#I find it interesting to think of different ways we can interpret the same information

[fellhellion]

Hm. Something I’ve been thinking about (since I never shut up about Miguel apparently) is the idea that maybe there’s not supposed to be, to his understanding of what happened, a singular canon event that he breaks when dipping dimensions, it’s more the idea that he “breaks” canon by no longer being present to carry out his own canon events, by wanting something outside of what was apparently predestined to him, and the universe punished him for it.

I broke [canon] once myself, he says, but he doesn’t name the event even as the examples he pulls up are labelled.

Perhaps the “event”, as the characters perceive it, could just be something as simple as by virtue of replacing alt!Miguel he negated the intended effect of the man’s death upon the world around him.

But I just wonder. Because the way Miguel speaks of this to Miles portrays his own wanting for something different as being what he thinks invoked that destruction.

“We all want to live the life we wish we had, believe me I’ve tried. And the harder I tried, the more damage I did. You can’t have it all, kid.”

I wanted something more, but Spider-Man’s fate is set. Any and all events, regardless of their nature. And defying that fate, trying to live a life beyond what it asked of me killed people.

If you alter your course from canon in any way, you hurt people.

[abyssalzones]

can you tell us about your interpretation of the better world universe!!!! especially curious how stan/mystery trio works into it

hell yesssss I definitely can. ABW is maybe my favorite niche gf thing and probably the only "AU" I care about but that may be due to the fact that it's an AU that exists in the canon and we know so little about it. so it has an established foundation that you're left to fill in the details with yourself... it's like a poke bowl to me. you can put anything in there

and since I felt like it here's a bonus pic of them living their best lives pestering ford

[explanation-y stuff under ze cut because I got very longwinded]

as for specifics of how I see everything working out, there's a few key points that establish why things happened differently from canon, the most important being:

Stan agrees to hide journal #3 somewhere

Ford reunites with fiddleford and they begin working together again

both of these are already confirmed in canon, the first being the most obvious "schism" between timelines. literally everything in ABW is the way it is because stan made a different decision. kind of crazy in terms of its implications: I feel like that moment in the basement is a really good example of how stan gets so few opportunities to shape her own life (while ford is in the picture...) because of her role as the 'black sheep' twin. it's not exactly a premeditated decision to push ford into the portal, it's her acting on feelings that have been bubbling unaddressed under the surface for 10-something years at that point, and only then does she have any sort of power over the "narrative" of both her life and the story itself, something that from her pov has been ford's story. and in the canon timeline, she says no.

so like, what the hell made her say yes in ABW's timeline? this question kind of haunts me because I feel like it has to be entirely dependent on what the inside of stan's head looked like at the time. it's possible something influenced her, but overall I think it's more interesting if ford did and said all the exact same things up until this point and it really was entirely dependent on stan's decision internally.

so stan says yes, goes on a big trip to the other side of the world somehow, and buries journal 3 somewhere probably never to be found again. yay! but, uh, going on a trip like ford was suggesting would... take weeks. that would leave ford alone again. and not to have my established thoughts informed by new material or anything but bill did give him 72 hours.

so, next order of business: how in the fuck would ford convince fiddleford to rejoin him??? I'm unsure between journal 3 and tbob's information how ford may have tried to reach out to him but it seems like fiddleford was pretty adamant about staying away from that guy, out of guilt or fear of bill/the portal or both. I don't think logically it would just be a matter of ford calling him enough times or finding out where he lives- and I think that's kind of getting away from the point of why ABW is the way it is too. if stan is suddenly making decisions that are influencing ford's life, I think it would be similarly interesting if fiddleford also possessed some unique autonomy in this scenario.

aka I think ford got fucked up badly (possibly involving losing an eye) and fiddleford found him half-dead while trying to burn his house down. [mabel voice] romance!

to clarify: I don't think fiddleford is obligated to take care of ford. a major part of him leaving the project was finally making the decision to leave a situation that was hurting him, that he'd been staying in entirely because he still cared about ford and felt on some level he could still help him (which gets broken with "I don't need you!") and I think that's a very reasonable decision on his part. but I also do have to think about all the times ford has been "the hero" in situations where fiddleford ends up hurt and helpless because of something traumatizing. I think it'd be fascinating to see that reversed and have fiddleford actively making the difficult, messy decision to take care of that guy even when they're on miserable terms. and so begins like a solid week of these two desperately trying to look out for eachother in a nightmare scenario where one of them probably needs to go to a hospital + keeps getting possessed off and on and the other is going through the worst addiction/withdrawal cycle of his life irt the memory gun. yay! (part of the reason this even works To Me also is heavily informed by the lack of secrets: if fiddleford is actively dressing that guy's wounds he can't really keep it all to himself anymore. crushingly intimate perhaps...)

stan gets back eventually. such is the context of this pic

from there it's a nebulous grab-bag of things I think could happen up to the foundation of the institute.

how do all three of these incredibly fucked up individuals get along? well they don't but then they do.

how do they get bill out of ford's head without performing amateur brain surgery? idk. my best guess is a fiddleford and stan bonding trip into ford's mindscape that potentially helps answer the first question. possibly utilizing the memory gun. shrugs.

what's up with that one picture you drew of parallel fidds holding the memory gun up to ford's head? well. okay that one might or might not be something that actually happened but the idea was just that ford is coping badly with a few specific things and I liked the idea of fiddleford "holding onto" something for him to remember and work through later when he's ready to deal with it, it's an interesting reversal of how he's normally more of a memory sink.

from the point in canon about them stabilizing the portal so that bill can't use it to get into their dimension anymore onward, I think it just becomes a matter of them living the lives they could've always had in canon without realizing it. hence "a better world." some cool tidbits I like to think about:

stan gets to transition much earlier (late 1990's perhaps?) and probably starts going by "lee" instead

she's also the institute's CMO and is mostly in it for going on business trips abroad with ford. and the money. obviously.

the institute probably also legitimately changes the world on a sociopolitical scale outside of just interdimensional travel since their research renders them uniquely untouchable and all three of them are trans (I'm cartoon logic-ing a little bit here just let me have this one)

ford is the eccentric bill nye esque face of the company, fiddleford is the backbone. that isn't to say ford doesn't do anything as I think he'd always moreso be in it for the science than the fame (though it is nice to be more than comfortable financially) but it's an open secret fiddleford keeps tabs on literally everything, he's still very security-oriented.

the northwest family now has a more prominent ongoing rivalry with the pines family that could be very funny to think about. they've taken all the LOGGING JOBS with their damn SCIENCE

part of the reason I thought ford should lose an eye is because I think having him wear an eyepatch would be a neat way to parallel stan's "role" as mr. mystery visually! stan wears an eyepatch for no legitimate reason to keep up appearances as a schlocky tourist trap host, but it also alludes to her being more than she seems under the surface. ford's eyepatch does sort of have a legitimate reason to exist, but he also could just wear his glass eye and it would probably be less "conspicuous." he chooses the eyepatch instead because it's part of his image as Stanford Pines, Founder of Oddology, and because it keeps him safe. there's also a little residual scarring there from damage to his eyelid/tarsal plate which could easily represent him hiding the more "damaged" aspects of himself under his successes. ouch.

I'm unsure if ford and stan would ever feel comfortable getting back in touch with their parents. I know a lot of people go that route with fan material but I don't think they should have to. I think they're much happier now having healed the rift between them on their own and getting to live successful lives for themselves, rather than to prove something to their father.

that being said I do think fiddleford gets in touch with emma-may and his son again and they end up on better terms with time and a Lot of effort. tate's family is now composed of his father, mother, "uncle" ford (in the ye olde gay closeted sense of referring to your dad's partner as an uncle), and auntie lee, and I like to think they go out on trips to the lake together often :]

also ford and fiddleford tie the knot unofficially (in the eyes of the government anyway) in 1990. owed to stan somehow getting "ordained" as a rabbi. don't ask me how.

the pines twins start visiting the institute from a younger age than they do irt visiting stan in the show-- but they're only permitted to come along on heavily-supervised interdimensional excursions once they turn 12. cue antics!

anyway, hopefully this extremely longwinded and loosely structured mess helped answer your question. I like ABW sooo so so much you guys

[learnastrowallura]

🕯Mercury in Astrology

Information is from Chris Brennan's video on The Astrology Podcast YouTube channel on the topic of Mercury significations <3

Mercury: writing, speech, words, message, reign, translation, conveying, transmitting, information, interpretations, numbers, analysis, reasoning, details, dialogue, exchange, money, businesses, contracts, commerce, negotiating, indecision, disputation, questioning, doubts, distractions, speed, variety, irregularity, verstatility, changing, adaptability, flexibility, instability, inconsistency, knowledge, philosophy, service, teaching, mind, intelligence, intellect, language, communication, learning, poetry, voice acting, narration, acting, sharing, masculine, neutrality

Sun and Mercury:

Sun and Mercury are both centered around intelligence but in different ways; they complete each other. Sun is about divine knowledge and Mercury is about conveying, transmitting or communicating that knowledge or even perhaps analyzing it and extracting more wisdom as well as detail from it so I found this point particularly interesting. Sun illuminates with its rays and gives clarity by providing us with the truth and then Mercury expands on that truth and shares it with others in its charming versatile way as well

Sun vs Mercury sign:

Mercury does not move further than 28 degrees from the Sun meaning that the Mercury sign will always be the sign before or after the Sun sign (zodiacal signs are divided into 30 degrees) and so there is a bit of a differentiation (for lack of a better word) between who we are and the way we communicate and exchange information with other people if the Mercury and Sun signs are not one of the same. First example that comes to mind is having an Aries Sun Taurus Mercury and two people who are quite close to me have these placements; you would not know they were Aries Suns unless u asked hahaha even though one of them is an Aries rising too so that is something I wanted to note as well. Another example would be Sagittarius sun with Scorpio Mercury adding a lot of intensity to the person's communication style as well (which is something I relate to as you will see later on)

Domicile and exaltation:

Sooo Mercury rules over Gemini and Virgo so those are its domicile signs, it is how Mercury can manifest itself most comfortably whilst embodying its true essence. And then Mercury has its exaltation in Virgo as well which is pretty unique might I say and this gives me the vibes of (this my own way of seeing it so take it with a grain of salt) Mercury being more constructive in the sign of Virgo versus in Gemini just because of this particular distinction

But speaking of these two signs I do think they embody their Mercurial energies quite differently and shoutout to my friend @saturnianoracle for giving me the key words to describe this. First of all they are both analytic but Virgo is more of a skeptic I feel while Gemini tends to have more of an open mind. Virgo wants to see the evidence behind certain things to determine the merit or validity, to a certain extent, of the topics at hand to then decides if it wants to invest energy into looking into it more. It is very grounded as well as organized. With Gemini there is a certain sense of childlike curiosity that takes hold of this sign making it want to explore deep topics and of course stimulate its mind; it dives in without thinking and is more disorganized, inconsistent and chaotic I would say, and it loves conversing about its findings as well. I saw a tiktok video ancient astrology based describing Virgo and Gemini as the most intuitive signs which was fascinating to be honest u can watch it here

Detriment and Fall:

Mercury has its detriment in Sagittarius/Pisces and its fall in the sign of Pisces as well and the interesting thing noted in the video I watched (mentioned at the start) is that Sagittarius and Pisces are ruled by Jupiter, the biggest planet ruling over expansion and abundance, and with Mercury being on the smaller side you can really see that distinction of the Mercurial signs really often looking at the detail of things and well in contrast the Jupiter signs seeing the bigger picture. Also Jupiter being a benefic and ruling over luck makes me think that having these two placements is honestly not so bad tbh

Mercury in first house:

Mercury has its planetary joy in the first house of the self, highlighting the utmost importance of the curious, inquisitive and messenger qualities of the planet. What is interesting is the neutrality of Mercury and how we can link that with its joy being in the 1st house; a house that can be above or below the horizon, so even in this regard it stays neutral and does not "pick a side" if that makes sense; "acting as a bridge between the upper and lower hemispheres of the chart, a bridge between the celestial and terrestial realms which are united in the degree of the ascendant".

Source for the planetery joy information is Hellenistic Astrology: The Study of Fate and Fortune by Chris Brennan

I have made a more detailed post on planetary joys so check it out <3

Neutrality:

Mercury is not seen as a benefic or a malefic; it is considered a neutral planet. Of course, its manifestation and expression can be positive, negative or stay neutral depending on a few factors, such as:

Being in its domicile (Gemini/Virgo) or its exaltation (Virgo) sign is gonna lead it to manifest in a more constructive/beneficial way

Being in its detriment (Sagittarius/Pisces) or its fall (Pisces) sign would generally lead it to manifest in a less constructive way

Aspecting a benefic planet (Jupiter/Venus) would lead Mercury in this instance to manifest in a more constructive way as it is said to adopt the traits of benefic planet it is associated with

Being in a benefic ruled sign; meaning a Jupiter ruled sign as mentioned beforehand (Sagittarius Mercury, Pisces Mercury) or a Venus ruled sign (Taurus Mercury, Libra Mercury) would manifest in the same manner mentioned above

Aspecting a malefic planet (Mars/Saturn) leads Mercury to take on the traits of that malefic planet as well

Being in a malefic ruled sign so either Mars ruled (Aries Mercury, Scorpio Mercury) or Saturn ruled (Capricorn Mercury, Aquarius Mercury) leads us to Mercury adapting to that malefic's traits again

Triplicity also matters and I will make a detailed post on it soon but for now all I can say is that having Mercury in an air sign (Gemini, Aquarius, or Libra) adds on to the "power" that the Mercury placement has within the chart and the support that it gives to the native; if we are dealing with a day chart then Mercury has moderate support in the air sign in question (Saturn being its triplicity lord), and if it is a night chart then it maintains a powerful position within the chart, being its own triplicity ruler. (Source for triplicity rulership intormation is Ancient Astrology: in Theory and Practice: A manual of Traditional Techniques, Volume One: Assessing Planetary Condition by Demetra George)

That is all!! I wanted to go into more detail tbh but time simply does not allow it these days as I have my internship going on as well but I hope this was informative haha

Thank you for reading <3

Masterlist

Paid readings open

[badaziraphaletakes]

The autistic community in this fandom has repeatedly said that Aziraphale is extremely autistic coded. Maybe we should start listening. Let's go. *SIGHS*

There's so much I could talk about the critiques I see over this mostly pretty harmless scene, but I'll try to focus on the ableism here:

Aziraphale's playfulness is called "roleplaying" and "dismissive of Crowley's feelings" here. And I must say, as an autistic person, I find it offensive bc this is an extremely autistic coded moment where Aziraphale was unmasking in front of the only person he allows himself to do so and that usually implies he was inviting Crowley to do the same, he was most likely aware of Crowley's anxiety there and making himself vulnerable to him by unmasking, inviting him into his space and vice-versa. (I think calling his special interest, magic, "horrible" is also anti-autistic bias btw)

We never see Aziraphale acting like this with any other character besides Crowley, with whom he does this repeatedly. It's not a new situation. Crowley knows this, and he is used to this kind of behaviour from Aziraphale. And he loves to complain about it btw, and Aziraphale indulges him on that. This is love. This is intimacy.

I know it isn't perfect, I know it lacks verbal communication, but this isn't abusive behaviour in the slightest. Better communication is something they both need to work on after 6k years of having to hide their feelings bc they were being persecuted and abused, the story is telling us this. We have a whole other season for that, the story isn't over.

Now, regarding the second paragraph, the plot made it painfully obvious that the clue was real, so Aziraphale was not going to Edinburgh for fun. He had to go, and Crowley knew it (he never even argued against it), bc of the mystery of Gabriel's situation thay could backfire on them in the future. Who knows what Heaven was doing to their angels (and what they could do to aziracrow!! That's why Crowley had an informant. Didn't Metatron prove this in the end, that the threat was real?). Sure, Aziraphale had fun, bc he was bonding with Crowley through the Bentley and he loves him, so that makes him happy, but that's it. We're allowed to make the most out of a bad situation, guys. It's also a way to deal with stress. Aziraphale and Crowley have different ways of dealing with stress, and both are valid, they're different people, it's normal that they react differently to a crisis.

This scene was a very married moment tbh, filled with comfort with you partner (enough to unmask), an old known and comfortable dance for the both of them, and even an invite to take a step forward in their relationship.

Food for thought: I've been wondering why the fandom likes to say Azi and Crowley are like a "married couple" but some ppl at the same time hate when they in fact act like one?

And finally, again, this is such an autistic coded moment that I, an autistic person, had the exact same interpretation as Aziraphale. I had never noticed, until I read this take, that Crowley could've meant anything other than "you don't know how to drive" lol. Aziraphale was being himself here. His true confident unmasked self. Bc Crowley allows him that. Bc Crowley makes him feel like he can. He wasn't pretending or intentionally misinterpreting or manipulating anyone. Assuming the absolute worst of him bc he interpreted something in a literal way is anti-autistic bias. Assuming the worst of him bc he doesn't use the same code as you to communicate is ableism. Assuming his decision-making logic is invalid bc of the way he acts when unmasking is both.

[danlous]

Armand and the Romani

I’ve mentioned many times now that I think it would be really interesting and fitting if Armand in the show was Romani and that’s my personal interpretation of his character until proven otherwise. I don’t think it’s necessarily very likely going to be canon, especially when writers rarely remember Romani people exist, but like I’ve said this is like the only show in the world I think could be smart enough to understand how deeply the history of race and racism in Europe (which we know they’re going to address) is intertwined with the history of the Roma people, so you never know. I’ve seen an interesting theory that Armand could be a Tatar and I think that’s the most likely route they’re going to go, but I think him being Roma or some other ethnicity is still a possibility. Furthermore, because of the Roma people’s unique history he could actually be both Tatar and Roma at the same time, especially if he’s from Ukraine like in the books (more on this later). I wanted to elaborate on why Armand’s character and IWTV in general resonate with me so strongly, why I think Armand being Roma could bring a lot to the show and fit thematically, and how if Armand had a Roma background it would influence the way he acts.

Just as a foreword this post is long as HELL as I’ll be talking about Roma people with an assumption that most readers don’t know much about them, and it involves heavy generalization by necessity. I want to emphasize that Roma people are a very heterogeneous group that have very diverse experiences and practices depending on where they live, my experiences don’t apply to all Roma, and I’m not speaking for all Roma. I don’t know much about the Roma in France or Ukraine (which would be relevant for this conversation) other than what google can tell me and I don’t really trust it because much of the information you find on the internet is written by non-Roma people. So when I say something is a part of Roma culture, I mean really that it’s in my subjective experience a part of the traditional Roma culture in my country. The customs may vary a lot even between families in a same region, and the modern Roma and those with mixed ancestry (like me) don’t always follow traditions. I feel I need to stress this because there are a lot of (often negative) misconceptions of the Romani and I don’t want to further contribute to them or just replace them with different misconceptions. Content warning for discussion on sexual and racial violence and the Holocaust.

*

The history of the Roma people

The Romani (also called Roma, Rom and other variations) are a traditionally nomadic ethnic group originating from the northern India. The Roma are often confused with other itinerant people like Irish Travellers and the Yenish but are a separate group. Note also that the word ‘gypsy’ is considered pejorative and most Roma people dislike being called that, and the Roma have nothing to do with the country of Romania, the names are etymologically unrelated. The Roma people are divided in many different subgroups, and many facets of the Roma culture are easier to understand if you know that it was originally a clan culture like many nomadic cultures.

The Romani diaspora has spread to everywhere in the world (the biggest Roma populations are in U.S and Brazil) but is the most concentrated in Europe where they came through Persia in the Middle Ages, with most European countries today having a Roma minority of 0,5%-8%. The Roma population is estimated to be 10-15 million, but nobody knows for sure because many Roma aren’t included in censuses, many Roma people choose not to disclose their ethnicity due to discrimination, and some people who have Roma parentage don’t identify as Roma. The Roma identity is strongly tied to the community. A person who’s adopted or marries into a Roma family may in some cases be considered Roma regardless of their ethnic background, and an ethnically Roma person who doesn’t have connection to the Roma community and doesn't follow traditions might not be considered a real Roma (in practice the latter situation is much more common than the first one). This is relevant when talking about someone like Armand who if we follow the books was taken from his family when he was young and adopted by a white man. Regardless, the Roma are Europe’s largest ethnic minority. I don’t think statistics really matter in a fantasy horror show but it would be the most likely scenario for someone with Armand’s appearance who was born in the 1500s Europe to be Romani.

I assume the show Armand’s character and story may be largely similar to the books based on what we’ve seen, him just having been older when he was turned into a vampire, though it's unclear is he still from Ukraine. In the episode 2 we see him refer to his prayer in a language that Daniel thinks is ‘Kazakh, or 'somewhere in the Crimea’. Wikipedia suggest that it’s actually Uzbek, though we don't know does it mean Armand is definitely from Uzbekistan. Regardless, him using this language without even thinking when talking about his praying makes me think it may be his mother tongue, and we’re probably meant to think that he’s from the Eastern Europe/Central Asia region. I’m personally suspecting he could still be from the Ukraine region like in the books considering they had Daniel think of Crimea. Him using the name Armand Marius in France which is essentially a patronym also makes me think that he could be from a Slavic country. If he was Roma or from other nomadic tribe he could’ve also easily spent time in several countries. Although there is Romani language that is related to Sanskrit, most Roma speak as their native language whatever is the majority language where they live. Many Roma speak multiple languages, especially if they’re nomadic. From what we’ve seen of Armand speaking, Assad does a great job at making his accent vaguely sound like many different accents but not quite like any of them.

One of the ways the Roma are a unique group is that they’re one of the very few ethnicities in the whole world that don’t associate themselves with any country or place. Typically, even other nomadic peoples have some distant homeland or place they see themselves as connected to. The Roma don’t feel connection to any specific country or place; they have no homeland and they don’t want one either. Although in people’s perceptions the Roma are practically synonymous with free-spirited wanderers, most Roma in the modern time are sedentary, and historically when the Roma people have wandered it has often been because of persecution or trying to make a living, not by choice. Freedom and independence are important values for the Roma people, but more in the sense of being allowed to be themselves and live how they want, not necessarily physical roaming. It’s much more common for Roma people to dream of stability and having a home and secure job than of being able to wander.

Many of the perceived modern problems among the Roma can be traced to the change of work and industry from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. The industrialization and urbanization made most traditional Roma professions such as blacksmiths, craftsmen, horse traders, animal trainers and travelling salesmen and entertainers obsolete. Even though there was always prejudice against the Roma they also used to be respected for their expertise on those areas and there was positive interaction with the majority population too. Then suddenly they lost the chance to practice their old professions but lacked societal and monetary capital to learn new ones, which led to mass unemployment and poverty that still exists today. This not fitting in the modern society is a common Roma experience. In the books I feel this is reflected when the vampire characters seek ways to connect with the modern world and humanity. Armand sees Louis as such possibility, but as he in the end tells him ‘You are as cold and distant from me as those strange modern paintings of lines and hard forms that I cannot love or comprehend.’

The Roma people are defined by the dichotomy of being perpetual outsiders who never fully integrate anywhere, and on the other hand being chameleons who adapt anywhere. They often adopt the customs, language and religion of the majority population, while maintaining their own. The Roma have likely been in Europe for at least thousand years, and the earliest records of them are even older. Despite this the Roma have arguably never been fully a part of any wider society or fully accepted. It can be talked about the Roma society rather than just the Roma culture, because the Roma people often form almost a separate parallel society wherever they live. It’s common that the people from the main population don’t have any Roma friends while the Roma people don’t have any friends in the majority population, and the Roma may have little interaction and connection with the wider society. The Roma have been ostracized, but because of this long ostracization the Roma also don’t trust in the society around them and may try to limit their interactions with the majority population. As a Roma you can feel like you live behind a veil that separates you from the rest of the world and you can’t really touch and see each other. Many Roma experience the sense of profound loneliness and of rootlessness, a feeling like you don’t have the past or the future and nothing really matters. Everything above makes Rice’s melancholic, drifting, existential vampires very relatable to me.

The Roma people have been and still are associated with crime, dishonesty, uncleanness and supernatural. The Roma have often been accused of witchcraft, satanism and stealing children. Depending on the time and place people have tried to either banish or forcibly assimilate the Roma. In many countries it was legal to kill a Roma person without impunity. Historically The Roma have often been slaves or otherwise forced into labor or prevented from moving freely. For example, in Romania the Roma were kept in chattel slavery for centuries over 500 years until 1860. The first Roma in America arrived there as slaves too. Interesting in the context of the show, Spain sent Roma slaves to their Louisiana colony and at least according to Wikipedia there is an Afro-Romani community in St. Martin Parish due to intermarriage of African American and Romani slaves (I would’ve been interested to read more about this but couldn’t find much online sources). In the books Armand was abducted by the Tatars to be sold as a slave. Nowadays the term Tatar is used for different Turkic ethnic groups, but historically it was used to refer to anyone who came from the Northern or Central Asia (Tartary). The Roma people were also commonly known as Tartare/Tattare, as they came from the East too. Coincidentally some Roma are thought to have arrived in Europe as slaves of the Tatars or the Mongols. At the same time the Crimean Roma and the Crimean Tatars have a very close and unique history to the point that the Crimean Roma are commonly considered a subgroup of the Crimean Tatars. So it would actually be possible that Armand is both Tatar and Roma, especially if he comes from that region!

2. The Romani culture and relations with other people

The Roma people are often highly fetishized and oversexualized, and viewed as promiscuous and manipulatively seductive, which can also be seen in how Roma characters are depicted in popular culture. Roma people continue to be victims of sexual assault and trafficking at very high rates. Roma women are often assumed to be prostitutes or sexually available. When you see news about human trafficking in the Eastern Europe, both labor and prostitution, the victims are often Roma even though it's rarely mentioned. Many consensual sex workers are also Roma, but most of them likely wouldn’t be sex workers without poverty and if they had other opportunities. Roma children experience sexual abuse much more frequently than children of the majority population, and they're often viewed as more mature and manipulative than they are. This all reminds me of how in the books Armand was sexualized by nearly every person he comes across even when he was a child or teen. Taking Roma children from their families to exploit them or to assimilate and ‘take the gypsy out of them’ in one way or another has always been common, nowadays this often happens in the guise of child protection. Here in Finland even 50% of the Romani children in 1950-1980 were placed in state care institutions, and this continues to happen in many countries. The less fantastical version of what Armand went through with being abducted and sold and exploited by everyone including his ‘savior’ who tried to sanctimoniously civilize him is what has happened to countless Roma children over the centuries.

The traditional Roma cultural practices can be considered (when heavily oversimplifying) to be built on three pillars that are connected to each other: respecting elders, concepts of purity and impurity, and honor and shame. Most cultures probably consider respecting old people important but in the Roma culture this is deeper and more extensive than usual. Older people are treated and spoken to with very high respect, people often address even their own parents with the formal ‘you’. Being older is on itself seen as a sign of authority and younger people must always listen to their elders. This respect shows up in everywhere in daily life in both practical and symbolic ways, older people take the food first, if the house has more than one floor the younger people don’t live in the rooms above older people, shaking hands with or sitting next to an older person may be considered inappropriate because they imply an equalitarian relationship etc. It’s very difficult for a young Roma person to say no to an older person or express anger or anything that could be seen as disrespectful. The Roma culture has anarchistic qualities because the Roma don’t necessarily acknowledge the state’s authority, and intracommunity hierarchies are quite fluid and decentralized, but the older people’s higher status over the young ones is seen as obvious and natural.

Cleanness is another aspect that is very central to the Roma culture, in both literal and symbolic sense (ironically, since the Roma are often seen as dirty). The Roma don’t expect non-Roma to follow or even be aware of their complex system around it (mentioning this because I know some people fear that they accidentally offend Roma if they do something wrong lol). The Roma consider the body above the waist ‘pure’ and below it ‘impure’, and things that touch them are kept separate, and all objects are categorized according to their perceived cleanness. For example, when you come from the grocery store the shopping bag can’t be put on the floor or chair, you can’t sit or lean on the table, hats and shirts are not put on chairs, if a kitchen utensil falls on the floor it may be thrown away instead of washed because it’s now considered unclean etc. Kitchen is the purest place and is kept as clean as humanly possible. The clothes of men and women and people of different age groups are washed separately. When a Roma person grows old they become ‘pure’, and people are particularly considerate not to tarnish them, for example a younger person can’t sit on an older person’s bed and if they sleep in the same room their feet can’t pointed at the older person’s direction. In some circumstances an impure person may be temporarily or permanently banished from the community. The importance of cleanness in the Roma culture goes back to preventing illness in the traditional nomadic lifestyle, and it’s speculated possibly to even further in history in India where the Roma people’s ancestors’, the lowest caste Dalits, responsibility may have been to handle corpses and other unsanitary jobs.

Contrary to the stereotype the Roma are usually highly modest and anything ‘below the navel’ stuff (sex, pregnancy, periods, bodily functions) is rarely discussed. The Roma men and women don’t talk about them at all with each other if they aren’t a couple, and parents don’t usually talk about sex or dating with their children. Casual sex is disapproved. Oral and anal sex are considered unclean. Although Roma people often marry very young (sometimes underage) it’s usually with people of the same age group, people of distinctly different generations having romantic or sexual relations or even talking about sex with each other is a taboo. For example, if there’s something sexual on television the younger people may leave out of respect if there are older people in the room. A pregnant woman may hide it even from her own parents. Much of the Roma customs focus on ‘keeping face’ and maintaining respectful relations with the other Roma and their surroundings and avoiding anything that would bring shame, and this shame can touch the whole family.

Now if we come back to Armand, if he’s a Roma that adds a new aspect to his trauma, especially pertaining to sexual abuse and his relationship with Marius. Sexual abuse and grooming like that are hard to for any child to process, and especially difficult and confusing it would be for a Roma child, when in the Roma culture older and younger people even talking about sex is seen as offensive and older people’s wisdom and authority are seen as absolute. When in the Roma culture sex itself is taboo and wrong kind of sexual activity can make you ritually unclean it would further worsen the trauma that started from his kidnapping and cause immense shame. Since the old people are considered purer than young people a Roma child might also feel like they’re soiling the sexual abuser and blame themself. Death and touching dead bodies is considered unclean as well; a vampire would always be ritually impure. The way Armand is exposed to sex in Venice is pretty much the polar opposite of how sex is treated in the Roma culture. In the books we see Armand struggle with his complicated feelings about Marius and how he resents him but can’t still stop loving him and seeking his approval, or often can’t even express his negative feelings openly. I think it sounds familiar how many Roma people want independence but still feel obligated to respect their elders even if doesn’t always feel right.

I think this respect for elders also shows in how Armand treats Daniel in the show. He’s quite polite towards him and very considerate in trying to make sure he’s comfortable. Although Armand is in his servant disguise for most of the season 1, he notably keeps talking to Daniel in a pretty similar way after he drops his disguise. This maintaining the appearance of respect even when you’re angry at the older person is typical for Roma people. Armand is chronologically much older than Daniel, but Daniel is still physically an elderly person which is seen as automatically deserving high respect in the Roma culture. Armand and Daniel possibly having some sort of romantic relationship in the past complicates their dynamic.

3. The Romani from the WWII to now

It's hard to convey how extreme the prejudice and hate towards the Roma people is still in the 2020s Europe. Majority of people have highly negative views on the Roma. In the polls most respondents say they don’t want to work with or employ Roma people and wouldn’t want their child to date anyone who’s Roma. Majority of the Roma live below the poverty line, often in segregated slums around cities or villages in countryside, many of them without electricity or running water or access to other basic services like healthcare. Depending on a country the life expectancy for Roma people is 7-20 years smaller than for the majority population. Housing for Roma people has been a big problem for a long time, with many Roma being homeless or living in subpar settlements that the officials often destroy and force Roma to move. Nobody wants to rent or sell to Roma people or be their neighbor, so the Roma population often segregated from the majority population. Illiteracy is still common. Many Roma children don’t go to school; if they do, they’re often put in special classes or special schools where they’re separated from other children and receive substandard education. If they receive proper education they can’t get a job because nobody will hire Roma people. Many companies and places refuse to let Roma people enter. Hate crimes and police violence are common. As a Roma you can feel like you’re leprous, nobody will talk to you or come close to you.

Typical for anti-Romani racism is that people don’t see it as real racism and consider it justified and something that Roma people deserve. There also isn’t much difference how left-wing and right-wing people view Roma. Racism against Roma people is widely accepted and normalized regardless of political affiliation. In Europe the Roma are singled out and many people who aren’t (at least on conscious level) racist towards other ethnicities still despise Roma people. A case that has stuck with me and I feel embodies how the Roma are dehumanized is from Naples, Italy in 2008 where the beachgoers continued their day sunbathing and picnicking near the bodies of two drowned Roma girls. Though anti-Roma racism exists everywhere, it’s where the European hypocrisy is its most obvious. The Europeans often talk about the history of racial segregation, slavery and ethnic cleansing in other places like it’s something distant and absurd to us, when systematic segregation continues to be everyday to Roma people here in the present day.

The position of the Roma people is unique because much of the discourse around racism in Europe is focused on immigration and assumptions that people of color always come from 'somewhere else', but the Roma’s ancestors have often been here as long as the white Europeans’ ancestors. Racism against the Roma people predates the modern concepts of race, scientific racism and the modern imperialism and colonialism. The Roma are a large group that certainly hasn’t been living in an isolated bubble separate from the rest of the world and they’ve had a significant influence on the Europe’s culture, but they and their suffering are often invisible and many people are completely ignorant of it. The Roma have oral tradition and there are few Roma politicians, journalists or scholars so they lack platform to make their issues known. The Roma have become a sort of permanent underclass in Europe.

We know that the s2 takes place in the 40s in the immediate aftermath of the WWII and deals with it in some capacity. The hatred towards the Roma people can be seen as having culminated during the WWII when anywhere from 250,000 to 2 million, or 25% to 80% of the European Roma were killed during the Holocaust. The figures vary so much because the Romani genocide is severely understudied, we don’t know how large the Roma population was, and there weren’t as meticulous records of the Roma victims as there was of the Jewish victims. The Romani genocide (sometimes called Porajmos) has often been treated as an afterthought but for the Roma people it was absolutely devastating. The Roma were classified as racially inferior and were killed in concentration camps and in shootings by mobile killing squads. Roma people were often sterilized and used for medical experiments. In some countries like Croatia and the Netherlands practically the entire Roma population was destroyed.

After the war there was little sympathy for the Roma. Many Roma became stateless refugees, and Germany didn’t acknowledge what happened to the Roma as genocide until decades later, which prevented the survivors from seeking restitution. The post-war trials didn’t cover the crimes against the Roma people. Attempts to assimilate the Roma and wipe out their culture continued in many countries. There still isn’t widespread acknowledgement and understanding of the Romani genocide and how it’s a direct cause for the Romani people’s current situation, even within the community. Deep poverty, illiteracy and lack of education and social institutions has led to there not being full consciousness and collective memory around the Holocaust among the Roma like the Jewish people have.

What happened to Roma varied a lot from country to country. France has always been rather hostile to the Roma, and it was also a ‘forerunner’ in the modern racial discrimination against them because it started to register Roma in the early 1900s and giving them ID cards that categorized them differently from other travelling workers. During the World War II some French Roma were deported to nazi-run concentration camps like Auschwitz, but most were detained in internment camps in France that were created under the nazi authorities but run by the French authorities. Although not technically extermination camps, their living conditions were similar to concentration camps and thousands of prisoners died from disease and hunger. After the German occupation ended the internment camps stayed in operation until 1946, two years after the liberation. The special Roma ID cards were used until the late 60s. Some people have noted how in the show Santiago seems to work as the ‘front’ for Theatre des Vampires while Armand stays in the background. I think it’s likely related to their races in any case, but this arrangement makes sense especially if Armand is Roma because it would be very diffcult for any company or organization to be openly led by a Roma person in France during the WWII, and the years preceding and following it. Even in the 2020s many people and companies refuse to do business with Roma people, and back then it would’ve been dangerous. Also, whether Armand is Roma or not, many people are probably going to assume he is when seeing a South Asian looking French man, so that’s going to be in subtext regardless.

I think all this would make Louis strongly sympathize with and relate to Armand – and also to see him as more vulnerable and less dangerous than he really is. However, Armand might not see the things in the same way. After Louis is turned he still feels on personal level engaged with what is happening in the society and feels anger over injustice and continues to see black people as his people even when he becomes increasingly distanced from the community. But when a Roma person is taken away from the Roma community they’re not necessarily perceived as Roma by other Roma or even themselves. You might never become a part of the wider society either, you just become ‘no one’. Armand might not think of Roma as ‘his people’. Because the Roma already see themselves as outcasts and separate from the rest of the world and people, for someone who becomes a vampire that could mean complete emotional disconnect.

Perhaps because the Roma perceive themselves as separate from the wider society, it’s not typical for Roma people to be interested in politics or activism or influencing the wider society at all. This is a big generalization because of course there are Roma activists and Roma organizations, especially since the 70s, but by and large Roma people tend to be more or less apathetic towards politics and analyzing the forces behind it. Many Roma don’t vote (and needless to say many countries make it difficult for them) or participate in politics in any way. Political movements, rebellions and revolutions mean nothing to the Roma people. Every so-called revolution or change either has had no influence on the Roma people’s life or made it worse. The Roma people don’t trust non-Roma people, and the organizations and movements have usually been uninterested in involving Roma people anyway. As someone who is interested in politics and activism when I try to talk about stuff with any other Roma person I often get a ‘why does this matter’ or ‘what does this have to do with us’ reaction. The Roma are very used to their situation because they can’t remember or imagine it ever being different, and they often have an attitude that could be described as ‘it is what it is’. Armand might not feel similar anger Louis feels. Armand’s indifference and distaste towards societal institutions is reflected in the books too:

Armand would also perceive his own and Louis’ race differently than Louis does. For the Roma the world consists of people who are Roma or non-Roma (Gadjo). The Roma don’t really make differences between different races, they’re all Gadjo. When Armand meets Louis he would see him as a Gadjo man before black man, which I imagine could start to feel invalidating in the long term. The Roma tend to be sympathetic towards any outcasts and accepting of different people, but I think many Roma are also rather ignorant of different cultures and struggles, and they don’t necessarily feel automatic connection with different racialized people. The Roma perceive their experience as unique and something non-Roma people can’t understand. In the end all this means the way Armand views the world could actually be closer to how Lestat views it, and Louis might not find the solidarity and understanding he's hoping for.

4. The Romani family, kinship and spiritual practices

Religion and spirituality are very important to many Roma people. Here in Finland most Romani are deeply religious, much more so than the majority population that is pretty secular. Most Roma are Christians or Muslims, mostly different Christian sections in the Western Europe and Islam in the Balkans. The Roma in Ukraine are mostly Orthodox Christians or Muslims, so that would fit too if Armand was raised as a Muslim and didn’t convert later. Relationship with God, seeking forgiveness and sense of purpose, and someone who accepts you as you are, are something that Roma people commonly long for. The Hunchback of Notre Dame should never be used as an example of good representation and I swear this is the last time I’ll ever mention it anywhere, but I always thought this song captures surprisingly well something of how many Roma people feel. Armand’s intense and desperate relationship with religion and the spiritual struggle he and other characters go through is something that is very relatable to me.

With the lack of social structures, stability and purpose, for many Roma people the family and faith are the two most important things in the world. Without them the Roma have nothing. I think this is painfully clear with Armand who was separated from his family and culture, raised by a man who abused and then abandoned him, and literally lost his humanity and connection with God. Both other characters and Armand himself often describe him as this endless empty, hungry void that he is always trying to fill himself with something. Armand is prone to cult mentality and being manipulated in his intense yearning for emotional and spiritual connection.

I think Assad described Armand well when said he isn’t well-versed in the language of love and romance, but he does want it desperately. The Roma’s approach to romantic relationships is complicated because the strict rules of modesty around sexuality mean that they’re not usually explicitly discussed and even married couples avoid showing any affection in public. Historically Roma people have often been prevented from getting officially married so they have developed their own marriage rituals that vary by a country. Although the Roma take their relationship commitments very seriously legal marriage isn’t usually seen as important in the Roma culture and Roma couples may not get married at all legally.

The Roma are also one the very few cultures where in some countries like Finland the institution of marriage doesn’t really exist. The Romani here may get married sometimes but it’s seen as entirely unimportant and doesn’t have any bearing for the relationship, there usually isn’t a wedding or any rituals associated with marriage. A couple who’s committed to each other is seen as having the same status as a married couple. My paternal grandparents have been together for over 50 years and have never been married. Louis’ relationships with both Lestat and Armand would be considered marriage in the Roma culture. Because there aren’t well-established rules of dating and courtship in the Roma culture, forming romantic relationships can be difficult for Roma people. I’m thinking of Armand deeply wanting love but the way he approaches it often being awkward or offputting.

Family is the most important thing and the center of life in the Roma culture. The Romani culture is traditionally patriarchal and considering the importance of age, in practice the ‘leader’ is usually the oldest man of the family. The women’s position is complicated. Men and women are considered to be equals in the Roma culture and older women and their opinions are respected like with older men. Divorce is usually acceptable and isn’t seen as shameful, many older Roma women I know also have children with more than one man and it isn’t seen as a big deal. The ideal Roma woman is intelligent and emotionally and physically strong. At same time there have been and often still are distinctly divided roles for men and women in the Roma culture. Women are responsible for taking care of everything in the household and men for everything outside the household. The man of the house listens to their wife and children’s opinions but he has the final word. Men are expected to be the providers and protectors of their family and it’s something they base a lot of their identity and self-worth around – the most important thing really. I feel we can see a dynamic like this with Armand and Louis - Louis obviously isn’t a woman but he’s much weaker and younger (again, age being very important in the Roma culture). When watching s1 you think Armand is a servant, but if you look any closer, even without knowing it’s a performance, you notice what’s actually happening is that Armand is organizing and taking care of everything in their life. Later he tells Daniel how he’s protecting Louis like always with such a pride.

Another thing I think is worth mentioning that from my experience in the Roma culture physically disciplining children or women is and has been less acceptable and normalized than in the Western and many other cultures. It just isn’t done much, even my grandparents have said they don’t remember their own parents ever hitting them. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t domestic abuse in the Roma families, sadly it’s common in some regions, but it isn’t usually seen as normal and acceptable by the community. The Roma don’t like to involve police but there are many cases where an abusive man has been banished from the community. Also compared to many other cultures it can be less difficult for a woman to leave the man if she’s mistreated, since divorce is accepted and independence valued. I would say that when in most European countries there has often been an attitude that as a man you have a right and even responsibility to hit your wife and children, in the Roma culture it has been more like ‘a real man doesn’t do that’ and if they do they try to hide it. Roma men often perceive themselves as being more respectful towards women than Gadjo men are. When you combine all this - patriarchal society, older men having power over their family being seen as a normal and good thing, but disapproving overt violence within family – I think it would be very easy for Armand to convince himself he isn’t abusing or hurting Louis and is treating him right and being better than Lestat.

Art is very central to the Roma culture, especially music, dance and artisanship, but also other forms like painting and theatre. The first known records of the Roma people already refer to them being musicians.  Travelling theatre companies like the one Lestat run away with when he was young were often formed by Roma people. Armand was a talented painter and his love and search for beauty is something that always remains in his story. I found it interesting that this s2 Claudia poster was seemingly inspired by Carmen, one of the most famous Roma characters, and maybe flamenco dancers in general (flamenco being developed in the Roma culture). It tells me that they seem to at least be aware that the Roma people exist if nothing else.

The Roma appreciate beauty and the finer things in life, sometimes in a way that can appear materialistic to the non-Roma people, but the Roma themselves don’t perceive it so. It’s not uncommon that the Roma who’re poor or even homeless still own some jewelry or a nice car. If the Roma people are actually rich they like to show it and are generous in sharing it. Wealth has often been unattainable to the Roma people, so if they have it they don’t see a reason to hide it. Historically the Roma also haven’t trusted banks so they prefer to keep their wealth in physical form. With Armand who grew up in poverty you can see how he appreciates luxury and likes to shower his loved ones like Daniel and Sybelle and Benjamin with it too (again, being a good provider is very important for the Roma men). Sidenote this is another reason why I think the Dubai house’s sterile minimalist interiors were not Armand’s idea because no Roma person in the world would ever decorate their house like that lol.

The way the Roma people traditionally dress differs from the majority population, and their appreciation for beauty and wealth is visible in it too. The clothing has been a way for Roma to show their identity to both other Roma and other people. The rules of modesty influence the Roma people’s traditional clothing and they often avoid showing knees and elbows and the shape of the body. Younger people often wear lighter and older people darker colors. Especially Roma women have dressed in very distinct ways depending on their tribe, for men it’s usually more subtle. The typical Roma men’s every day clothing includes suits, black or white dress shirts, loosely fitting black trousers, vests, hats, ruffles and golden jewelry. Armand’s styling in the show both in the flashbacks and Dubai caught my attention. While there’s nothing exclusively ‘Roma’ in his outfits almost all of them could easily be worn by a Roma man. Most likely it means nothing but knowing how good costume designer Carol Cutshall she would probably try to be accurate.

In the Roma culture referring to dead people by their name and showing their pictures is avoided. Traditionally the remaining family moves out from the house where they lived with the dead person, and the person’s belongings and images are burned or otherwise destroyed after their death (at least in Finland this is still sometimes done). It’s out of respect but I think it’s also a response to generations of trauma where there has been so much death and suffering that Roma people need to forget and move on so they can continue living. In the books Armand treats death in the same way; when he loses someone he stops talking about them, sometimes even thinking about them. When he’s abducted he doesn’t mention his father (who he assumes is dead) again and forgets even his own name, because the child he was before he was taken doesn’t exist anymore. Despite being so needy he often just leaves things behind and keeps on moving, like when he simply walked away from Louis. The Roma aren’t prone to nostalgia and they don’t like wallowing in the past or worrying about things that might or might not happen either, it’s all seen as a luxury they can't afford. It still doesn’t make it just disappear. The deep hidden sorrow that Armand and many other characters of the series always carry with them resonates with me as a Roma.

*

Lastly, I want to emphasize this is all just random theorizing and I’m happy regardless of whatever Armand’s background ends up being! I also know some Roma don’t want Roma portrayed in fiction made by non-Roma people at all because they don’t trust it to be done well. There’s also a problem with Roma characters usually being played by non-Roma. IWTV is an exception to me personally because I have an unusually high level of trust in this show’s writing, I love and relate to Armand’s character, and I think Assad Zaman looks like he could believably play a Roma man instead of the usual casting of a white person who looks ‘exotic’. However, like I said in the beginning there isn’t any proof Armand is actually going to be Roma and for now this is just headcanoning and speculation for fun. I also want to say that I hope I didn’t give an impression that Roma people’s life is like constant misery because that definitely isn’t true! There’s a tendency to see the Roma only through their problems when there are plenty of happy and successful Roma people and there has been improvement in the Roma people’s situation even though it’s slow. I also think one of the Roma people’s strengths has always been that they can find joy and humor even in hard circumstances.

If you got to this point I salute you thank you for reading!

[my-deer-friend]

I have a two part question if that is okay!

1) What graduate program are you doing? Is it online? What was the application process and admission like? I really would like to get a graduate degree in history but I don't know if I could up and move for a year or so to get it.

2) How do you combat bias in your research? I know I struggle with preconceived ideas that I have or what I hope to be true, I just wonder if you have any advice!

Thank you so much for your blog and research! It's so interesting and informative!

Hi, friend!

I've skirted around it, but I'll say it outright here – I'm not going to say what program I'm taking. It's not online, but there are many, many such options out there that are. You'll have to do the research for yourself and see what fits your needs and goals. And the process is going to differ vastly by country and institution, so I can't be any help there either.

Now, as for biases.

All people have biases. Step one is to acknowledge that you have them, and try to pin down what they might be, remembering that even "positive" biases can be detrimental to good academic work. (Do some reading about unconscious bias. It’s eye-opening.)

Other people have biases too – that applies both to primary as well as secondary sources. Always ask: Who wrote this? To whom? From what perspective? With what goal, motive, ideology? What are they trying to convince the reader of? I always like to do a quick "bias check" before I start reading – who are the authors, and how might that shape their perspective? (For example: one of my readings by a British scholar very firmly tried to make the case that English, and not French or other continental European writers, were really the ones responsible for the Enlightenment. Now, that may be right, but I'm going to take that with a huge pinch of salt.)

In academia, your biases tend to be enforced by what you read, so the best way to minimise them in the first place is to learn how to vet the quality of sources, to read broadly, and to be critical of all of it. This is a challenge in sociocultural historical research, because we don't really know what someone meant, or felt, or did in between the points of evidence that we have, so a large degree of interpretation is present. And that is where the bias hides.

As soon as I get that "I want this to be true" feeling, I stop and examine it, because that's usually a sign that wishful thinking is filling in the gaps in my research. I wouldn't need to be wishing if I could back the claim up, right? So I look for the holes and the leaps of logic, and find a way to address them, and sometimes that means I'm proven wrong. (You will often be wrong. This is normal, common and good.)

I also find that bias creeps in more easily when making a broad and sweeping assessment than a more specific one. "So-and-so was gay" is a claim that is rarely possible to prove to any degree of academic certainty, but "this interaction between X and Y shows there was a homoromantic dimension to their friendship" is both useful and provable. Scaling down the claim you are trying to make (and the stakes you personally feel in making it) can really help to reduce your bias.

And of course, the tried and tested method – try to disprove your own claim. Have you missed any straightforward alternative explanations? Have you left unfavourable evidence out? Have you "creatively" used a source to make your point? (Biographers stop doing this; challenge level impossible). Are you leaning on logical fallacies or making excessively large logical leaps at the core of your argument? Would someone without your agenda be compelled to come to the same conclusion? And so on. Get someone to read over it and do a "wikipedia edit" (citation needed; said by who?; sources dispute this, etc.).

Good luck!

[archivalofsins]

I realized one thing about me I'm pretty straight-forward. Especially when it comes to things I like and this can come off as complaining incessantly, being too critical, being too anal, talking people down or being uncompromising.

I don't miss the humor and irony in fans of a series about biases and opinions feeling that others are too opinionated or bias when it comes to the material. I mean that's the name of the game basically.

At this point that should be the expectation on entry.

Yet, I do find it interesting that people can see this with others but to an extent not their selves. Not even just with Milgram this mindset can be applied to most social interactions.

Honestly, I get it. Everyone enjoys believing that they're reasonable and that their beliefs are sound. I like thinking I'm the smartest person in the room sometimes as well. I'm not above it. I don't want to be either.

There's a good reason that people take personal offence to their interpretations of media being questioned or dismissed. A good deal of people's beliefs, how they interpret media, and the world around them is rooted in emotionality. Regardless of how objective a person believes they're being.

For example when I talk about any of the characters my interpretation of their narratives will always be intrinsically tied with my blackness and the sort of judgment I've faced in my life due to that.

This shows itself with characters like Mu. A lot of people may not have the same experience of deviating from the normative appearance associated with their ethnicity. Many who relate to Mu or consider themselves her diehard supporters may not understand what it's like to be something but due to how you look be told that you don't count actually.

People that are biracial or double as Mu puts it in her first voice drama would. Along with people who aren't biracial and would not be considered such by any societal standard being treated the same way for being light skin.

Mu was opinionated enough to tell Es-

When they did the equivalent of calling her a halfie or half-caste by the way. Just more of that casual racism undertone Milgram has going on.

Even to the point that the translation provided even mentions the term Es used can come of as discriminatory.

Gee I wonder... I wonder why it might feel discriminatory. I can't really pinpoint a reason. Nope none coming to mind. Funnily enough this adds more depth to Mikoto's second song title being Double along with his statement trial one that made it sound like he believed he was being profiled.

Though he states it was because of his gender and clothing not due to race.

Alright, then. For an innocent person like you to end up here alongside them... Why do you think that is? Uhm... They got the wrong person. Oh? I can't imagine they'd know the details of what we look like. They mistook me for someone else in terms of gender or clothing... something along those lines. So, Milgram made a mistake, is what you're suggesting? Yeah, exactly. It's the only thing I can think of.

Please tell me it’s a mistake, that’s it’s a lie. That I’m right, I’ll forgive you If you tell me now.

Yet, I can understand why someone in his situation would want to give as little information about themselves as possible. Imagine being falsely arrested and then going you can't do this I'm a minori-wait, fuck, that might make them treat me worse actually um I'm not the guy- You got the wrong guy.

My point is Mu told Es how she actually wanted her biracial experience to be referred to. Not in a um actually way she just forcefully went yes I am this used a different word and probably side-eyed Es super hard internally. Like any person would.

Then there's Yuno.

Someone that everyone seems to love but love ignoring way more. Yuno is the definition of opinionated. She has no issue telling someone how things really are,

20/07/08 Yuno: Hey, Mikoto-san. Don’t you get tired being so conscious of others all the time? I mean, you’re free to do what you want though. Mikoto: Eh…… Aha, what are you talking about? I’m not being conscious or anything. It’s normal to make sure to get along with everyone, right? I mean, when you put it like that, aren’t you the same, Yun-chan? You’re always smiling and getting on with everyone too. Yuno: I don’t smile unless I actually want to. But with you, when you’re talking with other people it’s more like you only smile deliberately. So I kept thinking, don’t your cheeks get tired? Ah, is this just what happens when you become a working adult? ……you see people like that sometimes. Mikoto: Haha, you don’t mince your words do you. …….that was never my intention, but now that you mention it, yeah, I guess I do. This might’ve been since I started my job too…… But like, if I was rude to everyone I met, all my efforts would come to nothing, right?

Q.06 Are there any prisoners you don’t get along with?

Kazui: To be honest, probably also Kashiki-chan. It feels like she sees through all the things I don’t want anyone to notice.

20/08/02 Mahiru: Yeah, I’m asking for what you like in the opposite sex! I mean, with a lifestyle like this we have a lot of free time, right? So earlier when I was talking with all the other girls we got onto the topic! It’s not often you get a chance like this to live with a mix of men and women together, so I thought it might be nice to use the chance to talk about stuff like this in preparation for when we leave. Kazui: Ah…… Haha, I understand. I can see that’d be the sort of thing girls your age would be interested in, huh. How peaceful. What I like in the opposite sex… I don’t know if what I say will really be a good reference for you…… Ah, you know, since I’m at this age. I like a girl who can just smile free of worries. Seeing that’d make my old, tired heart feel young again. Yuno: Uh-huh, I see, I see. ……that’s a total lie, right? Kazui: Haha…… Give me a break here. You sure don’t make things easy for people, Kashiki-chan.

She has no problem directly contradicting others in public and questioning them further if their statements sound untrue.

22/09/02 (Yuno’s Birthday) Kazui: You're helping Shidou-kun, aren't you? Well, to put it this way, it's a bit surprising. You seemed uninterested in others. Yuno: Hmm? Why all of a sudden? Yeah, I'm not really interested. But if someone is about to die in front of me, I'd help out. That's just normal, isn't it? Aren't you the same, Kazui-san? You're not interested, fundamentally. Kazui: ...Maybe. I'm not as quick-witted as Kashiki-chan. You know, I've come up in a world that's all about physical strength. I've never even thought about things like that. Yuno: Haha, we both lie, don't we? The difference is the reason for lying. Kazui-san, you lie to protect yourself, because you're important to yourself. For me, no one is particularly important. That includes myself as well.

Or turning the conversation back on the person who approached her. She's assured in her actions and that makes her the type ready to question others if she feels comfortable enough to.

She's opinionated to the point of being able to draw firm boundaries between the people she likes and dislikes. Stating bluntly,

Q.21 Do you have someone you like?

Yuno: Other than the people I specifically dislike, I like everyone.

Voice Drama 2

Really? If you ask me, Kotoko-san is someone I would never want to make my friend, though. She's the type who picks a conclusion from the very beginning and won't actually talk to you.

Hm?

Well, I guess it's arbitrary who one gets along with.

She also has no problem telling people when to shut up as we've all seen,

"Just shut it, will you? You know it all."

Yet her coarse way of speaking tends to be sanded down in favor of infantilizing her. In what I can only believe is an attempt to make her character more palatable at this point. People implying or downright stating that she's too naive to know better.

Even in the face of that she remains forward and earnest about her feelings,

"“Poor naive little girl”? So off the mark, what’s it to you? It’s just absurd."

Yet all of these statements do little to deter this interpretation of her character. Because when faced with opposition to one's preconceived beliefs it's easier to continue to believe the person disagreeing or criticizing the belief simply doesn't know what they're talking about instead of take their input at face value. It's easier to try to find subjective reasons the other party may be disagreeing with one's own well founded and rooted in reason beliefs than to even humor the idea of ourselves being wrong some times.

Even when it's someone discussing their own life.

Sometimes even more so when it's a person discussing their own life. Because then one can easily justify their belief by saying the person was too in the moment to be an objective party or and just doesn't realize why this was bad yet or that they were being used. This is something brought up in both the cases of Yuno and Amane.

Regardless of how belittling or dismissive of the person's perception of reality implying such a thing is. It's basically an attempt to make someone view the life they've lived and experienced under the other parties framing whether they've actually had those experiences or not. It can't be referred to anything other than what it is invalidating. A person has to go through something terrible and traumatic then when they try to tell others about it they get told they're internalizing it wrong, taking it too personally, misreading the situation, or being to positive.

In that sort of situation the only thing a persons words can be taken as is self-serving and hurtful. Which I personally can't fault Yuno for viewing as,

"So nauseating...so creepy..."

It's easy to say believe others when they tell you their experiences and feelings on them until one actively has to do that. Then suddenly another person's lived experience and words on them can be debated actually. Especially if one feels like they interpreted it wrong or is the one being blamed for causing that hurt. If one's concern and kindness is only extended to the people they haven't hurt. If it's only easy to say I'm sorry and that shouldn't have happened when the pain being discussed wasn't caused by us then does it really mean anything?

It's easy to get caught up in the idea of not being wrong. Even easier to lash out and get defensive when someone else tells you that you hurt them. Yet looking past your ego means facing the fact that every can be wrong and hurt others even ourselves. Yes even if we didn't mean to do it, just couldn't get the words right, or were having such a hard time. To me it's realizing yeah my feelings are valid but that doesn't mean the hurt I caused while feeling that way is.

Yes I think x, y, and z about this situation but that doesn't change how you interpreted it. That's just my interpretation.

To think that being wrong is worst than just taking a situation as it is does cause more harm than good.

It took me a pretty long time to get comfortable with the fact that I will be wrong and regardless of how well thought out I find my points to be people will view me as wrong. This is just in general not when it comes to theories or anything. I didn't really get comfortable with being wrong until I was taking a speech class in college. At that point I was faced with a dilemma is it better to wait until you can say something exactly the right way or to say it wrong but still say it.

In a graded situation the latter is much better than the former. I mean you can't really go to a speech class and not speak without failing. So I realized then that sure I hate being wrong but it honestly makes when I am right far more enjoyable. That I'm not as afraid of being wrong as I am of being so scared of being wrong that I ultimately fail to do anything right or anything at all.

There's no perfect explanation that will make people believe what you're saying is true. Even when it's about your own experiences. People will still measure others by their own metrics of success and failure or right and wrong. A lot of people will tell others it's how they said it even if they know full and well they didn't want to hear it to begin with.

In those situation you can contort your words to be as safe or light as possible that won't change their unwillingness to hear you though. A person may even get harsher, colder, show outward signs of depression. Even attempt to remove themselves from the conversation entirely.

None of it will matter to those intent on seeing someone only one way.

[justenjoythegossip]

The polarization of the fandom and the impossible closure: a few thoughts

Did Chris and Abba spend the holidays together?

There was some controversy this week-end about what a mod wrote about a TikTok vid posted by Dustbin showing that Abba spent the holidays in Portugal. Dustbin then took out this vid very quickly after realizing his mistake. 

I won’t name this mod, because they have been harassed and attacked enough as it is. I do find puzzling that people (anon and other mods) were so interested and aggressive in their asks, as if that piece of information would change how they view this shitshow. 

No thanksgiving together and yet…

People know for an absolute fact that Chris and Abba didn’t spend Thanksgiving together thanks to the GQ event in Portugal and yet it did nothing to change anybody’s mind. People who think they are exclusively pr were obviously not very surprised. And people who think they are a legitimate couple with a PR spin didn’t suddenly start believing Chris and Abba were exclusively PR. And why would they? It is true that some real legitimate couples sometimes spend the holidays apart. And for all sorts of reasons. One of their family members might be sick. Or you might need to flash a ring at an event in your home country from a brand that sponsor your “RS” so that a trillion articles can be written about it… (Sidenote: contrary to what happened with that horrific cringy Valentine’s story, we can appreciate that the publications published those articles after the event happened and not before…)

So again, the information that Chris and Abba didn’t spend Christmas or New Year’s Eve together is unlikely to change anybody’s mind. But isn’t it the point?

The polarization of the fandom��

From the start of this shitshow, people have been fed so many breadcrumbs (follows and likes and emojis for ex) that were designed to have people speculate and invent an entire narrative about this “RS”. And since then, their teams have continued with the same strategy, the purposefully badly manufactured PR has enabled them to feed both “team real” and “team PR”. Can we just take a moment to look at the terminology used to describe the two opposing rival camps? The polarization of this fandom is both obvious and has been quite useful in keeping people engaged. And just like in politics, the tactics of divide and conquer were used over and over to keep people’s interest alive and to distract from the truth. Each event, each photo, each whatever were dissected by the fandom and could be interpreted in different ways to feed whatever narrative they chose to believe. 

The closure his fandom is looking for… 

One thing is certain, the truth is absolute and it’s out of our reach as we can only catch a glimpse of what is being fed to us. Some of Chris’ friends have made their profiles public long enough to leak a pic before returning to being private again, some material (pics, videos) were badly altered on purpose, we were shown the terrible behind the scenes of their first papwalk… Breadcrumbs, so many of them for us to try to put the puzzle back together. At this point, not much will have anybody change their opinion on the matter.  But more importantly, people are unlikely to get the closure they need. Even when they officially break up, people won’t hear from any of them that it was just a show. And a catastrophic one it was.

[sevensoulmates]

Spec on what Tommy's (possible) sexuality might be?

In relation to some spec I'm seeing going around about how Tommy identifies his sexuality, I'm so curious to see what that's gonna be and how he came to figure it out.

Here's what we know:

Tommy had a girlfriend in Chimney Begins because Captain Gerrard asked Tommy when his girlfriend was coming by the station to cook them all dinner. But then again he was kinda cagey in answering the Captain about her coming.

In Hen Begins, Sal insinuates that Tommy is "more of a Team Jacob kind of guy" aka Gay because Tommy finds Kristen Stewart "too broody". Tommy takes this in stride, sending Sal a joking air kiss, but it's by far the biggest hint we've gotten about Tommy possibly not being straight during the time he worked with the 118. However this line was likely originally intended to show casual workplace homophobia in order to make Hen uncomfortable, and not really to be like "oh hey Tommy's queer". But it ends up working out for the writers that they already had this tidbit in here.

In Bobby Begins Again Tommy tells Hen and Chim "I'm telling you, single is easier. Having the scars impresses women, getting 'em freaks 'em out." Which heavily implies dating/being attracted to women. In the same conversation, he later brings up a quote from Fight Club the movie, and in case anyone wasn't aware, has long been interpreted as a queer allegory due to large amounts of homoerotic material in the source material and film adaptations.

All of that being said, there are arguments for Tommy possibly being bisexual, or possibly being an in-the-closet gay man. Whichever direction they choose to take Tommy will be telling for the future of the plot for different reasons.

If Tommy ends up being bisexual like Buck, then more than likely they'll end up having a lot of parallels to experiences Buck has had in the past, further cementing to the audience that Buck has been bi this whole time but just didn't realize it. It could also parallel Buck's current situation (hiding him and Tommy from Eddie + the 118) and possibly the catalyst for Buck to come out to the rest of the 118.

But, if Tommy ends up being gay, and had to hide it and/or repress it for most of the time he had been with the 118, that could prove very interesting for the ways in which he strongly parallels Eddie.

7x04 spent a lot of time hammering home to the audience that Tommy is extremely similar to Eddie. I wouldn't be surprised if they take this a step further by having Tommy have a queer experience similar to how many of us believe Eddie's to be. That being growing up in a hypermasculine environment, filled with shame and plenty of reasons to repress and/or keep that information to himself. And only figuring out who he is later in life.

Personally, I would prefer it if they went this route with Tommy. Not only because I think it would strongly parallel a possible queer Eddie storyline, but it would also provide a contrast for Buck. By that I mean if Tommy says "well, my relationships with women never felt right, and I realized later it's because I wasn't attracted to them at all" then Buck can firmly place himself in the bisexual category in contrast by clarifying that he was and still is attracted to women, but now realizes he likes men too. And it doesn't hurt that it could be possible foreshadowing for Eddie, and/or parallels to Eddie's storyline with Marisol in the episode with something possibly not feeling right between them.

Either way, I'm excited to see to learn more about Tommy in 7x05. I'm also hoping for a bit more acknowledgment for how shitty he was to Hen and Chim in the beginning. It's a good way to show 10+ years of character development in one convo.

[aspoonofsugar]

Alyx - The Protagonist

Yang: But she was kind of a mean person, right? She lied and cheated her way through most of the book. Weiss: She was trying to survive. The morals of those old stories are so simplistic.

This exchange is interesting, especially because it is not the first time characters interpret Alyx in opposite ways.

Oscar sees her as a child who goes on an adventure, is changed by it and struggles to go home:

Oscar: I thought the idea of falling through Remnant into a new world was exciting. I never understood why she was so sad when she finally made it back home. But now it makes more sense.

Ozpin sees her as a girl, who runs away from her problems in a fantastical dimension:

Ozpin: I was recently reminded of an old fairy tale. A young girl flees the consequences of a choice, to a magical place. But, having never learned from her initial failure, she only succeeds in spreading it.

All of these characters project parts of themselves on Alyx:

Oscar sees her as lost, because he himself feels lost and away from home.

Ozpin describes her as a coward because he himself has run away into Oscar's subconscious.

Yang criticizes Alyx's tendency to lie and cheat because she sees these 2 attributes as the worst of the worst. She is conveniently ignoring she herself has been omitting information about Raven. Not to count that lie, cheat, survive are ideas that apply to Raven specifically. This means there is a part of Yang she herself is not confronting.

Weiss sympathizes with Alyx and refuses the moral of the story as too childish. Which kind of adult would truly believe that lying and cheating to survive is wrong? Except that Weiss's whole arc revolves around her embracing childishness once again and finding the hope and wonder that was stolen from her as a child.

So, everyone sees Alyx as a part of herself, but who is Alyx really?

ALYX - THE CHARACTER

Alyx is no-one, just a shadow:

Just an empty silhouette that can be filled by anyone:

This is what characters are, especially protagonists that are meant to carry a whole story on their shoulders:

Blake: I've read so many stories... I never thought I'll be the moral of one.

Characters are in stories to teach people morals and to convey messages. Basically, they all have purposes:

Blake: Have you ever heard the namy Alyx? Little: Alyx... Is that a purpose?

Maybe this is the real reason why names equals purposes in the Ever After. It is because characters are their purposes in a story... and yet, people are much more. So, what happens when a person ends up making their sense of identity overlap with their purpose?

Little: And is to Ruby Rose your purpose?

They lose themselves. Like it is happening to Ruby and like it has most likely happened to Alyx.

Weiss: What did Jinxy want from Alyx? Blake: Her saddest memories and her happiest.

Jinxy wanted Alyx's saddest and happiest memories. If a person loses both, they lose their past self. They lose who they are. It is probable Alyx chooses to leave the previous "her" behind, but can't forge any new identity, trapped forever to be a character. A protagonist. A fairy tale.

RWBY - THE LEGENDS

Blake: We are doing the same thing Alyx did. We are ruining everything!

Here, Blake is talking about RWBY's predicament in Ever After. She thinks that since they know how the story goes, they should be able to avoid Alyx's mistakes. She is frustrated they can't and overreacts. Why is she so emotional about it?

Because Blake is not talking about the Ever After. She probably means this:

Weiss: Maybe Jaune and Winter were able to get them out. Despite everything. Despite us.

RWBY has seen the adults fail at Beacon, so they strived to be better. They learnt from their mentors' mistakes, grew stronger and chose a different approach. Only to fail in the exact same way.

Blake and Weiss are having opposite reactions to the Ever After, but deep down they are dealing with the same sense of failure.

Blake is filtering it through a fairy tale. They must do everything perfectly here in Ever After, because if they can't, what good are even they?

Weiss is dealing with it by refusing the fairy tale. They messed up so royally in Remnant, that who cares what happens in this bizzarre world, which isn't theirs?

What about Yang and Ruby?

Yang is reacting the same as ever. She is going with the flaw and cracking jokes:

Ren: It's okay to be afraid, you know. You don't always have to hide it with a joke.

Ruby is choosing to push forward:

Ruby: We may not know exactly what's going on, but for whatever reason, this place is putting us on a similar path as a book we all read as kids. I say we follow it and stop pretending we know what we are doing.

She is given the role of Alyx and she is determined to fulfill it. She is stepping once again in the role of a protagonist. And yet, to keep on following an already pre-established script without putting that much mind to it isn't the right answer.

The fairy tale should be a chance for Ruby to face heself: who she was, who she is and who she wants to become.

What if you could leave Ruby Rose behind, shed like an old coat? What might happen, if you don't?

Isn't it interesting that the metaphor of an old coat is used? What is a little red hood if not something similar to a coat? A mantle (similar to that of a superhero for that matter) that Ruby chooses to wear? Who is she outside it? Outside her allusion? Outside her fairy tale?

The same goes for RWBY as a whole. They aren't in training anymore. They are Huntresses and are slowly growing into legends. They saved Haven, protected an ancient Relic, decided the fate of a Kingdom. Ruby is famous worldwide as the young Huntress who is challenging Salem. They are growing into more than just themselves. And yet, this is extremely dangerous, because losing one-self in a bigger tale is rather easy:

Pyrrha: For it is in passing that we achieve immortality. Through this, we become a paragon of virtue and glory to rise above all.

This is why they are in a fairy tale they all know deep down, even if they have forgotten. It is so they can reconnect with whom they are. Metaphorically, they are going back to The Girl Who Fell Through The World, so that they can look at it from a different perspective. What teachings would they learn that they missed as kids? What will they discover?

What's sure is that they won't get anything if they keep refusing it (Weiss), not taking it seriously (Yang), being too worried about doing everything perfectly (Blake), following the script without thinking too much about it (Ruby).

ALYX - THE PERSON

RWBY must find themselves again and it would be interesting if they succeed by finding Alyx, as well.

In general, I think Neo, Jaune and Alyx are all characters the protagonists must "find" if they really want to figure out the world and their current situation. It is easy to see how this may work out for Neo, an enemy mad with grief, and Jaune, a friend traumatized and lonely.

What about Alyx?

It is possible she might stay in the background as a symbol. However, some hints suggest there might be more to it:

Weiss: He's adorable! Blake: And a lot older than I remember from the book

The world they are in isn't exactly the same of the fairy tale. Jinxy is much older and Little isn't in the original fairy tale. This is why they have no idea who Alyx is. How can they? They are too little to remember. They are in the Ever After, but in a future version of it. This ties with the idea they are confronting their childhoods as adults. It might also be there is a reason for it plot-wise.

Everyone seems to have their own idea of what happened to Alyx. Maybe the whole point is that they will have listen to Alyx's own version of the story.

THE GODS - THE WRITERS

These meta-themes are important outside this volume and for the story, as a whole. After all, let's not forget the Gods allude to the Brother Grimms. This means they are symbolically "the writers" of the characters. Through this lens, then, the whole conflict between the God of Light especially and Salem can be summarized as a writer not being able to write a character.

The God of Light wants Salem to learn an important lesson, so he comes up with a punishment and an obstacle for her to grow. This is how usually a writer approaches a character arc. However, Salem refuses to change, as the God of Light wants. She refuses to learn the theme he desires. If anything, the result is the opposite of what the God of Light expects. Why is that so?

Because the God of Light is dumb and not such a great writer on his own :P To write humans well he needs his brother's help. That is because humans are a mix of light and darkness, of selflessness and selfishness, of logic and emotions, of mind and heart. He approaches Salem as if she were to function exactly like him, but she is much more similar to his brother. Emotional and driven by her personal wishes.

So, the Gods are the writers and RWBY and the others are characters in their hands. When is it that a character overcomes their author? When they end up communicating something their author did not see coming. In this way, they surprise the writers and help them grow. This is probably how RWBY is gonna solve its conflict.

The girls will end up embodying a theme and a teaching the Gods and Salem did not account for. In this way, they will defeat them, symbolically.

At the same time, a meta-reading can very well apply to RWBY's most existentialist themes.

Let's consider these 2 lines:

Weiss: We are not in a book and even if we were we know how it ends, right over there.

Cinder: Oh, come now. Even if you know how the story ends, that doesn't make it any less fun to watch.

Even if all lives end in the same way (death), it doesn't mean they are not beautiful and worthy to be lived. Even if you know how the story ends, it doesn't mean you should not live it fully. You should dive deep into it, embrace wonder and go through it to the very end. Skipping pages means you are just giving up on new opportunities to grow and bloom.

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

Melisandre is one of my favorite minor POVs mostly because of how GRRM plays with the all-powerful mage trope. See the deconstruction with her is that despite her antics, she’s actually very powerful and all her visions are legit. It’s just that she absolutely sucks at interpreting said visions, mostly because she has all these preconceived notions and is very stubborn about them. And even when the answer is staring right at her (literally), she just doubles down. And it can be very frustrating as a reader, to be quite honest.

Like she’s been super gung ho about Stannis Baratheon being Azor Ahai/the Prince that Was Promised, though only R’hllor know why, to the extent that she will flat-out ignore any evidence to the contrary. Her visions in ADWD essentially scream that Azor Ahai is someone different (not Stannis!) but good ol’ Mel just won’t budge.

There’s this very hilarious interaction in Jon’s 10th ADWD chapter that essentially spells out all of her problems with visions and prophecy, with Jon serving as the reader’s proxy in some ways.

This interaction happens during Alys Karstark’s wedding feast and Patchface drops some of his weird jingles, which Mel very unsettled by. So she’s turns to Jon and is like, “ugh that dude is so creepy, all my visions tell me so”. And Jon’s reaction to this is super funny, because he’s like:

“You see fools in your fire, but no hint of Stannis?”

Wow Jon lmao

He just had to call her out like that, unprovoked. But his frustration makes sense. He’s constantly been asking about Stannis’ whereabouts but Mel’s responses just aren’t very satisfactory (in his opinion).

Then we get this next line which really just says everything about Mel’s stubbornness and perfectly embodies the deconstruction of the all-powerful seer trope.

“When I search for him all I see is snow.”

So Mel looks for Stannis, whom she believes to be Azor Ahai, in her fires but doesn’t find him. Instead she sees “snow”. And this part tracks with her POV too. We know from her chapter that she constantly sees Jon in her visions. It’s how we get the very interesting “I pray for a glimpse of Azor Ahai, and R’hllor shows me only Snow” line.

So one would think that Mel might go: “Hmmm I look for the prophesied savior, but I don’t see Stannis. Instead, I only see Snow. I don’t doubt R’hllor’s power so if my visions are true, then maybe I need to rethink a few things”.

One would think…

But nope!

And Jon’s like “Hey maybe you’re not seeing Stannis because he’s super dead, ever think about that Mel?” And she proceeds to spout the usual Azor Ahai stuff and even mentions Dragonstone:

“When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone. Dragonstone is the place of smoke and salt.”

To which Jon’s replies, “uhhhh news flash Stannis was not born on Dragonstone so that doesn’t track”.

Obviously this is Jon’s skepticism but I like to think that he took the reader’s place here. Because many of us have asked ourselves, why oh why would Mel think of Stannis just because she saw Dragonstone? Like yeah, he’s the Lord of Dragonstone but he wasn’t born there. It’s quite a valid question and how does Mel counter it? She doubles down and twist herself into a pretzel to make Stannis fit (even though he doesn’t fit at all!)

Really, Jon’s reaction is essentially what would happen if someone dropped me into the world of ASOIAF and gave me the chance to meet Mel and ask her a few questions. I’d be quite frustrated, just as Jon is here. And to be fair, the reader has a lot of auxiliary information (e.g., Jon’s parentage) that Mel doesn’t have.

But then the next few lines really illustrate just why poor Mel can be so frustrating. Because Jon’s follow up is,

“And what of Mance? Is he lost as well? What do your fires show?”

And what does Mel say?

“The same, I fear. Only snow.”

…??!

Mel!😭

Seriously, I cannot! This is the exact same situation as with Stannis. She looks for a king but only sees Snow. This makes me wonder then, based on previous wording, if she’s specifically looking for “the King Beyond the Wall” (not just “Mance”) and only seeing Snow - at this point, Jon has all but supplanted Mance.

So once again, one would think that Mel would go: hmmmm I look for the King Beyond the Wall but I see Jon Snow and not Mance Rayder. Seeing that Mance’s power has been diminished and Jon Snow is now taking control of the wildlings, maybe I should re-evaluate a few things”.

Yeah, one would think…

Homegirl is trying her best, she really is. But sadly, her best can only get E for Effort.

And at this point the reader is just done with Mel, and Jon is too:

“You are seeing cinders dancing in the updraft.”

He doesn’t even bother to phase it as a question lmao. He just calls her out and doesn’t care.

And we’re in his POV so he’s thinking of the lower case “snow”. Also, why in the hell is Mel referring to Jon like this?

Anyway, this is why I think Jon serves as the reader’s proxy in this conversation because it’s like a thinking exercise (facilitated by the narrative) that ultimately goes nowhere because Mel is so, so stubborn.

Because if we really break it down:

R’hllor/the Narrative: Who do you see when you search for the king/Azor Ahai?

Mel: Jon Snow

R’hllor/the Narrative: Ok…and who do you see when you search for the King Beyond the Wall?

Mel: Erm, Jon Snow…

R’hllor/the Narrative/the Reader: Great! So say it with me. The king you’re looking for is J-

Mel: STANNIS BARATHEON!

R’hllor/the Reader: …?!

And before anyone claims that this is a misdirect, Mel really is seeing Jon Snow. Straight from the horse’s mouth:

“I am seeing skulls. And you. I see your face every time I look into the flames.”

Friend….I don’t even know what to say anymore…

[thatgirl4815]

Freedom & Corruption, Ep 8

Inspired by @ranchthoughts’ post discussing boundaries and crossing those boundaries, I was thinking about the ways these characters interpret the idea of “freedom." That intersection creates an interesting contrast for the core characters.

Ray, Mew, and Alcohol

For Top and Mew, the idea of freedom is especially interesting given their differences in lifestyle. Top has maintained a level of sexual promiscuity—freedom, if you will—that Mew has rejected for much of his adult life. The same goes for drug habits. Mew, then, comes across as a character so deeply entrenched in his own values that his idea of “freedom” varies significantly from other characters. 

What’s interesting is that in his current state of bitterness, Mew seems to crave this idea of “freedom” that he’s witnessed in other characters, most notably Ray. But I think Mew knows intrinsically that Ray drinking himself into oblivion only gives the appearance of freedom—it is far from it. If anything, I’d argue Ray’s habits are the greatest sign of his lack of freedom; he’s bound to alcohol and drugs. They’re restricting his freedom, yet Mew desires Ray’s lifestyle to let go. That’s the terrible irony of drugs and alcohol—what starts as freedom from pain can bind one to it permanently; a temporary freedom becomes a permanent dependence. Mew knows this, and he desires the temporary escape, even as he knows that Ray himself has gone far beyond the temporary. I don’t think Mew is scared of forming that same dependency because he’s confident in his own control in a way that Ray never has been.

Mew has something of a superiority complex, at least compared to Ray, and it’s informing their current dynamic just like their old one. Mew is giving in to Ray’s habits, but he hasn’t fallen to Ray’s level yet—not truly. Top and Cheum fear the same thing happening to Mew that happened to Ray, when that freedom becomes destructive (more on that below).

Ray and Sand

If Ray is bound to this corruptive lifestyle, then his freedom is reasonably limited. He couldn’t control what happened to his mother anymore than he can control what is happening to him (or so he believes...I think the belief that he has no control does more damage than his actual lack of control). So where does he have control? Where can he find freedom? Sand.

“When I’m with you, I’m so damn happy.”

^This happiness is the temporary relief Ray seeks in alcohol, even as it is corrupting him. But Sand doesn’t have any of those same destructive side effects. Sand is a healthy escape. Sand, in many ways, represents freedom from the pain Ray is facing. Ray wants to establish control over the freedom Sand offers, because control over Sand is ultimately much more attainable than control over his other form of escape: drugs/alcohol. 

Top and Cheum

@waitmyturtles addresses this in excellent detail here, but I wanted to include Top and Cheum’s perspectives on freedom versus corruption here. They immediately see Mew’s behavior as the latter, which I find especially ironic for Top, given that he drinks and does drugs himself. If it was someone else in the group, like Boston or even Cheum, I think we would not see this same reaction. Mew has expressed such disapproval of bingedrinking and drug use that the other characters immediately react negatively to his interest in it. 

I don’t want to say they’re invalid for showing concern, because it is concerning to see a friend with such rigid values reject those values completely; however, the way they go about it is encroaching on Mew’s freedoms. Inviting Top to Mew’s party was a low blow from Cheum, and I still can’t fathom why she thought that was a good idea. 

I'm still pretty new to the squad, but I touched on the concept of ephemerality and permanence, so I’m going to tag the ephemerality squad here! :) @slayerkitty @ranchthoughts @chickenstrangers @lurkingshan @twig-tea @distant-screaming @clara-maybe-ontheroad @neuroticbookworm @elizabethsebestianhedgehog @waitmyturtles

[lulu2992]

I’d like to (finally) talk about this interview with Mark Thompson, Narrative Director on Far Cry 4:

I love it when devs talk about their work because it’s always super interesting and informative! This video is no exception.

But what struck me most when I first saw the interview is what he says about Far Cry 3, a title he also worked on as a Level Design Director, which I believe means he was not (or barely) involved in the writing of the script. When he mentions what he thinks the issues with the game were and what had to be “fixed” in Far Cry 4, the thing is that... he often contradicts what Jeffrey Yohalem, Lead Writer on Far Cry 3, explained in various articles.

Under the cut, I highlighted some parts of Mark Thompson’s interview (in red) and compared them to Jeffrey Yohalem’s words (in blue, with the sources) so you can see how different their points of view are.

In this case, when it comes to the story and meaning of Far Cry 3, I’m inclined to give more credence to the Lead Writer’s explanations, but I think this example perfectly illustrates how even people who worked on the same project can have very different (and sometimes equally valid) opinions, understandings, and feelings about it, and why it can therefore be difficult for the audience to determine what the “truth” or the “right” interpretation is…

Open world vs story

MT: We ended up shipping a game where the open world had a lot of cool stuff, but it didn’t have a lot of depth or meaning, and it had almost no connection to what was happening in the story. And in fact, in some ways, the two were kind of opposed and they were kind of conflicting each other. So, on one hand, the story itself had this ticking time bomb of “I have these friends that I need to rescue, but holy sh*t, collecting plants, finding that next animal I need for the next upgrade, getting that next skill point… Oh, look, there’s a radio tower! Wait, wasn’t I heading to that outpost?” And then you’re like, “Oh yeah, sh*t, my friend Keith’s trapped in the basement, I should probably go rescue him… I’m a terrible friend.” That was my main goal: fix this sh*t and make sure that the story and the open world speak to each other, complement each other; strip everything down so that the story and the open world are the same thing and it’s the same game.

JY: People who have looked at the surface of the game think that the story and the game are at war with each other as they are in most games, with the story just plugging potholes and the gameplay is going along its merry way. I think it’s very exaggerated that, “Oh, go save the friends! Go save the friends!” but most people are out on the island doing all this other crazy stuff and experiencing the gameplay. And that’s actually the point of the story. It’s not a game about go save your friends. It’s a game about – doing a lot of picking skins from things, and wait, it’s just a pile of meat – this doesn’t even make sense, yet I’m still doing it instead of saving the friends. (Rock Paper Shotgun - Dec. 19, 2012)

The “white savior” trope

MT: We were definitely aware of some of the tropes that we fell into - unintentionally in some cases, intentionally in some - and (…) almost the first thing that we did was decide how we were gonna address the white savior trope, the outsider who comes in and helps simple people with his outsider’s kind of more advanced understanding of the world. (...) The first thing we said was, “This guy is from Kyrat, no matter what happens. That is the most important thing; he is part of this world, he belongs here.”

JY: “It’s a first-person game, and Jason is a 25-year old white guy from Los Angeles. From Hollywood. So his view of what’s going on on this island is his own view, and you happen to be looking through his eyes, so you’re seeing his view,” Yohalem explained. “It’s set on an island in the South Pacific, so immediately the thing that comes to mind is the white colonial trope, the Avatar trope. I started with that, and it’s like, ‘Here’s what pop culture thinks about traveling to a new place,’ and the funny thing is, that’s an exaggeration of most games, they just don’t expose it. (The Penny Arcade Report - Dec. 17, 2012)

JY: There’s a reason why Jason is a 25 year old white guy from Hollywood – these are all ideas that are in his head. You’re seeing things through his eyes. (...) It’s not that [Citra] needed a white saviour at all. She didn’t need a white guy at all. She was just looking for the ultimate warrior and someone to be her gun. (...) If this was about the white messiah motif, would I be so stupid as to have a main character’s nickname be Snow White? I’m making fun of that! (Rock Paper Shotgun - Dec. 19, 2012)

The player and the protagonist

MT: When we were doing the script review, almost immediately, the first thing we would do would be, “Okay, so how many lines does Ajay have? Okay, cut that by 75%”, and then we would review it and then cut out even more. Whenever possible, we would set up a scenario where we know or we think we know how players would react, and so we would remove the line that the character would actually say and then have the other person react to it. “Oh, you think that, do you?” - in that kind of way, so they’re like, “Oh f*ck, how did he know I was gonna say that?” Whereas, if the protagonist said that line, they’re like, “Oof, I wouldn’t have said that”, and then suddenly you’re kind of broken out of the experience. (…) When you’re in first-person, all you hear is this disconnected voice that might not be agreeing with what you’re doing. So, again, it’s just about stripping away those barriers of immersion so you can imagine yourself in this scenario.

JY: In Far Cry 3, Jason is a character and he’s not the player. The player is another character in the game. Sometimes Jason disagrees with the player, and sometimes Jason agrees with him. And the magic of that is that then it doesn’t matter! Basically, as long as the whole narrative is directed towards what the player is feeling—which for me is how videogames should be—then I get to target Jason as a resource where players can go: “I disagree with Jason.” And the player gets to convince Jason to do something else. So instead of trying to force the two of them together, I’ve decoupled them. (Killscreen - Dec. 12, 2012)

[gege-wondering-around]

Chris and Derek are a goated duo

I feel like we - if you think the same of course - were robbed of a very powerful and amazing duo - just so you know I'm gonna analysis both characters simultaneously and how they evolved be the two faces of the same coin.

Character analysis:

Both Derek and Chris have a strong sense of justice and duty despite the way they showed it in the early seasons and have great strength in their own fields, that be in combact with weapons or claws.

They are both very family-guided or have a lot of interest in their own families, that being staying in the family business or fighting for their own family and pride.

They both ends up being the only one left - in a generalize measure - of their own families/clans and brings changes to their own after being faced with another prospective that 'lets everyone lives'. And they are both willing to take the risk - whatever it might be - to save others' while being already severely injured.

Both have being 'teachers' to their respective 'young ones' and did fairly well somehow. Chris had Allison and she turned out to be very strong and leader-like, while derek had Isacc, Boyd and Erica and despite the fact two of them died, Derek managed to still teach them something rather valuable about being werewolves.

How they evolved to 'the coin':

throughout the seasons they ends up being the only one they can rely onto when something new comes up or when they need to get information or help to deal with something.

And don't get me wrong, they have other people too, but you remeber it too that Chris specificly went to find Derek in the middle of Brazil and was the only one who remotely knew something about Derek?

Also, example of this is when they were talking about the nogitsune while being imprisoned at the police station, they share their opinions about what to do with Stiles while possessed and despite having different povs they ends up working on it together, especially because they both wanted to save a life and not take one more.

And as they both were the 'bad guys' at the start of the show they surely did a turn around and became some of the 'best guys' who protects people whenever is needed, no questions asked.

Chris Arget passed from hunting down supernatural creatures to helping them killing the actually bad ones, and not killing regardless of being guilty or innocent of any crime.

Derek Hale went from ripping people's throats out almost without a second though on the matter, caring only about power and building a pack for himself, to actually caring for the people he ends up with and not caring about being the Alpha of the situation.

And so, they are opposite yet the same, their willpower leads them the same way but along different paths, they want the same things but try to achive them in two distant ways, they have the same start - as the 'bad one' to someone - but ends up regaining people's respect and love.

Most of the time, this 'two face of the same coin' has a bad interpretation, but I don't think it does right now. If the coin has to faces, no matter how different the faces are, how opposite they might be, they are still part of the same coin. They have the same roots just different branches, maybe different leaves but same fruits.

You might be doing something one way and I might be doing it the other, but if our goal is the same they we are part of the same thing deep down, casue what we are looking for and trying to achive is the same. We are just two different people, and the same goes for opinions, idea, ways of being/working/expressing yourself.

And sometimes you might need someone who does things differelty than you, despite having the same goal, cause maybe what you are failing to understand is what they are the best at and viceversa, so you need the other half of the information to find the solution.

Lastly:

If Chris is willing to kill to protect even if it means killing someone you also care for, then Derek is willing to take the risk, even only upon himself alone, to get back the people he loves.

The difference is: Chris is willing to make a sacrifice, Derek is willing to be it.

(almost all the time)

The goated duo:

So, I believe they are a goated duo that could easily take down almost anything or anyone if needed, when they worked together. That they evolved to be better almost together since I think they both learned something from one another.

They went from total enemies to best allies and they are both the best at what they do cause they basically saw it all. They hold such strength on their own that if they worked together - which they don't do on the field (from what I can tell from the show and the movie - they could probably hunt down the bad guys and be done with them in a few business days.

They would've been a powerful duo if only they had the time to be it.

[ogsherlockholmes]

Hi, you seem like the person to go to for this, I've been reading the original Sherlock Holmes for the first time and having quite some fun, I really like Sherlock, but I've found myself unable to continue recently because I just really can't stand Watson 😭 at first it was his racism what turned me off mostly, but then just how he continued to treat Holmes with mild interest like he was some kinda case instead of with the same friendship holmes showed for him just got on my nerves too much and I got sick of reading from his pov. Any advice? I really wish I could get over this or find him any redeeming qualities but I really just think he's a dick!

Hi :) thanks for asking me, I’ll try my best to answer

One of the biggest problems when it comes to classic books is always the sheer amount of racism (and other types of hate) embedded into the text. Sometimes you’ll be reading a really nice book then BOOM they say the n word. It’s very difficult to avoid, and there are other Holmes stories (in particular, The Three Gables) where there is racism. I think in terms of that, it’s important to educate ourselves on the context of the times and, obviously not accept it, but acknowledge it (I’m not the best person to talk about this, there are other sources which will be more helpful for this topic).

In terms of Watson… it’s personal preference. Personally, I read Watson as being at first startled by Holmes, then intrigued (as you might have guessed, I am a Johnlock shipper, so I do see Watson’s view of Holmes in a different light). Unfortunately, I can’t force you to have the same positive perspective as me, but that’s just reading. No one reads the same way, or takes in information as others do, so we can’t judge each other or expect others to interpret the text as we did. That’s where healthy debates about reading comes in, and that’s perfectly okay.

Watson… if you don’t find him agreeable, you don’t find him agreeable. Maybe your opinion of him changes as you continue to read, or you might find an adaptation where you prefer him (might I recommend Granada Holmes? Granada Watson is impossible not to like- or I think so anyway). I could list why I personally like Watson, but that wouldn’t be fruitful. All I can say is keep an open mind, he might grow on you.

Additionally, if your sick of his POV, which is fair enough, (I think I speak for a lot of people that listening to the same man talk can be annoying), there are other stories written from alternative POVs. The Mazarin Stone is third person, and The Lion’s Mane is a Holmes POV, and The Blanched Soldier (I think) is too. There are other stories which are also Holmes POVs, but within Watson’s narrative.

I hope this is helpful, and remember that your opinion on fiction is perfectly valid, so don’t put yourself down for it :)

[akoo9]

Who do you think fell in love first: Yashiro or Doumeki?

I love this Simple yet important question…..i think about this each time i re-read the story…..I actually have abit different view about “love”…..i have this idea that love cannot come at first stage…but its a result….. so there is two answers for ur question (u’ve to bear with the strange assignment i will write)

First answer is that….both of them fell into each other at first sight (just their timing was different) doumeki saw yashiro first at the office and fell at first sight or got attracted to him without knowing what it is…….later when d got transferred,and entered Yashiro’s office …..yashiro in that moment once his eyes landed on doumeki,he also fell in love with d…yashiro was having this look towards doumeki….

As we know,yashiro is smart one and he read ppl at first glance,but he’s here gazing doumeki ….he’s definitely interested in what he’s seeing considering doumeki is his type add on that doumeki’s non-readable vibes.

Yashiro couldn’t even resist doumeki and went straight up to sucking his dik….funny part is how later on(yashiro said that doumeki should have said earlier that he’s impo)but boiiii u didn’t even gave a chance…u just straight up went into it, and breaking ur rule for somone u just saw….

So both had same start….just doumeki saught yashiro first…(that’s also soldfiy doumeki’s answer when he said (that he will have similar feelings to yashiro even if they had met earlier too)something like that….doumeki just said the information that yashiro smiles when he’s mad.

next pic is yashiro smiling towards doumeki …..unlike what everyone says that b carful of him he smile when he’s mad…..i bet doumeki from this moment started to develop his attachment aka(love feelings)bcz yashiro treated him differently from the start

And after this smile is where love starts……in my way of thinking…..they both were felling into each other’s…….

U can already scan in ur mind the chapters at beginning and how doumeki has the special treatment from yashiro….even before the bath scene were doumeki admit(he never been this attracted to somone) ….so this make us imagine and interpret that yashiro fell first…..

doumeki was more aware of his feelings anyway

But we have yashiro not realizing his deepest feelings for doumeki even till ch56…..this boii taking forever to realise he fell for d…..yashiro fell the hardest into doumeki to level that it scares him too since beginning…..once it kicked in he freaked out and threw away doumeki

Till ch56 we still don’t know doumeki’s internal dialogue about this all……if they both fell into each other’s at first sight……then fell in love at close timing or same time

We might find out later doumeki’s feelings and how he’s dieing and yearning for yashiro too…so probably not just yashiro , but might both of them fell into each other the hardest

Back to simple answer: doumeki fell first,yashiro the hardest (technically both of them experience same thing at same level let’s just wait and see doumeki’s side of this)