to the same conclusion? See Spot run. Run, Spot, run. Down the rollforth land, yonder horizonways. I just want to read more weird stuff.

[arolesbianism]

Thinking abt my dupe ocs again, and I'm returning to my cringe fail silly ones who exist solely for me to have fun. Basically one of the colonies is sort of a lil experimental ground dupe wise where most of the dupes get to have some fun critter biology meshed in there, with most of them being fairly stable, but a few of them having a bit of a harder time for some reason or another. Such as having no bones and the most fragile skin known to dupe kind.

[scribefindegil]

When you encounter a person who does not do something that you consider normative, you need to understand that they could be either stating a barrier or expressing a boundary. A barrier is "I would like to partake of the normative activity, but I can't due to other factors." A boundary is "I have made a decision not to participate in the normative activity."

Many people do not believe that boundaries actually exist! This is why it's so common to give a clear "No" on an issue and get inundated with people saying "But have you tried-" They can't conceptualize that anyone might actually want to avoid X thing, so they assume that you totally want to do X and you would love X so much if only they could figure out a way around whatever pesky obstacle is getting in your way. But humanity contains multitudes, and for any given experience you consider vital for happiness I promise there are people who are Just Not Interested.

If someone is stating a boundary, do NOT talk about how sad their life must be, and do NOT try to push them! Just accept that their life experience is very different from your own, and isn't that a beautiful thing?

Barriers are different. Barriers suck. With boundaries, the only problem is other people being dicks. With barriers, the problem is the barrier itself . . . and probably, additionally, people being dicks. There's really not a way to win in the people being dicks department when you don't do something that other people have decided is Necessary For Humaning.

If someone is talking about a barrier they face, still don't talk about how sad their life must be, although it's fine to commiserate with a friend if they're complaining. It's hard! Some barriers are pretty insurmountable; the person might not ever get to do X even though they want to. And a lot of people don't believe that this kind of barrier exists either; we're very much taught that you can do anything if you try hard enough, when that is simply not true. If someone tells you that they can't do something, listen to them and respect that.

The only reason for not doing X that people really acknowledge as real are the surmountable barriers. And these are real, but even in these cases you should always assume that the person knows themself best and not give advice unless they've specifically asked for it. But if they have asked, it's chill to try to brainstorm solutions with them.

As someone who has both things going on, it really sucks that people tend to assume that everything is a) a barrier issue and b) that they personally have the solution to it. Don't do this.

The only way you can tell if something is a boundary or a barrier is to listen to people and believe them.

Example:

If you offer someone a drink and they say, "No thanks . . . I haven't really found anything that I like yet," (barrier, potentially surmountable) it is probably cool to ask them if they're open to trying something new, and if they say yes ask about their tastes to try to find a drink they would enjoy! They might like it or they might not.

If you offer someone a drink and they say, "I can't, it interacts with my meds," (barrier, insurmountable) you can say, "Aw, that sucks!" and offer them something nonalcoholic.

If you offer someone a drink and they say, "I don't drink," (BOUNDARY) you should give them a mocktail and shut the fuck up.

[dark-audit]

Things I wish more writers understood about PTSD

Traumatic events don't always lead to PTSD. Two people can experience the exact same traumatic event, and one can go to work the next day shaken up but otherwise alright, while the other still has trouble functioning normally two years down the line. This is a fact that's been studied to death in psychology, but we're still no closer to figuring out why this discrepancy exists. So no, that character who experienced a very traumatic event and wasn't traumatized to your liking wasn't actually 'unrealistic'; they just didn't live up to your preconception of how trauma is supposed to effect people.

There is no flaw or 'weakness' in a person's temprament or personality construction that will make them more likely to develop PTSD, and likewise, people who don't develop PTSD are not inherently 'tougher'. PTSD is not the kind of illness you can blame on the person who suffers from it; human beings are more complicated than that. Furthermore, people who don't develop PTSD from a traumatic event exist, in fact they're very common, and while they don't develop that precise, largely arbitrary set of symptoms, they are still likely to be deeply affected by the event/s. Their experiences are no less real than those of their counterparts.

Sometimes, a person who experienced a traumatic even didn't develop PTSD afterwards - because they already had it. There are lots of people who go into therapy following a traumatic event only to discover they've been experiencing the symptoms of PTSD for years, following a previous unrelated traumatic event. This is especially common for people who had C-PTSD beforehand. Since PTSD can often manifest in very subtle ways, and since people are likely to 'mask' symptoms as a way to keep judgement or prying at bay, this scenario is not particularly uncommon.

PTSD doesn't always develop immediately following the traumatic event. PTSD can take any amount of time to develop. For most people, it takes around 3 months for symptoms to appear, but for a lot of people, the symptoms of PTSD do not appear for many months, even years after the event/s. This usually has something to do with the memory issues that can arise after trauma, and also might be affected by how a person conceptualizes the 'threat level' over time.

People with PTSD are not 'broken'; people with PTSD can be treated. Human beings aren't inanimate objects; we're living beings, graced with this incredible ability to adapt, grow and change. While there is no 'cure' for PTSD, there are loads of types of psychotherapy and medications that help to alleviate symptoms, and many people with this disorder are able to live fulfilling lives despite the diagnosis. Recovery is never out of the question, no matter how severe a person's symptoms might be. PTSD or not, I for one have yet to encounter anyone I would ever consider irrevocably 'broken'.

People with PTSD don't all experience the same symptoms. I feel like it needs to be said, because there is a bit of a 'type' in fiction, isn't there? And this can be incredibly disheartening to read for someone whose PTSD doesn't align with the way it is constantly shown to 'normally' manifest. In reality, PTSD is a very complex disorder, which might express itself in a wide breadth of different ways, and people handle their symptoms using a wide breadth of different methods. You'd be hard pressed to find two people who are completely alike in this regard.

Perpetrators of violence are just as likely to develop PTSD as their victims. This is one of those things I learned though my torture research escapades, and I've found it applies to other violent crimes as well, such as violent assault and murder. It's not a particularly nice fact to know if you want to maintain your straightforward good-vs-evil worldview, but alas, the real world is grim and complicated. There is actually a name for this type of PTSD, and it is Participation-Induced Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PI-PTSD), or perpetrator trauma. PTSD does not discriminate, and you're not safe from it just because you're not on the recieving end.

People with PTSD aren't automatically more violent. I don't know why this myth has to be so prominent with every single mental illness ever, but like, yeah, its not true for this one either.

[cripplecharacters]

Hi, level 1 autistic here. Is the word nonverbal offensive? I thought it was offensive since it implies level 2/3 autistics and others who don't use physical speech cannot communicate (at all) when lots of these people can use ASL or AAC or other communication forms, and that i should use nonspeaking instead.

Hi asker,

Generally speaking, no, it isn't inherently offensive.

Nonverbal literally means not related to spoken language — like nonverbal communication referring to expressions. "Verbal" is often used to refer to speech, and someone who does not use speech can therefore be accurately described as nonverbal.

The problem here is not the actual word 'nonverbal.' The problem is the assumption that all people who cannot speak out loud with their mouths are completely unable to communicate. That assumption can happen with or without the word 'nonverbal.'

You are right in that some people do prefer the term nonspeaking because they use AAC or ASL (or any of the other many, many sign languages that exist) to communicate with words, and they are using verbal to relate to words as opposed to spoken language. So just because it's not offensive doesn't mean that some people prefer to use nonspeaking for themselves and/or others. You will also find many people who are completely indifferent or who prefer the term nonverbal.

However, do keep in mind there are also autistic people, as well as people with other disabilities, who do in fact have trouble with language itself, not just the physical act of speaking. This isn't something we can brush off; many of these people wouldn't fit the definition of 'nonspeaking' that you're using but would fit the definition of 'nonverbal,' if you're using it to mean 'without words' and not just 'without speech.'

As to some more nuances:

'Nonverbal' is more common, but it can also be seen as more clinical.

'Nonverbal' can definitely be stigmatized, but again, the problem is the assumptions people make about people who don't speak.

'Nonspeaking,' when used to refer to people who use sign language, can lead to the idea that no one who uses signed languages can speak or that sign is somehow not on the same level as speech (which is wrong, as it’s just another way of communication). Again, the problem here isn't necessarily with the word, but with the assumptions people make about people's way of communicating.

Someone with unreliable speech who can only use echolalia and uses it a lit wouldn't really fit the term 'minimally speaking,' but they might fit the definition 'minimally verbal.' Does this help make sense as to why both terms can be useful?

Many autistic people, and/or intellectually disabled people (particularly less mild ID) do not see a difference between the two words. Their definitions are very similar. The nuance between the two can be really difficult to conceptualize if someone struggles with language in general, or even just with abstract concepts.

We can and should respect various forms of communication. This of course means voiced speech, AAC device speech, and signed languages. But it also means when people can't use any of those, and they use other things, like grunts or guiding people towards something or whatnot, that we have to accept these are also forms of communication that are entirely nonverbal, as in, unrelated to words.

Communities are diverse. People prefer different things for different reasons!

Language evolves, and these evolutions get to people at different times. Many people may not have ever heard the term 'nonspeaking' in their entire life, for example. You and I might have seen it often, but not everyone goes in the same in-person or online circles.

There's a lot of nuance and semantics involved, and a lot of people who would be involved in this, and be described as nonspeaking/nonverbal, are just not involved in this conversation. Whether that's because they don't want to or they can't (which are both valid reasons), they're just not putting their opinion out into the internet or books or whatever.

In the end, I am not saying "ignore saying nonspeaking completely" nor "ignore saying nonverbal completely." What I am saying is that neither is a perfect term, but this also means that neither is inherently offensive. What matters is how they are used, and how you refer to the people you are using them for.

Intent and respect are more important than semantics; this does not mean that semantics have no importance, but rather that they can be complex and not fully capture everything involved in a discussion.

Last but certainly not least, it's really important to respect the choice of any individual who asks you to use or not use a particular term.

Hope this helps,

mod sparrow

[max1461]

I feel like. Ok. The internet is full of people who are sad/depressed/mentally ill as like. like they feel like and act like it's part of their being, you know, it's part of their self conception. And I've never felt this way, I mean I've had ocd all my life but mostly it's just felt like an annoyance (even at the times when it was genuinely really disruptive to my life), like I'm at my core a happy and optimistic person and there was just this annoying thing that would get in the way sometimes, and then I would manage to brush it aside and I'd be back to basically enjoying my life. ya know? That's always the way that I've felt.

Except since the pandemic, after the various things that have happened, I've felt really different. I've felt really kind of, depressed and anxious in a deep way, a way that doesn't feel like an annoyance, it feels really troubling. And part of it is "clinical", I mean like, my ocd itself got really really bad in the pandemic and that was a huge part of what has fucked me up so much. but part of it is just like, certain things that have happened in my life, that have made me feel really sad and pessimistic.

but what's really troubling about this is like. I think when I talk about this online, people kind of respond the way you would respond to the (much more common) type of guy who just "is depressed", like, as a condition of his existence (or at least, the type of guy who self-conceptualizes that way). and like, this makes sense, but I'm not that type of guy, and I don't really think the same things will like, help me. uh. I think this is why I get better advice with this stuff on reddit sometimes, because reddit guys seem like they generally self-conceptualize as like "average joes", as so their advice doesn't assume that you think of yourself as like... you know, at odds with the modern world or something, or like, whatever. like they assume you're just a "regular joe feeling down" or whatever. which is kind of better.

but the other thing is like. talking to people irl, I have a completely different problem. which is that they "want me to be happy" as an end in itself (because, being my family members, they don't like to see me sad), but they have a more ambivalent relationship to the things that are actually making me unhappy. Like they're not really "on my side" in a deep way, even though they care about me and believe they are on my side. They don't like to see me sad bad they're, well, they're not invested at the object level in my life moving in the direction I would like it to move. it's like. the involuntary wireheading debate, right? if that existed, well, they probably wouldn't involuntarily wirehead me... but they would totally want to, and think about it a lot. and this is how they approach their relationship with me in general. so getting advice or help from them is kind of dangerous. like, they care about me but they aren't really my allies. I actually think this is a rather common position to find oneself in with family, and it's very uncomfortable.

[storm-driver]

hi, i have feelings about cartoon nostalgia and the audience perception of them 20 years on

this is gonna read hyper-specific, but bear with me

i refuse to credit butch hartman for the way danny phantom came out during it's first two seasons, at least outside of the initial pitch and the idea of the protagonist having white hair. i know the majority of enthusiasts for this show are more than aware of hartman's antics at this point. these anctics, i won't get into. other people are far more suited to explain that stuff vs me, a random guy on the internet. but there's very specific topics that i don't often see get brought up in detail, like the production and staff behind this show.

i'll get into it below the cut so as not to clutter your dashboard. but if you're not familiar with the actual production history of danny phantom, this might be interesting to read.

it's common knowledge these days that stephen silver is the one who developed the design for danny based on hartman's original rough sketches. the similarity between each drawing is apparent, but you can see clear as day which design was gonna be more apt for animation and overall audience allure back in 2003.

he also did character designs for hartman's other poster child, Fairly Oddparents. the trend is similar, though far from a huge concern. character design overhauls happen all the time in media production. designs might be too complicated for animation, so they get stripped down. or maybe things aren't complex enough and more nuance needs to be added. that's normal stuff, and i am not dunking on hartman for not nailing danny's design right out the gate. i'm pointing this out in case you've ever looked at butch hartman's recent work and wondered "how are these done by the same artist?"

the answer is they weren't. hartman had to adapt to stephen silver's conceptual designs in order to work on the storyboards. take from that what you will.

onto the actual writing.

butch barely wrote a single episode for this show's first two seasons.

steve marmel helped write at least 28 episodes of the original two seasons, with writers like sib ventress and marty isenberg bringing a good amount of episodes to the table, as well.

butch hartman is credited primarily for directing and storyboarding this show. the episode pitch and writing was by other people almost entirely. the ONLY episodes in the first two seasons that hartman is credited with having written are mystery meat, one of a kind and splitting images. and he's credited with co-writing these episodes alongside steve marmel and mark banker. ie, he did not write these episodes on his own. and allegedly, butch hartman had a tendency to be credited as a writer for an episode, even if he only wrote a few lines of dialogue. again, take from that what you will.

past that in season 3, he wrote infinite realms, torrent of terror, forever phantom, urban jungle, and ofc, phantom planet. which a lot of people know, these episodes in particular weren't the most enjoyable, nor was the overall direction of them very good.

a director's job is to make sure that the overall tone, feel, and message of the show is being kept consistent with intent. that means meeting with producers, who are the ones managing the, y'know, producing part of the whole project. it may sound like the director is the one heading the project if it's their job to keep things in check. which, i will not deny, hartman must've put in a good deal of work to make the show come out as well as it did.

but pile that with some of the off things per episode. the mean-spirited way that characters tend to be taught lessons, the voice direction getting a drastic change in season 3 (you can hear it explicitly with david kaufman suddenly going for higher pitches instead of the usual one he's done so far). there's really only one consistent motif in the entire show's OST. which isn't a bash against the music producer. it's a concern that the director of the show never asked him to change things up, and ONLY stuck to this one motif.

to briefly touch on the mean-spirited thing. there's multiple instances in the show where danny or someone else is seen fighting back against whatever has given them trouble, or they're taking matters into their own hands to ensure they won't be hurt ahead of time. and repeatedly, the show likes to kick these characters back down for trying to stand up. it's a trend in all of butch hartman's shows, and it's treated more like comedy than anything else. it's up to audience perception on how to view it. but for me personally, it starts to feel like an overused gag and turns into something more malevolent after seeing it overused almost every single episode.

okay besides that, i actually wanna look at specific examples of episodes that steve marmel wrote for. again, this is the guy who's more or less responsible for the show's serialization.

the complete list of episodes is as follows:

Mystery Meat, Parental Bonding, One of a Kind, Attack of the Killer Garage Sale, Splitting Images, What You Want, Bitter Reunions, Prisoners of Love, My Brother's Keeper, Shades of Gray, Fanning the Flames, Teacher of the Year, Fright Night, 13(Thirteen), Public Enemies, Memory Blank, Reign Storm, The Ultimate Enemy, The Fright Before Christmas, Secret Weapons, Flirting with Disaster, Micro Management , Kindred Spirits, and Reality Trip.

multiple episodes listed here are from the first season, which a lot of people consider the show's best. and of the handful listed for season 2, he wrote all of the hour-long specials.

i would be here for hours talking about how steve marmel tackles all of these characters and concepts significantly better than hartman does in season 3. but that's a topic best praised elsewhere. point is, if you watched any of these episodes and thought to yourself "wow, that was actually kinda clever," steve marmel is more or less the guy responsible.

butch hartman was in charge of direction, but that does not give him exclusive credit for every single line of dialogue or plot beat. there could be a LOT we just don't know because people on production staff don't want to comment. but the writing consistency taking a dive off the board by season 3, which is the same season that steve marmel departed from the project due to conflicting direction in the story? you might deduce that butch hartman was not the prized writer and artist behind this otherwise beloved cartoon.

to dredge up an easier-to-tackle target, season 3.

my criticisms are 18-year old echoes at this point, you've heard them all. from otherwise pointless episodes that don't develop the characters or world, to completely out-of-touch writing (looking at you, phantom planet) that juxtaposes the characters with everything we've been told about them so far. it became a slog of a season that didn't have any build-up to it's finale. the occasional gem of an episode like frightmare helped in some aspects. or the promise for something later with d-stabilized. but it all gets swept under the rug thanks to a rushed finale with poor build-up, bad writing direction for the characters, and most importantly, an unlasting effect on the viewer. (or a negative lasting effect, which is arguably worse)

for a season that knew it was on its last leg before inevitably needing to give up, there's seldom few episodes dedicated to advancing an overall narrative, and thus give a slimmer of hope for a satisfying conclusion. instead, the show goes all in with villain-of-the-week stories, and even the returning villains are hardly taken seriously or given more to do besides just being there.

of course, we know the reason steve marmel had left the project was because hartman wanted the show not to taken a more story-focused drive. it almost starts to feel like spite that kept the show so horribly grounded, letting it become stagnant before eventually being forgettable.

all this is in service of letting people know, it really wasn't butch hartman that made the show, not alone. death of the author and all that nonsense aside, he pitched the concept. and it takes a lot of love and dedication to make a concept something you can physically see and adore. don't let him swath in all the credit. recognize the others who made the work you can still enjoy.

[sebbyisland]

A One-of-a-Kind Affection: Skip to Loafer 53

This chapter revealed a LOT about Shima’s character so let’s break it down because oh my god. OH my god.

As was implied in the last page of the previous chapter, Shima is seriously put off guard by his conversation with Fumi. He can’t get over her comment: “Mitsumi-chan isn’t good at anything besides studying, is she?” She directly contradicts how Shima views Mitsumi, and thus prompts him to reevaluate his feelings.

To him, Mitsumi “has this image of always being right.” Keep in mind, Shima has already seen Mitsumi at her worst— from the very beginning, when she got lost in Tokyo! Shima has been there when Mitsumi failed, struggled, or was embarrassed with herself, and each time he only saw the girl who could pick herself up and run towards her goals, loafers in hand. He not only watched these things happen, but tried to give her a helping hand when she needed it, whether it was to encourage her, or help smooth out an awkward social situation. When Shima says Mitsumi “has this image of always being right” he doesn’t mean she is literally always right, but something with much more depth. Shima thinks Mitsumi, as a person, is fundamentally always right and good. Even when she fails. Even when she struggles. These are all things that make up Mitsumi, and therefore are always good (this guy. i can't).

The thing is, Shima himself is not even aware of just how highly he thinks of Mitsumi. He can acknowledge Mitsumi’s strengths and weaknesses, but unlike, say, Fumi, her closest and longest friend, he can't conceptualize objectively seeing Mitsumi's traits as anything other than positive. He likes her personality to the point it borders on putting her on a pedestal. This discrepancy between his opinion on Mitsumi and another close friend of Mitsumi causes him to question who IS Mitsumi, if not what he's been thinking this whole time?

To verify, he asks his friend Mukai, who basically repeats Fumi's words. Now Shima knows this is not a question of who is Mitsumi as a person, but who is Mitsumi to Shima?

(Shouout to Mukai for really helping Shima reach this critical break-through!)

When Mukai brings up the possibility of romance, Shima leaps to reject it because he is uncomfortable with romantic attraction itself.

Besides Mitsumi, romantic attraction always came from people who didn’t really know him and/or didn’t really care to know him. This had the opposite affect, and made Shima feel lonely and unloved. Unlike the most of the people Shima has dated, he actually really likes Mitsumi-chan as a person. There's an emphasis on liking her as a person because these are things he sees as absent or optional in romantic attraction. To describe his feelings for Mitsumi as romance discredits Mitsumi and what she means to him, which is why he asks with a frustrated expression, "Why does it always come back to romance?" Why does "liking someone a lot" have to be romantic?

Mukai hears this and recognizes that Shima seems to see “liking someone as a person” and “liking someone romantically” as separate things, so he tries to compare notes as to how he views romance vs how Shima views romance. On a scale of liking someone "a lot" to "not really" Shima places romance at the very bottom! Romance doesn't mean shit in comparison to friendship, or whatever it is he feels for Mitsumi. This makes sense because, again, Shima understands romantic attraction at best as a surface-level understanding of a person, and at worst as a detriment to the relationship(see: his parents). So there's no way he can like Mitsumi romantically AND as a person.

Mukai explains to Shima that he sees "liking someone as a person is a baseline," which aligns more closely to the common social perception of relationships. You start with liking the general vibes someone has, and then you becomes friends, and then becoming lovers is like the peak of a relationship's level of intimacy and affection. What's interesting is that both boys are correct about their perception of love. Even though Shima doesn't fully agree with Mukai, talking with him provides a new perspective on romance that Shima didn't consider before. Now he can finally consider that romance can add to a realationship's existing intimacy, not detract from it.

For most of the people in the story, as well as the audience, this might seem obvious, but for Shima this is incredibly novel and important, because it means that

Liking Mitsumi romantically doesn't mean he stops liking her as a person

Romantic attraction is another form of intimacy, not a performance or surface-level interaction.

When Mukai describes Mitsumi's feelings as a "one-of-a-kind" affection, he means it in a conventionally romantic way. Shima, on the other hand, understands Mitsumi is one-of-a-kind because he's never had a relationship or feelings like he does with her. He knows Mitsumi cares about him as a person, but before his conversation with Mukai, he didn't consider how romance can be another way of showing that you care for someone.

Romance between his parents only showed how much his father didn't care about his mom. Romance with the girls from school only showed how much they didn't really care about him. But Mitsumi fell in love with Shima because she cares about him, not despite of it. This is completely foreign territory for Shima. If romantic love is also a form of intimacy, then how is that any different from regular platonic love, or best friends? What does romantic attraction even look like?

As Shima recollects all the moments with Mitsumi that are dear to him, he wonders if what he viewed as "caring for someone as a person" were also romantic. Is it romantic to save extra food for someone else to have? Is it romantic to bring someone a souvenir when they go out of town? Is it romantic to teach someone how to hold a crab? These questions don't really have clear cut answers. Only Shima is able to decide what these things mean for him.

I want to bring your attention back to this crab, though. Besides being an adorable little crustacean, Shima's interaction with the crab directly parallels his journey trying to recontextualize romance.

In this scene, the crab is symbolic for romantic attraction. Shima awkwardly holds the crab Mitsumi gives him and expresses that this is an unfamiliar situation for him, just as receiving romantic affection from Mitsumi is a new and concept for him. Mitsumi is content with being able to share the crab (her feelings) with him and getting an honest answer back. The large panel that zooms in on Mitsumi looking down at the crab in Shima's hands draws attention to how content and happy she is spending time with Shima. It further emphasizes that their relationship, romantic or platonic, is about simply enjoying each other's company.

Even though Mitsumi tells Shima how to hold a crab, he ends up agitating the crab, which then pinches him and leave. I interpret this as when Shima initially started dating Mitsumi, he ended up treating it haphazardly, which caused Mitsumi to catch-on and break up with him. Finally, when Mukai, the person Shima was recently discussing romance and Mitsumi with, asks him about the crab, Shima responds in a daze, "I don't know," mirroring how currently, Shima doesn't know how he feels about romantic attraction, or how it might apply to him.

Furthermore, through the depiction of Mitsumi in Shima’s perspective, it’s implied the reason the crab pinches him is because he was focused on Mitsumi, and not holding the crab properly. This reflects the critical miscommunication from when they were dating. Shima was so concerned with protecting his prior dynamic with Mitsumi that he didn’t consider what committing to a genuine romantic relationship would require from him. He didn’t, or rather couldn’t, commit to a relationship as much as Mitsumi did. Mitsumi knew that she didn’t deserve that kind of stress, so she asked to remain friends.

Thanks to Mukai, however, Shima can start to understand that romance is a real option for his own feelings about Mitsumi, and it won't detract from their friendship if it is the case. It's this level of self-awareness that allows Shima to get flustered by Mitsumi getting physically close to him as they look at the crab.

I would even argue that it was the panel I have pictured on the left, with Mitsumi's smile, that is the moment Shima started getting flustered, since that panel is positioned to be in Shima's eye-line point of view, and takes up the majority of its page.

What is Shima thinking in this moment? He has 0 thoughts. Brain empty. Only one-of-a-kind feelings for a girl who he thinks is always amazing<3

I wanna reiterate this is truly such a special moment for Shima because while Mitsumi has always been a special person to him, he now understands that he thinks so because of his PERSONAL feelings. In caring for Mitsumi, Shima is able to care more about his own feelings. It’s a lovely payoff to all of his progress in understanding himself as an individual. He can discuss his personal life with Mukai, a friend who he previously kept at a distance. He can l stand up for himself when he thinks he being mistreated by an old friend. And he can even defend the people he cares about when other’s are inconsiderate to them. This is all part of Shima’s growth into becoming a fully realizing individual, and I’m so glad he’s been given the space to clumsily process all of this while remaining a true friend to Mitsumi.

TL; DR:

Shima truly adores Mitsumi and has only just realized that he likes Mitsumi to a different degree than what would be expected from a friend

Shima has been nonchalant about romance thus far because he didn't think romance was really about genuine intimacy, especially based on his past experiences

The narrative presents Shima's interest in Mitsumi as romantic attraction while taking great care in showing how romance has different meanings for different people and is not always the most important or intimate aspect of a relationship

[ellaenchanting]

WHAT IS MINDFULNESS VS HYPNOSIS ACCORDING TO ELLA ENCHANTING (haver of opinions)

One misconception that I often hear amongst hypnosis geeks is that "mindfulness" is basically a normie-safe word for "hypnosis"- that hypnosis and mindfulness practices are essentially the same thing.

This is a hard misconception to disprove- in fact, "hypnosis" and "mindfulness" are often defined really vaguely and in different ways by different people so- they could often very well be refering to the same thing!* I know when I first learned about mindfulness practices, I dismissed them as "just" repackaged hypnotherapy- something I already knew a lot about. However, in doing so, I was neglecting ideas that turned out to be a really useful self-improvement tools.

If you're of a similar mindset, drawing a distinction between the two may also be really helpful for you.

MINDFULNESS:

So, the end goal of mindfulness is learning a kind of grounded way to self reflect. It's a potentially really helpful skill for people who get caught in thought spirals** or overwhelming emotions. A big goal for people learning the skill is to be able to observe thoughts and emotions without entirely buying into them OR dismissing them. Let's say I have a train of thought that keeps looping in my head- I'm worried about something stupid I said yesterday at work, for example. Imagine that train of thought is an ACTUAL train- maybe a toy train running on a looped track. Normally, when you're having the work worries it's like you're on that thought train- riding it around and around in circles while you're getting increasingly anxious and kind of limiting yourself from doing other things. With mindfulness practice, the goal is to get you OFF the train- it's not gone, but you're kinda watching it from the sidelines instead of ON it. It's still happening but with a bit of distance you can see the thoughts more clearly and better take care of yourself while that thought track is running.

Another example- let's say I have a big feeling. I'm going to pick overwhelming shame***. In mindfulness practices, the goal is usually not to ignore the shame or entirely give into it but to be able to sit with it and understand it without DROWNING in it. So, in that state of mind, I might sit with the shame and kind of question why it's there and what it wants from me. I might find some kindness for myself as someone who is experiencing shame (which is harder to do when I'm more inside it). I might work to conceptualize the shame differently- what does it look like, what sounds does it make, etc. In that way, I'm paying attention to an emotion that might be helpful- but not overly giving into it.

If I were teaching someone mindfulness techniques, the goal there is for them to be able to use the techniques entirely on their own whenever they need to. I'm not really trying to overly influence or control what's happening for them- I'm keeping my language as permissive as possible and encouraging them to accept whatever comes up. "Notice what's there without feeling like you need to change it" is a common mindfulness instruction. The practice encourages curiosity and bravery in the face of the overwhelming STUFF of life.

HYPNOSIS:

There are lot of different ways people do and experience hypnosis- and I'm definitely not going to be able to address all of them here. But, at least in kink, my goal in hypnotizing someone is to directly influence their thoughts. In fact, when I'm hypnotizing someone, a lot of my "induction" is convincing someone that I'm already in their head- that they're responding automatically to my suggestions. There's the kinky control fun of that and also the mutual shared feeling of intimacy- we're so close we could be one. (Or, in more D/s-ey terms, we're so close that now you are an extension of me!) In 101 classes you'll learn about the pacing and leading technique- basically matching your subject's experience and then taking them a step further. (Ex. You're reading my words and focusing on the screen and that reminds you to take a deep breath NOW.)

Explaining it by cold control hypnosis theory****, during an induction I'm helping someone kind of flip OFF their awareness of their agency- creating the illusion that things are happening internally because I'm MAKING them happen (and disguising the part where they're in complete control of their actions).

Especially in kink, what we're doing in hypnosis play is often a really conscious power exchange. You're giving me power over your thoughts because you want me to have it. I direct them where I want them to go and away from where I don't want them to be (ex. the actual reason why you're relaxing is, in part, because that's a natural thing that happens for most people when they close their eyes for more than a few seconds). (That's an excellent babysitting/parenting pro tip from me to you btw.) It's not that subjects aren't actively contributing their own images/ideas/metaphors/desires to the suggestions and play (really often they are!) but usually their whole goal is to be directed.

Even in hypnotherapy, that directedness and control is implied. You're not coming on (nearly) as strong as you would in kink, but your goal there is usually more in direction (with teaching self hypnosis techniques as an added bonus).

Sometimes the hypnosis and mindfulness methodologies can be incredibly similar with really subtle differences! For example, I might start a mindfulness-teaching body scan in the same way that I might start a progressive muscle relaxation induction- "Go ahead and get into a comfortable position and close your eyes". But continuing with the hypnosis induction, I'll usually be more directive ("Notice your feet. As you're noticing them, imagine sending a wave of relaxation down to your toes.") whereas with the body scan I'll be more exploratory. ("Notice your feet. What do they feel like? Are they hot or cold? Do they want to move or stay still? Whatever is happening for them right now is fine- just notice them") The pmr induction is intended to move someone into a suggestible state, the body scan is intended to teach someone a particular mindset and focusing skill they can use later. *****

Like I stated before, things that I consider "hypnosis" ideas and techniques and "mindfulness" ideas and techniques get mixed up all the time- with both lay folks and the actual professionals who teach them. There's a lot of surface similarities. "Mindfulness" has become such a therapy and corporate buzzword that it often DOES become synonymous with things like guided relaxation. Both concepts are vague enough that there's a lot of things that can easily be either/or- I'm thinking self hypnosis specifically here******. But- I hope if you're curious about mindfulness at all, you'll find this explanation useful and will maybe go out and explore some helpful resources for yourself.

Good mindfulness 101 books:

Full Catastrophe Living- Jon Kabat Zinn

The Mindful Way Through Depression- J. Mark G Williams et all

Just an FYI here at the bottom- like all self-help techniques, mindfulness stuff can be extremely helpful to some and not at all helpful to others. If it hasn't been personally helpful to you that's fine! I hope you've found some other things that are. Also, you can feel free to take my self help advice just as seriously as you would of any other kinky fetish blogger. :p I'm not your therapist, feel free to check in with them about things that might help you.

*I think people expanding the definition and ideas around both of these can be really helpful, in fact!

**Of the not-fun kind

***You know, like I normally do

****One of many hypnosis theories! And often not the best one for kink! If hypnosis doesn't feel like this for you, that's perfectly ok!

*****OK, in actuality both probably do both things! But the emphasis is different.

******A big difference in my mind- if you discover pain or discomfort, hypnosis-style techniques are usually directing you away from that while mindfulness-style techniques are usually directing you towards curiousity about those things.

[queerautism]

I feel like a lot of weird attitudes and views about sexually explicit material would be a lot less prevalent if more people had kinks that weren't possible in reality. Like, I see so many wild takes that start out because people don't understand that they can be into something without actually wanting to see it really happen or without wanting to do that thing IRL, and then they apply that attitude to all sexual concepts. If more people were into kinks that aren't anatomically possible I think more people would realize sexual fantasies aren't a 1 to 1 for reality

You might be right! There's a weird assumption from many of these people that everyone who is into something conceptually would also enjoy the real life version of that thing, and it's nonsensical to me as someone who is familiar with impossible to execute kinks. Most people I know with those kinks do end up instinctively understanding the difference between fantasy and reality.

And even with things that aren't impossible, it's totally normal and common to have things that turn you on conceptually, in fantasies / fiction, but that you have little or no desire to do in real life. It's also common sometimes to try a kink irl you usually fantasise about, and discover you don't actually like it as much in practice, just because of practical or safety concerns, or because it simply doesn't feel the way you thought it would.

[tanadrin]

i do think some of these oppression theories of everything are trying to create quantum gravity. Bringing everything back to racism or, sorry marxists, class definitely gives me this vibe.

it's a lot more reasonable to relate all the feelings related to gender roles yeah

i mean yeah, it's possible to be wrong on the object level about what set of cultural/material/political incentives produces a given set of biases in society, but that doesn't mean that thinking about the way these biases are connected is a pointless exercise in the first place

i think the relationship of (for example) homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny to one another is particularly clear and particularly salient bc of the way all three are based on a particular conception of gender roles and gender hierarchy.

and honestly, i do have a lot of sympathy for the class reductionists! i think there's a point to be made about the way the historic development of racism usefully propagated the new world economic institutions of the cotton plantation and sugar plantation, and slavery that supported it, and also helped to politically fragment the poor rural agricultural workers who otherwise might have found it useful to enter coalition with one another. i think there's absolutely a materialist connection (surrounding reproductive labor and the division of domestic labor) with the way those gender roles mentioned above are constructed in the first place.

where i think going full class reductionist is in error is in thinking that these dynamics are sustained only by material conditions, and that if you can just change the political economy then racism and sexism and all other prejudices will wither away. in fact these dynamics can be self-perpetuating, and they can find purchase in new emerging political and economic dynamics, and they can be repurposed to dismal new ends; so you do in fact have to deal with them individually and in detail, and not just hope that When The Revolution Comes Everything Will Just Fall Into Place.

and even if there is a deep conceptual connection between different forms of prejudice in history, individuals don't experience it that way: you can have people who are feminist or nominally pro gay rights but super transphobic--you can have people who are nominally in favor of trans rights but super sexist!--you can have gay people who hate women, just as you can have socialists or trade unionists or Marxists who are super racist. indeed, all of these categories of mix-and-match prejudice are actually pretty common.

[highfantasy-soul]

I think a fundamental misunderstanding of morality is so prevalent in Star Wars discourse and I wish more people would think in complex nuance rather than 'this side is right and if you listen to a single thing the OTHER side says, then you're falling to evilness'.

I don't think Osha listening to Qimir's side of the story and understanding it is 'her seeing she's like this evil person, and so deciding she might as well be evil too!'.

I don't see Qimir as evil. I don't see the jedi as good. So where are we when we analyze character choices?

Fighting for freedom and choice is not inherently evil (see: The Rebel Alliance). You have to dig deeper than 'I don't like the Jedi code' when determining if that person rejecting a super high-control cult is doing so to harm others or simply seek freedom for themselves or the galaxy.

Is it possible to fight against the Jedi for evil reasons? Yeah (see: Palpatine). But that's not the ONLY option.

It feeds into this idea that once you 'identify' the 'good guys' in a situation, you need to back them uncritically and to listen at all to those you're 'identified' as the 'bad guys' means you're falling to corruption and evilness. That's just...a terrible way to 1) engage with media, and 2) engage with the world.

You could have been wrong when you identified the 'good guys'. But if you never listen to the things the 'other' side says, if you dehumanize them to the point where even when they're making valid points, you shut them down simply because 'well, you're the bad guy, so it's physically impossible for you to have any 'right' things to say at all', you stagnate as a person/group and corruption thrives in your ranks and the conflict between you and 'the bad guys' will never end. Not to mention, you miss out on a lot of good philosophy when we're talking about media analysis.

It's about actually looking at what people are saying and doing critically, with as little bias as possible, that will help you make your way to 'the truth' of the matter. If you've decided you're going to put on rose-colored glasses when you look at all the decisions made by 'the good guys' and piss-colored glasses for all actions taken by 'the bad guys', then you're going to miss the actual path forward.

Sometimes, NO ONE is 'the good guy' and sometimes, NO ONE is 'the evil guy'. What we CAN do is look at everything, the effects of their actions, their philosophies, and analyze it dispassionately to try to glean some lessons from it. After all, this is a fake world filled with fake people - acknowledging Qimir might have some valid criticisms of the Jedi order isn't putting a dictator in charge of your real-life country. This isn't a life or death situation here, so maybe take a breath and realize it's ok to sympathize and understand characters in fiction who might have done things we consider to be bad.

But it's also correct to say that the way we conceptualize morality in media CAN impact how we interact with our real world. That's why I think it's so important to expose people to the idea that there isn't a clear 'good side' and clear 'bad side' you can neatly separate all people into in a safe environment such as storytelling. You cannot separate real people into 'orcs' or 'hobbits' in the real world and I think a lot of people with their purity politics are forgetting that. Is it easier to dehumanize those who do things that harm others? Yeah. Is that good storytelling to make a clear and irredeemable enemy? It can be! But it's not the ONLY way to tell a story.

Seriously, look into some more 'lit fic' stories and you'll see that the common 'good vs evil' storytelling of fantasy/fantasy adjacent genres isn't the only way to write a compelling and meaningful story. Everyone can have good traits, everyone can have bad traits, and some traits can flip flop depending on the situation. Most importantly, identifying with the antagonist and certain traits they posses DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON!!!!

I guess the tl;dr of this is that it's ok to not be able to identify the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys' - it's ok to look at the characters and say 'boy, this is messy' and leave your moral judgement at that. There's no law that says you have to correctly identify the perfect people in fiction and if you get it wrong, you're punished somehow. Release yourself of that expectation and I think you'll find engaging with media a much more rewarding and eye-opening experience that can help you learn things about yourself and others that you can take into the real world in a non-combative manner.

Black vs White morality is not the only dynamic available in media and it's time we reminded ourselves of that, especially when looking at Star Wars.

[toastling]

Ever wonder what would've happened if The Owl house aired in 2013?

That's right.

We would have had an OWLSTUCK.

They would've been rendered accordingly and there would've been a short-lived comic spoken of fondly by both fanbases.

Anyway here are some kids and their classpects.

Luz Noceda - Page of Light. Duh. Most obvious one on this list. You *could* make a very strong argument for Page of Hope too, but aside from her name literally BEING Light, I think it fits a bit more. Too bad you can't multi-aspect. Though let's be real, if anybody COULD, it would be Luz Noceda, so who knows, maybe that's her special Snest (in-world Sburb variant) given gift.

Amity Blight - Witch of Breath. Breath is a lot to do with one's self in the sense of self-actualization and understanding. She needed a lil help getting there but I feel Amity fits this quite well!

Willow Park - Mage of Life. In Homestuck, Life as an aspect is most closely tied to healing, but it can also be quite literal, as we do see Life aspected characters resurrect dead friends. I think if any aspect would allow one to wield life in the most literal sense via battle plants, it'd be, well, Life!

Gus Porter - Seer of Mind. This is a class and aspect wombo combo that fits him to a goddamn T. He's far sharper about others thoughts and natures than people think, including himself. Learning to trust in his intuition is his arc. He has a pretty good grasp of others, even if he does tend to try to focus more on the good bits than the bad, even when the latter may be pertinent.

King Clawthorne - Prince of Blood. Literal royalty in name and nature, with the Blood of the Titan running through his veins whether he realizes it or not. A Prince is an active destructive class with incredible offensive capability, one that destroys its aspect or through it, in this case, Blood. As a Titan, that potential is there for King. But we know the little guy wouldn't use it unless he had to. Right?

Hunter - Heir of Time. Of all the characters, no one fits the aspect of Time better than Hunter given his relations and just how many of him have existed throughout the ages. And as for Heir, I mean, could it be any more obvious?

Vee - Sylph of Space. Conceptually, Space means a lot of things in Homestuck, and is seen by the fandom as one of the "fundamental" aspects. A common theory is no game has a potential to win without both a Space and Time player. But one thing Space represents is Form and Boundary. It is the amorphous stage the play of reality is set upon. What better for a shapeshifter? Sylphs are essentially a Healer class.

Masha - Rogue of Doom. A Thief steals for their own benefit, and a Rogue for the benefit of others. Masha Stole Doom from the entirety of her Reality Check Summer Camp crew, *especially* Vee, giving her her very first friend, potential crush, and a new home and lease on life.

The Collector - Lord of Void. He is Everything and Nothing and can create or uncreate both at will. The Lord embodies their aspect to the absolute. They are a Master class, all-powerful and uncontested in their domain. He is a leftover from a previous game of Snest, one played between just two people, the other, of course, being...

Papa Titan - Muse of Life. We've never seen an adult play any variant of Sburb. But to deal with the Collector and his games, I think he may have had no choice. A Muse, too, is a Master Class, but far more passive. The Titan is how all life in the Demon Realm exists. The Titan *is* the Isles. How much more Life-aligned can you be? And as effectively just a corpse at this point, obviously, he's pretty passive.

Emperor Belos - Knight of Rage. A perfect mastery of his aspect to both directly harm and to manipulate, a truly terrifying foe. Again, adults aren't normally players, but, you better believe he's the reason this whole damn apocalypse happened in the first place.

Boom wrote that up in like 20 minutes, welcome to my special hell.

If by chance somebody actually *likes* this and wants more for some godforsaken reason, I'll give the kids a strife specibus too.

[monstersandmaw]

First time romancing Astarion, and I'm all aboard the ace-spec interpretation of Astarion that I've seen floating around. As someone who's ace, I definitely resonated with him in this scene anyway. That hug reaction from Astarion. Oof.

And the fact that if you also romance Halsin, one of the dialogue options Astarion can give you is to say something like: 'it's not because... we haven't... in a while... is it?'... My heart cracked painfully at that, I'm not going to lie. I have spoken almost exactly that sentence before, worrying that just kissing and physical affection is not enough for someone who's not ace. To have that validated by Astarion was really special for me.

(aka, I really didn't get to know Astarion very well in my first playthrough because he didn't approve of my absolute doormat of a Tav (Kaerlyn the drow) and I didn't spend much time with him, but now with my sassy monk...? I get it. I totally get why you all love Astarion so much).

EDIT: additional dialogue from Raphael talking about Cazador indicates that it might be linked to vampirism (my own headcanon for vampires anyway is they can't get aroused without having fed recently, not just BG3 vamps, but in general)

[some poly-ace-astarion thoughts under the cut too]

I'm not 100% convinced that Astarion is really ok with the consensual poly situation in-game, because he famously doesn't say what he actually wants and is the king of manipulating others, especially in sexual situations (e.g. what Cazador sent him out to do, and how). I'm not sure if I'll reload a save and just have Halsin as a friend...

The dialogue when you check in with Astarion before the Halsin scene is... strained? Odd??? Maybe it's just me over-analysing it. He sounded strained though - his tone high pitched and more grandiose than he'd been in previous cut-scenes, where he was more softly-spoken. It sounded more like early-game Astarion to me...

Also, my dialogue options may have been totally randomised the next time I approached Astarion after a steamy night with Halsin, but they sounded kind of strained there too, and I got the 'I can never say no to you' one, which set my ace people-pleaser alarm bells ringing...

As someone who's poly-romantic but asexual, I can project/imagine here that Astarion has come to care for Tav a lot (more than he ever expected, for sure), and he genuinely wants Tav to be happy. He trusts Tav enough to know that Tav respects his autonomy and right to decide things for himself, and values Astarion for who he is, so Astarion is intellectually/conceptually happy for Tav to get something from Halsin that Astarion is not providing (sex), but perhaps emotionally that additional fact and dynamic is harder to deal with.

That could totally be me projecting though, because that's how I'd react if my husband (not ace) and I (ace) were in that situation (we've discussed it between us, actually XD). Feelings of guilt and inadequacy around sex itself are apparently very common with us ace folks, even in very healthy and happy relationships.

Anyway, that turned into a ramble I didn't intend on a rainy Sunday afternoon. I'm not looking to start any discourse about this though. If you don't see Astarion that way, or had a different experience and interpretation, that's all totally valid and I'm not trying to invalidate it in anyway.