gojo would kill your work husband. but if he were the work husband, that's a different story
REAL!! he’s such a hypocrite because if someone mentioned you had a work husband, his entire world would stop and he wold devise the absolute worst plans to make sure that your co-worker, everyone at your job, and everyone in the next building over knew that he was happily committed to you
but if he is the work husband, he’s very........ dutiful in his role. there’s a loose office/lawyer au in my head where satoru is your secretary, and for all intents and purposes, your personal assistant, and he’s good at his job, but mostly because he considers his job to be pleasing you. he has coffee for you when you arrive, he moves your schedule around without you asking, he has answers to questions before you can even ask them, he has fresh flowers on your desk weekly, pokes into your meetings to pretend to hand you a file that’s really just maybe a single document in a manilla folder with candy on top of it—he’s made himself your business, your partner; he’s made himself irreplaceable, and he loves to remind everybody of that fact.
he’s also extremely loyal. sure, he could day a week’s worth of work done in about a day, but that doesn’t mean he’ll just use his talents for anybody. he’s your secretary, so he’s at your beck and call, and everyone knows it. they know he’s the best, but also that he’s off limits—not because you won’t share him, but because satoru won’t let himself be shared.
he also extends his duties beyond work, of course. when he hands you a print out of your schedule for the day and you’re confused by the three-hour block of time you have in the middle of the day, satoru just helps you shrug your coat of your shoulders and smiles, “that’s for the lunch date you have with me, of course!” hanging up your coat in your closet for you, “i’m paying, see you soon, sweets.” and because you’re great at your job, and satoru helps you be great, nobody really questions when the two of you have time for a 13-course tasting menu at 1pm on a tuesday afternoon. and if they did, all satoru would say that you two had a lovely date
223 notes
·
View notes
Go players <3
image description: a tableau of ceramic sculptures. Two vaguely humanoid blob figures with discs for faces, one white and one black, face each other across a yellow Go board. The figures each have a Go bowl at their right-hand side.
also, for those interested: this is a fanart!
listen (lowers my voice) listen. I watched Hikaru no Go and it hurt me. so naturally I did fanart about it. the black figure represents Hikaru—he has terrible posture but he looks eager to play. he's looking upward like a child. the white figure all neat and upright is Sai. Hikaru is bigger than Sai because Hikaru eclipses Sai eventually. Sai shrinks as Hikaru grows...
54 notes
·
View notes
The thematic link between cannibalism and incest in The Coffin of Andy and Leyley
Something I've been thinking about is. The huge emphasis on cannibalism in the marketing of The Coffin of Andy and Leyley. And the way people talk about it: like, 'of course these siblings aren't normal, they literally ate their neighbour!'
And I think it has some very interesting parallels with the incest that happens later on.
Because. All things considered? The cannibalism in act 1 is sincerely one of the least fucked up things these characters do, morality-wise.
They didn't murder the guy. In fact, they had nothing whatsoever to do with his death: if they hadn't been there at all, it would've all turned out exactly the same way, and you can't even accuse them of inaction, because a) it all happened so quickly and unexpectedly, and b) it's not like calling for help would have done anything anyway. In material terms, they did no harm at all to the guy.
On the other hand, they were literally starving to death. Ashley sincerely wasn't sure they'd even last a few days more the way they were going. What they did to the guy wasn't for fun, or revenge, or even a lack of concern for him as a person, but survival. It was an emergency!! In a lot of ways, it could be seen as comparable to self-defence.
So is cannibalism so strongly associated with the game, and with the horror genre in general? The taboo.
Regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the level of harm done, cannibalism is a no-go. It's a line that must not ever be crossed. Even if we can understand and sympathise with the people involved - even in cases of literal life and death - there is a wrongness to it that we can't easily move past. In an increasingly secular world, it's one of the few really spiritual crimes that still resonates as much as ever.
And, yeah, sure, you can talk about the health risks of ingesting brain matter, or the practical issues with not making cannibalism a crime, but those aren't the reasons we shy away from it. It's instinctive; philosophical. Cannibalism is simply wrong.
Much in the same way we react to incest.
Again: this is not claiming that incest is always totally okay, just like the point of this post isn't to be all 'yay, cannibalism!' There are practical reasons to disallow it, and there are potential health issues here, too (albeit for the children rather than the subjects).
But that's not why we wince at incest. Even if everything was okay - a consensual relationship between two twins of the same sex where nobody else would ever see - it would still elicit strong reactions. Incest is simply unnatural - simply wrong.
The incest in TCOAAL isn't quite so straightforwardly defensible as the cannibalism. The relationship itself is unhealthy, and adding sex to the mix is very unlikely to make it less so, as well as the fact that sex is literally the exact place where 'consent issues' tend to get REALLY important.
But also... the relationship was already unhealthy. The two were already isolated and excessively dependant on one another, and most importantly, they had already enabled one another into cold-blooded murder. It's sorta... hard to get much worse than that.
By contrast, the incest vision itself? Seems entirely consensual. Pleasurable, even. The two are uncharacteristically happy, once Andrew gets over his moral anguish (or, rather, until he gets distracted away from it). And the 'Not Sane' route portrays them as closer and happier and kinder than any other.
It doesn't matter. Even if the results are entirely positive - like with getting food into the mouths of two starving people - it's still wrong. By its very nature. It's 'disgusting.'
I know I'm not the first person to comment on the willingness of some antis to whole-heartedly accept murder and cannibalism in fiction but then draw the line at incest. But I think this comparison of taboos illustrates a really big thematic link between the cannibalism and incest specifically, and in doing so, just one way that the incest really is important to the themes of the work, rather than just gratuitous shock shlock.
...in fact, if you wanted to really stretch the metaphor... You could ask: 'are things good or bad inherently, or due to the surrounding context?' Which, honestly, is a pretty good question about our titular two characters themselves. Are Andy and/or Leyley inherently bad people? Should we judge them based on the circumstances of their upbringing or the world in which they find themselves? Or does none of that matter, and they would have turned out this sort of way regardless?
33 notes
·
View notes