#I mean he makes not one logical point in that whole article

[thetardisisnotourdivision]

So hhow would you like us to perform Shakespeare, sir? Mouthing it? Sign language? Interpretive dance? Oh, you mean you're a pretentious gatekeeping snob who thinks Shakespeare was some aristocratic literary genius. The man was the son of a glove maker and the actors would have been working class, some of them will have been foreigners (I know, shocking, right?), and you're saying they wouldn't have had strong accents - because that's what you mean, isn't it? Give me a break. Go do your research, you idiot, and then you can write stupid articles about Shakespeare.

[meraki-yao]

Now I'm curious to know all the "candies" between Nick and Tay 👀 lol I don't ship them but I also find it interesting that some fans really ship real people together and gather evidence or proof of it. If its fine with you to share it pls do 🙏 but if not its also fine :)

Huh...

Actually, sure! I kinda wanted to share some of these at times but again I understand that rps is a complicated subject.

A couple of quick prefaces though:

1, If you’re uncomfortable with the subject, again, please don’t read under the post

2, I don’t have all the candies because I really just view them in passing, so I’m just gonna write/translate the ones I’ve seen, remember and find at least a logical speculation

3, I need to reiterate this in case my position in this gets misunderstood: Me writing about “candies” isn’t because these are MY opinion or things *I* found or *I* believe in them being evidence. I am just a translator and messenger.

4, (this one is gonna sound a little academic lol) Two things I realized when thinking about this “candy eating” culture is that Chinese people have a very difference understanding of platonic/romantic affection/relationships with the Western world, and that they look at the candies with rose-tinted glass. Chinese/Asian people are generally a lot less affectionate with their personal relationships, for example friends wouldn’t say “love you” to each other if they’re just friends, nor would they expand their friend group to the others easily or other stuff. And these people who look for candy go into their “investigation” already with the belief that “they are together”, everything remotely resembling a close relationship will automatically be interpreted as romantic. I thought about it a lot, and honestly among the “candies” I’ve seen, most of them are a matter of interpretation: yes those are things couples will do, but it wouldn’t be weird if friends did it too. So they’re not that seriously or up for further speculation. There is I think only one “candy” that I can’t quite say the same, which I will explain and elaborate on in this post. 

5, Please remember that the people who do this do it in good nature: something I didn’t make clear in my post yesterday, which is on me, is that the fans do want them to be together, but they’re not like… yandere level or something. If they’re just friends the fans won’t be upset or betrayed or anything, they just prefer to see them as romantic. They don’t mean any harm, and they don’t cause any harm because China is physically and digitally too far away for them to actually fuck shit up, and they understand the lines of parasocial relationships: those who met with Taylor during his China trip in December know to, and didn’t bring up this in front of him. They know where to draw the line, and whoever doesn’t and starts becoming a problem gets kicked out of the community. This is meant for fun.

6, Ok Future Meraki here, turns out, there’s a lot to translate, a lot more than I anticipated Jesus Christ and I do want to get this post how within today and make it a reasonable length, so I’m just gonna do two events and the one that I mentioned in 4. If yall want a part 2 let me know.

Ok with that being said, the main event under the cut:

In December they made a whole article about “candies” from December, and to quickly summarise (again noted that all of this is speculation, I didn’t and can’t fact check them, and I’m just a translator) (also this ended up way longer than I anticipated so for photo reference if you can please go to the link of the original article):

Academy Gala:

Nick and Taylor both attended the gala: Since the strike ended up to that point, the two times Nick attends a public event, Taylor’s there too (GQ men of the year and Academy Gala), and for both times he’s wearing Cartier’s Tank Must Watch (remember this watch, I’m gonna elaborate on it later because it is the only candy that even I can’t say it’s a matter of interpretation)

In various pictures of the night’s party that other people took, the boys can be seen together in the background

How the photography worked that night was magazine photographers wandered around the venue and randomly found people to take some relatively candid photos: so people who were walking/sitting/in any way sticking together would be photographed together. So best friends and married couples would be photographed together, which is what happened to Meryl Streep, Greta Gerwig, Saoirse Ronan, and Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy and their wives. With that logic, Taylor and Nick were caught by the photographer together TWICE, in clearly different places. Later Korean fans (with the same “candy-searching” mindset) read the time on Taylor’s watch in the photos: one was 8:30, one was 9:50. The implication is that they were together for at least that period of time (nearly 1.5 hours)

In both photos of the boys together, Nick’s elbow is…straight up leaning into Taylor's chest. In a photo with Kaia, Nick’s friend and co-star from Bottoms (Brittany), there’s visible space between Nick and Kaia but none between Nick and Taylor (… okay I’m gonna pop in with my own opinion on the latter one real quick: I really think that one is just Nick being a gentleman)  

During that night, Taylor re-posted an Instagram post from July onto Little Red Book: but the things is in the comment section of the original Instagram post, Taylor teasingly pretends to not know Nick; and according to the posting time and the time calculated in 3, Nick would have been watching him post that to Little Red Book.

Nick got a photo with Taylor’s friend Jay Ellis (Jay and Taylor follow each other on Instagram, and Taylor comments under Jay’s post), even though Nick and Jay don’t seem to have any direct connections. Kaia and Taylor started following each other on Instagram after the event.

While other people who got photos with Taylor posted them, in Taylor’s Instagram Post for the night: He only included his photo with Nick, the rest are all solo portraits of himself. Not only that: he edited the background of the photo so it’s just them, and proceeded to put the photo in the middle of the post.

a bunch of Taylor's good friends, including Taylor’s cousin went to like Nick’s post for the academy gala night. Taylor’s sister Ash shared Taylor’s post to her stories: 2 photos of Taylor himself, and the one photo of Taylor and Nick. Taylor mentioned in a past interview if he had any emotional or relationship (I don’t know which one is the right translation, the original wording is 感情) issues, he would talk to Ash. (please note that I didn’t not and don’t know how to fact-check any of the things mentioned above except for Ash’s Instagram)

Conclusion/ Speculation (okay the academy gala part alone took me 40 minutes what the fuck): I cannot reiterate this enough: THIS IS JUST SPECULATION DO NOT TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY but under the assumption that Taylor and Nick are a thing, the serious of shenanigans that happened that night, especially with the family and friends stuff in 6,7,8, was interpreted as they announcing it to their personal social circle. AGAIN THIS IS SPECUALTION DON’T TAKE THIS SERIOSULY 

Taylor’s China Trip

On 7th December, Taylor had a photo shoot at the GQ gala venue, but spent the rest of the afternoon taking photos and signing things for fans. Among those, one was the photo of him and Nick from the academy gala just three days ago. He was visibly extra happy and showed off the photo to the crowd, unlike the other photos which he simply gets it, signs it, and then gives it back.

This day was also the start of “Taylor giving Nick/Henry a moustache”: throughout the trip, he drew on four photos of the two of them

(This one is a … really big stretch) among the four, one of them was the GQ magazine shoot, and he first drew the moustache on Nick’s face, giggling “I’ll sign on Nick’s face”, signed his own signature, then just when he was about to give the magazine back he suddenly changed his mind and said “wait wait I wanna do something on my face”, and then drew a crown on his head while muttering “crown prince”. And the thing is… historically, George Villers had a moustache. And then he drew a moustache on Nick and a crown on himself. Also, one of the most popular Chinese RWRB fic on AO3 is called “The King’s Palace”, and the premise is putting Henry in George place as the social climber and the Duke of Buckingham (it is literally George’s character with blonde hair and a different name), and Alex as the crown prince who ascended to the throne and is also utterly infatuated with Henry. So… yeah.

When he drew the fourth photo, which was the piano scene, the fan who asked said “Oh you’re so nice to Nick!” and according to their description (there’s no video), Taylor blushed a little and said “yeaahhhhh” with a big grin

While Taylor was in China people were stirring shit up on Twitter about him, and during the Twitter drama, Nick liked Taylor’s Academy Gala post.

The boys liked the same video on Instagram but from different accounts (a video about a pony in the snow)

During the trip, Taylor was seen wearing a white button-up with blue stripes. Nick has been seen wearing a shirt that looks identical before.

Cartier Watch (aka the one that makes me do a double take)

Taylor used to wear a lot of Cartier watches until he started wearing Tagheuer last July due to a commercial partnership

Nick likes wearing Omega watches. In fact, Henry’s watch in the movie is Nick’s own omega watch. He also has a commercial partnership with Omega.

But then starting last year, both of them were seen wearing matching Cartier’s Tank Must Watches (the silver on with a black surface and a sapphire crown): Taylor can be seen wearing it in the 5th photos of his September post, while Nick can be seen wearing it during the GQ gala, the Academy Gala, in Milan during fan interactions, and last weekend in his TIOY co-star’s Instagram story.

And the thing about this watch is (and here is where I need to reiterate that I’m just translating, I didn’t fact check this) 1, watch is a typical thing to give a lover, and you must be familiar with their wrist size 2, Cartier is a pretty romantic brand 3, the price of this watch is closer to what Taylor’s used to wearing but much cheaper than Omega 4, This specific watch is a popular watch to give a partner/lover, 5, David and Victoria Beckham’s relationship was discovered because paparazzi saw the Cartier watch he gave her and connected dots together

Jesus Christ at this point I should consider getting a part time job in translation

This was fun but this took me so much time, it’s ~2000 words long

Again, all of this was found and speculate for fun, and mean no ill will, and haven’t, and won’t harm the boys, please understand that and don’t take this took seriously. If you find this interesting and want a part two, let me know.

[stormblessed95]

Okay so I’m on my fourth watch of the travel show

It gets better the more you watch, they are just so much fun

They have me smiling from ear to ear the whole way through

I know there is a lot of conversation about the car conversation but seriously, apart from Jungkooks beautiful ‘finally’ (and I’m glad that is in English so we hear it without mistranslation), what struck me upon this watch, is that he could actually mean them being in content together. 

Hear me out, but the kid spent the better part of the first half, and even to a degree still asking in the later half, of 2023 begging to go live with Jimin, inviting him over on lives. Including the bed begging live days after this filming, and now I’m framing it that he was probably thinking they have filmed this show, why can’t they have a live? I know that the show wasn’t going to be aired straight away but I can totally see him going with that thought. 

But it just struck me, he’d been asking and probably denied so many times, whereas Jimin had gone live with Yoongi and Hobi etc during work promotions, but denied JK. This was his olive branch, his two birds one stone, a trip for them to spend time together when free, but also for them to be alone in content (albeit airing a year later atp). If we remember too that they could not leave SK without work and a permit, the chicken and egg, hence the show. Jimin had the time at that point to plan it with the company, it makes sense he pushed it, though I’m sure Jungkook was involved too. 

People are moaning about Jungkooks attitude and they are so wrong and miserable, not to mention they misunderstand him. They guy is glowing with his Jimin, he’s being cheeky and kids around and it’s so beautiful to see it. To see their dynamic, as they are. 

Seeing them say they hasn’t planned another trip in NY, and the Forbes article said this too, they must have thought it a success enough to plan jeju and so on. I think a post from another blogger here also helped frame this for me, bc at the end of the day they talked about and proposed the show, just the two of them, to the company and needed a deliverable product. This involved planning to a degree, scouting locations and a vague idea of activities. They definitely had more freedom than Bv, and they had to rely on their natural chemistry, which is there in spades, but they still had to deliver/ this is where Jimins panic comes in when he is sick, bc he has to power through to make the show work, hence the are you sure? It’s so logical when I think about it all in that framed way. 

And mainly I think this also because they do not present as people who had had a falling out, or massive distance, or had issues, or something more ridiculous people are proposing. I mean logically do we really think Jimin (sensible Jimin) would even think it a good idea to do this if there was bad blood or feelings. Exactly, he would not.  There was no tension there, not that I saw anyway. They just vibe with each other. They present as pretty domestic, in tune and loveable goofballs. 

Also when you think about MS application being a month after this, they had to have seen and spoken to each other, it’s a complete reach to think they didn’t. Also, it’s their habit, Jimin literally said the same sentence in the very brief restaurant scene, that JK says to him in the doc and we know that was a complete fib. Also I feel the way JK looks at the camera in that scene and in the hand holding scene is very telling about how he felt around the cameras at first, especially when Jimin touches his throat, like he hesitated. 

I also hold in mind that at the end of the day we got about 5/10% of their time on screen, the rest is on the cutting room floor, and also probably not even filmed (esp given Jimins condition). Leaving them plenty of time for them. 

Just my thoughts. 

.

[princelylove]

i am slowly getting more and more annoyed with mr zeppeli himself i ate my fingers as i read your response to my ask AJAJHSUSH. thank you so much your highness i am burning my whole house rn.

actually, which yanderes do you think would be the most ANNOYING. like, not violent or anything but just plain annoying. the kind of people that make you wanna tear your hair out or commit a slow and painful murder.

(inspired heavily by narancia because i have a feeling he would be the most annoying little shit to deal with)

-🌸 anon

What an adorable thing you are. Don’t bite too hard, it’ll hinder your ability to compliment me. 

Oh, God. Most annoying to me, personally? Not in any order in particular, I feel as if this one would change depending on my mood:

Bruno hovers too much, and he tends to both infantilize and put a lot of responsibility on his darling. He expects his darling to parent Narancia but won’t let them handle a knife by themself. I’m doing a character study on him right now, so that’s all I’ll say, but just know that he is God’s punishment for whatever you did in a past life to deserve him.

Narancia is annoying- he’s a young guy who never got taught how to deep clean, spends his free time on his pull up bar, expects you to cook for him since he’s literally never been tasked with it, whines when you try to get up and go to the bathroom in the middle of your six hours minimum long cuddling session, doesn’t know how to properly take care of an entire human being so just throws junk food at you and hopes you don’t starve, the list goes on. He loves you, he really does, he just doesn’t know what he’s doing. For someone as prissy as myself, I would die the first day. He doesn’t understand why I put those rollers in my hair- he just watched me straighten it, doesn’t that cancel out??? That’s stupid, oh, and another thing, what’s the point of owning five different versions of the same color of nail polish? It’s all red! Just have one, that isn’t crazy expensive! On top of Narancia being the worst roommate ever- he’s very irritable, and doesn’t really have a problem pulling a knife on you to get what he wants. He’s not as quick to snap as people think, but that doesn’t mean he won’t. Show signs of liking something more than him and he’ll maul it. 

It’s hard to set Cioccolata and Secco away from each other, they’re basically inseparable, but Cioccolata is capable of using logic, and Secco is not. If you’re on the ground in pain, obviously you’re going to have a hard time answering the little puppy’s questions. Secco doesn’t understand why you won’t play with him- he’s shoving his toy right in front of you, are you blind?? Play! With! Him! Throw it, play tug of war, SOMETHING, COME ON. There’s an interesting dynamic depending on who exactly you’re intended for- Cioccolata, Secco, or both. Let’s just talk about Secco alone, since Cioccolata isn’t annoying, he’s just a bit too affectionate sometimes. Secco’s forgetful, rude, jumps to conclusions, and you don’t even know what he looks like since he’s always wearing that bitch suit-esque thing. He nudges you to throw his toy- he probably thinks of you as human rather than another dog, and doesn’t understand why you aren’t behaving like Cioccolata does. If you were Cioccolata’s darling alone, or a shared darling, he’d probably think of you as another dog. But he was here first, so he’s got dibs on the good dog bed, AND cioccolata’s lap. As if you’d want that. Secco begs and begs and begs for you to give him as much attention as you possibly can- and somehow, you’re never doing it right. It’s like talking to a child who has surpassed the ‘Why?’ stage and has moved on to greater conquests- annoying you so badly that you ask Cioccolata if it’s fine to have a sip of his ‘not for dogs’ drink. Or two. Or three. Or the entire bottle. 

Rohan doesn’t ever shut the fuck up. He quite literally always has something to say, despite wanting to “observe.” He read an article this morning, let’s go visit the place it mentioned even though it’s a three hour train ride and supposed to rain for the rest of the week. He always wants to go explore- even when he promised that you could both stay home today and do something you want to do. It doesn’t make sense to Rohan- why wouldn’t you want to go see what the world has to offer? Probably because this is the fourth temple he’s wanted to visit this week and you don’t feel like going up two hundred stairs. (If his darling cannot walk, he makes sure it’s accessible beforehand. You’re not getting out of coming with him.) Rohan’s big on healthy living, and he feels a sense of superiority for eating right, and working out very consistently. He wants his darling to be perfectly well as well- how can he push you to your limits if you’re not at your best? You’d probably sleep better if he stopped talking for three hours past his initial ‘goodnight.’ 

Hazamada… is… he’s certainly a character! The literal only reason why he isn’t forcing himself upon his darling is because he’s too much of a coward- and that’s not my interpretation, that’s canon. His hobbies include bullying kittens and small animals, not showering, collecting manga, stalking idols, and tennis! Isn’t that nice, he does sports, he’s only a basement dweller half of the time. It isn’t even somewhat attractive when he tries to get it on with his darling, he’s like a dog humping your leg. He’s the type to call you a stupid bitch because you politely suggested he should wear deodorant before he hits on you. He’s canonically an exhibitionist- imagine sitting in class and looking over to check the clock and he’s just staring back at you while adjusting his pants. I’d switch schools. 

[mr-period]

Remembering something forgotten ————Where is Jimmy boy?

I feel I may find some thing that be hidden in S2.New to tumblr,and English is not my first language,hope what I want to express can be understand correctly,and plz forgive me if there's errors of some religion words.

The famous magic theory has mentioned many things wrong in S2, and some plots are deliberately set to be unobtrusive, suspicious slides off them like water slides off ducks. But the drawback of magic theory is that it sets the whole script to nothingness. The key to solving puzzles is to have practical meaning. It is a fallacious to make the whole story illusory just for put all the contents into the theory.

For abstract :S2 contains a hidden story line of the resurrection of Jesus under the love story.Like mentioned in the bonus video,S2 contains not only large amounts of Easter eggs for the second coming in S3,but really a character might be Jesus under the noses of the audience.So for me the S2 is like Neil Gaiman rushing into Amazon Prime’s senior office,throwing the script on the desk and roaring:“GIVE ME SEASON 3 OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!”

Before we begin,I need to clarify some roles or directions.

First of all,according to some puzzle we have in S1&S2,like the body change at the end of S1,or the hidden goats in 202,the clues of mystery in the show always have an obvious answer, even it feels make no sense before realize the link between.All the information from the focusing places in the picture can be used.But like the shortage of the magic theory,it is unacceptable to distort the story itself just to fix a theory.Actually I still not figure out all the puzzles in S2,so in the second part of this post about my personal theory of who is telling the story and who is watching, I will point out that it's an assumption but not an inference.

Secondly,there are multiple story lines in S2,three love stories above,the hidden line about Jim/Resurrection of Jesus,the main line frame to explain the logic of the whole script,and the story of Metatron.What's more,the crew also prepared a large amount of Easter eggs.Some of them,such as the tardis bgm in the musical instrument store,can be seen as a simply fan joy.

But there are also some Easter eggs not only Easter eggs,but also related to the plot or hidden story.For example,I have write a article about the Blitz minisode is the thing actually in the box(didn't trans it in tumblr yet),because the prop books in he box displayed in 206 is two of the "Lost Quartos" of Shakespeare plays mentioned in the Good Omens Book.It could be an Easter egg,but when you notice that the plot of the prototype of these two plays are mentioned about the bullet(arrow) catch and the show girl,which can link to the Blitz minisode specifically,that makes this Easter egg a Clue.

So after accepting these premises,let's start the detective game.

First of all,we need to question ourselves:There is a character who has his own personal poster and promotional video, who is in the story from the beginning to the end,but no one say goodbye to him?Even Nina and Maggie have a "say goodbye forever",even Beelzebub said thank you to Aziraphale,but this absolute S2 main character had never be mention again in the end.

Where is Jim?

After Gabriel recovered his memory,the friendship established between he and Crowley and Aziraphale vanished immediately.This unbalanced weird feeling was washed away by the coming broken-up and makes the audience have no time to think about that. Actually,it's quite unnatural because the relationship between Jim and Aziracrow have a complete grown arc.We can see Crowley finally give Jim hot chocolate,Aziraphale say to Jim that he said he will protect,and he well,and at the beginning Jim said happily he have two friends.But when Gabriel recovered his memory,Aziraphale look like want to drown Gabriel into holey water and distory him as soon as possible.The relationship they built during six episodes simply disappeared like the undropped second shoe upstairs.The story about Jim is far from over.

That's my explanation about why Jim and Gabriel are two different characters,and also,the rationality of the existence of the hidden story.Then let's come to the key question:

Who is Jim?

In S1,the special effect design used a red fabric to show the blood of Jesus in the crucifixion

and in S2,they obviously find a cheaper way(considering the price of tomato maybe more expensive) to express blood.

Look at these tomatoes here.The released bonus video makes this clue more obvious.Because they deleted the plot about the reason why these tomatoes scattered,but keep this pic in the tight minutes limit.The reason is so obvious :It's a CLUE!

Jesus was stabbed in the ribs and bled,his hands were painful by nailed,and he was forced to drink myrrh.Our Jim is much luckier,his arms are no longer hurts and have sweet hot chocolate.

It is amazing to find so much connected information after realize the story line of Jim,which in turn proves Jim's story is not my delusion.

First thing is the costumes. Apart from the daily look in the bookshop, let's have a look at some other looks of Jim:

Pay attention to the posture of Jim preaching in Pic 3 and the cross formed by the whole shape. Let's take a look at the image of Christ in a religious painting:

Pay attention to clothing and posture. And the familiar posture of holding the cross in the lower right corner. Although most of the scriptures believe that another person helped Jesus carry the cross on the way of crucifixion, but some other view,for example, in<Gospel of John>,believed that Christ himself carried the cross. This familiar gesture corresponds to another neglected clue in 203, which is the purpose of the seemingly unsuccessful trip to Edinburgh: the mysterious statue of Gabriel.

In another word, we can say that it is not Gabriel's statue at all, but Jim's statue.

Far-fetched? In fact, S2 had already showed an image of Christ:

Look at this similar outfit, I think the correspondence to Jim's identity is clearly. By the way, cleansing of the temple occurs in the Holy Week, remember that cute feather duster?I like this joke. And Crowley do be kicked out of the house.

Actually, we have even more obvious hints,that is in the Jane Austen's ball. During the ball, everyone is dancing, but what was Jim doing?

He's giving away vol-au-vent. The hint to the Last Supper is so obvious here that it's my strongest evidence for Jim's story.

There are some other supporting details about Jim is Jesus:

The code of seven: the rhythm that Jim showed when he was playing with the lamp and his mouth: — — - - -

Two long and three short, which is the number 7 in Morse code. Remember how God loves 7? Jesus is the Son of God in religion,and in the <Gospel of John> Jesus was considered as an incarnation of the divine Word (Logos),who not only speaks God's word,but is God's word. I found this clue because I felt that the plot of Jim playing with his body at the ball was too long as a pornographic joke, and finally found that he played his body in a rhythm, which is as same as how he play the lamp.（And now Neil had answered that IS scripted!) Every scene in S2 makes sense.

Another allusion shows Jim's connection to God is the book he dropped:

<My best games of chess>is a Easter egg of <A Matter of Life and Death>.But also,as I will mention below about God play chess game in the ineffable bureaucracy,and the chess in Aziraphale's book shop which never be used.All these implies that the development of the world is under ineffable manipulation of God. And here, Jim drops the book, complaining that things didn't stay at where he put them. This is an God's perspective complaint. At the same time, it once again emphasizes the main purpose of Good Omens book.

Also as one comment in my original article, someone mention that Jim rearrange book in his own way is just what God do.

And Crowley told Jim jump out the window, which is one of the temptations Jesus hered from demon.

What's more, let's consider about Jim's prophecy:

First:"I remember when the morning star sang together,and all the Angels of God shouted of joy." which we know God said this in Job's minisode.

The third one:"If it happens again I can make it seem like it's an institutional problem" said by Metatron,who is the voice of God.

And the second one:"There will come a tempest,and darkness,and great storms.And the dead will leave their graves and walk the earth once more.And there will be great lamentations."The first hale comes from <Hebrews 12:18>,describing the ominous sign sent by God.The last half is from <Matthew 27:53> describes what happened after Jesus died.And this is the only one that Gabriel himself didn't hear—is evidence that Jim is not Gabriel but Christ.

It can be seen that most of these prophecies are related to God and Jesus. Although these prophecies correspond to the plots in the main storyline, they are all hints of the resurrection of Christ when they are connected together.

There's another clue here, and it's highlighted in the latest trivia message.S2 gives a unit of miraculou power to bring a person back from the dead: Lazarii.The prototype of the word said in trivia isLazarus,: Lazarus of Bethany, who was resurrected by Jesus four days after his death.This miracle is the last one before Jesus's crucifixion, and it is also the most important miracle, because it means that Jesus finally defeated his final enemy: death.

And in S2, the day Jim arrived is Sunday, because Nina mentioned that it all started with the blackout last week.And the ball is on Thursday night. So Gabriel died on Sunday and was resurrected four days later, corresponding to the resurrection of Lazarus.And the "tiny" miracle for hiding Jim's required the power to resurrect Lazarus 25 times, and it's hard to explain why this was so costly, except for Jesus himself.(I still not figure out what the number of 25 means.Once finished, I may add it here.) And the last day in S2 when Jim disappeared was Good Friday.

Some clues about coming:Jim keep saying that he came to find Aziraphale, but it was Beelzebub that Gabriel was looking for. And some other lines about coming:

The first shot of present time,there is a same screen in S1,that one is for God, but this one:

"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of ..."<Matthew 24:30>

The Son of Man descended from the sky/clouds, and there are also some views believe that God will be accompanied by angels and trumpets. We heard the sound of trumpets when Michael and the others came in the 202. Let's take a look at some posters and screenshots.

The feather representing Jim falls from the sky, and Jim's cup not only has a heart for Gabriel's story, but also a smoke from the top.

And this pic of Jim walking down from the upstairs.And Jim's voluntary devotion when he wearing the feather coat, which is what Jesus did.

Clues about music:There's some hints in the story of the ineffable bureaucracy.Look at these two elder men playing card game and chess in the background.

These pics shows that the story of ineffable bureaucracy was under the ineffable control of God.And in the second pic when they fall in love, we can hear the BGM of Every Day, which we can say it is God playing this song about the doomsday.And Beelzebub said:

It seems means the Every Day segment in the ending theme may contain clues.But I lack of knowledge of music so this puzzle is not for me.While when Aziraphale asked him where is this mysterious song came from,Jim answered:

And one of the funniest hints: When Gabriel was lost, Metatron said there's no need for alarm so just find him, but the person who hidden Gabriel would be erased, and the miracle of hiding Gabriel would immediately raise the alarm. It can be seen that it is Jim but not Gabriel who is important.

This is the fun of decryption. You will find out more and more clues when you find the answer. There are so many informations in S2 just like cookie crumbs heading to the candy house.

At this point, Jim's story line has almost been clarified. The miracle done by Aziraphale and Crowley together works so well that even the audience doesn't notice Jim anymore. At the end of the story, they achieved their original purpose, and Jim disappeared in silence. No one in both heaven, hell, earth and the audience in front of the TV noticed this.

Some other questions:who wants to hide Jim? Why? And who set up these clues, hoping someone to find out?

Before answer these questions, the following discussion of will contain lots of delusion, because of the lack of conclusive evidence. Just put it here as my personal theory of what is the frame of S2.

First of all, according to the discussion above, we know that under the sweet love story in S2, like S1,our story is actually shrouded in the shadow of a coming doomsday. So, who is telling the story in S2, and who is listening to the story?

There is a humanoid creature who has a habit of talking nonsense when he wants to hide his ture thoughts. For example, when he was bullied by other angel colleagues, he uttered a lot of nonsense about choosing sides, or when he wants to misleading his husband to doing what he unwilling to do,he portrayed the threat from Metatron as a wonderful chance with a lot of subjective narrative and gags.

That's my piont, if there is a cheature who wants to hide the existence of Jim, and in the narration of the story of S2, cleverly misleading the audience to focus on the love story, there is no one other but the greatest magician Mr. Fell who fooled Nefertiti. Just like the coin magic he showed in the Blitz minisode, the farthing has vanished! Aziraphale's conjuring is so skillful that it had been highlighted again later in the replacing of the photo (evidence).

The book of Job is displayed by Aziraphale, and the minisode in Edinburgh is directly the diary of angel, and after the ball, Nina asked Aziraphale when it all started, he answered:

He aready figured it out! It's a pity that stuff happened one after another, he and Crowley never had a chance to communicate later, and they started the next journey in different directions in the end.

The entire S2 is like Aziraphale's adorable detective clippings, narrative by time-line with pasting a few clues he thinks are relevant.

And the blitz minisode is the clue he left to the audience after completing his wonderful magic show. This clue was placed in the box carried by Jim, and after showing the items in the box, the lens shows Aziraphale had a quick look at them. These items are the key to avoiding something treble. I won't go into details about the specific plot, but just want to mention that when Neil wrote the key plot of season 3, he must be so proud about it that he wrote this line in the magic shop: “I've find my showstopper.” And Considering that this magic was chosen by Aziraphale, it is also possible that the corresponding plot in the third season may came from Terry, and Neil wrote this sentence with infinite nostalgia and admiration to his old friend. The Blitz minisode embodies the importance of trust and cooperation, and repeatedly emphasizes Aziraphale's magic skill. What's more,the Professor's Nightmare which setting in the middle of this three acts play,Neil retweeted the actor playing this magic,it is definitely important!

The picture here almost deliberately captures Aziraphale in the mirror. This camera language means that the actual narrator here is Aziraphale himself in the mirror. He is proudly showing how he used Several story lines cleverly hide all the clues in S2, and imply the progress of the whole three seasons is showed in the Blitz minisode.

By the way, this does not mean that the entire Blitz minisode is fake,my opinion is that all the minisodes in S2 are real, but be added some clues base on the original story. Therefore, the interpretation for minisode should be to dig out the unnatural places as clues,but keep the whole story as real.

So, who is the expected audience of this complex structure story of S2, and who is the minisode hidden in the box written for?

Who else can Aziraphale write this for, who can Aziraphale hand over all the secrets, who can Aziraphale entrust his back and life, and who does Aziraphale need to trick God for sending this information to save the world from doomsday?

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but there is a very weird scene in the title sequence, which is the last theater. Although the magic theory directed everyone's attention to the book of life that the curtain might represent (this does make sense partly, which I'll mention later), but it's easy to be ignored that the theater of the blitz minisode has been shown before.

Where we can see the curtains is another theater, or we can say: a screening room.

And there is no screening room in the entire S2. A couple of scenes that don't contain in the show in the title sequence, one at the end is the holy mountain, which is an allusion to Jim's story line. The tunnel at the beginning is also closely related to what I will talk about later. And the rest is this screening room which never appeared.

Wait a minute, there's a screening room, isn't?

This is the only screening room in the Good Omens TV universe.This old Victoria Station cartoon theater was long since demolished in our word, but Neil has a romantic explanation for it: because Crowley mentioned he liked it, Aziraphale kept it around.And you can also see the popcorn Crowley ate in S1 in the title sequence:

The X-ray video also mentioned there's some Communion wafer in the popcorn box.

The bonus video also gives another supporting clue to this idea, that is, many of the characters on the side of this theater are from S1. This is an Easter egg, but may also imply that this scene should go back to the first season to find clues.

And we all know that Crowley came here to sit down and collect his thoughts as Neil mentioned in his Q&A,which was exactly happened after they broke up at the bandstand. That maybe the reason that everyone was killed by the ending of S2, but Neil just compared it as what happened in bandstand.

So here's my story time:

S2 was happened when Crowley hiding in the cartoon theater after leaving, looking back carefully about what's happening before all this chaos. I believe that like the audience can't believe Aziraphale will leave Crowley because of Heaven, just like Mr. Yang would never give up maintaining him car.Crowley will definitely feel that there is something wrong after the end of S2, then try to chewing the memory carefully, reading the funny detective hand book that his angel left him, and finally project this intertwined story of S2 with memory of two of them.

And the blitz minisode is the magic instruction booklet left by Aziraphale. It may seem obscure,but everything the assistant gentlemen needs to know had already written in it.Just like he left the clues to Crowley in the bar even after discorporating.Will Crowley come back? For audience it's sadlly that we can only know that until season three release.

Personally, I think the future story has already be told in the candlelight dinner in 1941.

In addition, there is another important clue in this theater, which is the Book of Life highlight in the magic theory.

I don't have a perfect explanation for this either, but I can at least piece together a vague picture from the clues available.

First of all, when the curtain was burned, there was an obvious sound of flipping book. The book of life and erasure seemed to correspond to these. But here's a clue, the image was burned. In fact, among the various ominous signs about the resurrection of Jesus/Jesus, black sky, storms, trumpets, etc. all appear, but there is one sign that is mentioned in S2, but never happened.

This prophecy also from the book of Job, and it describes Leviathan,the controlling meaning of it I had mentioned in the analysis of the story of ineffable bureaucracy. However, this prophecy is literally a description of flame. And this material object is a matchbox. It must be noted that there used to be matches in it.

Forget about the fireballs in 202, this is the only thing about fire in S2.

So where else have matches?

Exactly,there was only one audience in the theatre where the curtain was set on fire, so it is no surprise that Crowley burned them.

If we assume that Crowley is the one who burned the smoke ring on the Book of Life, where did he get the Book of Life?

The first mention of the Book of Life is in Michael's phone call. She said to the person opposite: "Book of Life?"

The reply is: " I'm on it." That may be the answer to stat hunting Gabriel, or it may be because the book of life is in the hands of the person beside the phone. Because the debate between heaven and hell in 206 had mentioned that the right of heaven to propose punishment, and then hell will execute it.

So who is the person on the other end of the phone? Shax threatens Aziraphale that Crowley risks destruction, but not erasure. And Beelzebub was the one who told Crowley that the extreme sanctions would be the Book of Life.

Another clue that has been forgotten is what appeared on the curtain of 205, and it is also a clue that I have not solved before. Only after I solved it, I have finish my own story.

On the curtain of 205 are the bull-headed demon and the white-haired demon. They even have character names in the cast list, but unfortunately the main storyline did not mention it at all. I haven't figured out what's the means of the bull-headed demon yet, but the plot of the white-haired demon is to hand Shax some letters to Crowley.

That's it, Shax handed Crowley letters twice in S2, and the second time was particularly abrupt on the night of ball. When she first sent him the letters, Shax mentioned that she took them to hell, but the finance department said they can't accept Shax's signature as replacement."Bills mostly." We can see Crowley throwing the bills into a trash bin.

It can be seen that being burned from the curtain is indeed an effective way of making people forget about it. I also completely ignored these letters until I noticed the white-haired demon. After throwing away the bill, what was left by Crowley?

After laying out the clues, here comes story time:

In my version of story, the book of life should be kept by hell, and heaven is responsible for authorizing rewriting. In order to keep their lover, Beelzebub sent the Book of Life to Crowley by letter. Crowley, on the other hand, carefully burns away what he thinks needs to be hidden in the theater.

He hided what's really inside the box in 201 . Looking closely at the pic of when the box outside the bookshop, it can be seen that the fly actually fly into the box. And in 206 Crowley emptied the storage of the box made it seem unimportant.

The Job's story in 202 and the statue in 203 are all related to Jim. After burning these, the clues about the prophecy are left behind. We can see Crowley firstly talking to Job, and it is Crowley who find the status. (Looking at a statue of the annoying boss in the extremely cold midnight,Crowley you are really a good at planning a date)

In 204, there are too many people on the curtain and the effect is not so well. Many people aware of the three zombies who inexplicably disappeared in the long river of time. These three zombies also died because of Crowley.

The white-haired demon in 205 has been mentioned above, but I haven't solved the bull-headed demon yet. They have only one thing in common, they all wear masks on earth. And masks are used to cover the facial features of inhuman demons, which they obviously don't need.And they only spoke to Crowley.

The clue for 206 is the halo, I think after watching the last 15 minutes, no one will keep entangled that the halo is actually a signal for starting the war. After the arrival of the heaven and hell, Crowley directly asserted that there would not have a war and fooled the matter.

Then what is his purpose of burning these pics?

01 02 03 even 04 are clues to the second coming. 05 is about the receiving the book of life. 06 is to suspend the war.

Now you can see why I think I'm telling a story with such an explosion of clues, because these clues are obviously not connected perfectly.Some kind of framework can be seen by them, but it seems like can be put together more neatly. I will edit it here if I solve more clues in the future.

So as telling a story, what Crowley did was hidding the information he had that might reveal the event of the coming of Jim, and also hide the fact that he had the Book of Life, and temporarily stabilized the situation.

According to my person theory, book of life is handled by hell, and the authority to modify it is in heaven.

And now,the book of life is in the hands of Crowley, and the right to modify it is in Aziraphale.

Does this means that the whole S2 we see, including the modified plot of Book of Life, is the result of the communication between Azirapahle and Crowley?What will happen in S3 if then can do this?

After all it's just a theory I built from limited evidence and added lots of my personal conjecture,so it's highly possible to be uncorrected.

Here is the end of this long article. Thank you for your time for reading.And can't wait for Season 3 :)

[fortanuvasyama]

I was REALLY REALLY curious about some of the logistics of the whole adrenaline-fear-thing Bruce stuck in Jason, so I went down a rabbit hole of googling! From what I was seeing of other people's posts, it seems like general consensus is that there's a chip in Jason's head that's making the

disclaimer: I'm not a medical professional. I googled this and looked at articles and research papers but I definitely could have misunderstood things! talk to a doctor for better info!

As I listed in another post, adrenaline gets triggered in the body for multiple reasons, one of the most obvious being fear. Keep that in mind.

So, first off, when adrenaline hits your system, it does a ton of things: your sensitivity to pain decreases, your pupils get bigger, your vision gets better, your heart starts racing, your blood pressure increases, your hearing improves, your digestion slows down, the air passages in your lungs expand, your blood gets redistributed to your muscles, and your blood glucose levels increase.

(Your adrenal glands, of which the average person has two, are on the top of each kidney, btw. That's where they link up with the endocrine system.)

Short-term, these things can help you escape a situation your brain decides is dangerous. But if they go on for a long time, well... I think you can guess.

Generally, anxiety/fear -> panic attack -> hyperventilation, and if the hyperventilation goes on for too long it can increase the levels of oxygen in your blood to dangerous amounts. Most people would pass out before this got to the point that it could cause death, and because they're unconscious, the body has a chance to get breathing back to normal levels (though of course you'd most likely have negative side-effects after this).

Most importantly: Adrenaline is straight-up toxic in huge quantities. As in, it will kill you if there's a massive amount for a long time. I can't get a reliable source on how long this takes or exactly how much it takes to kill you, but there are cases of people dying during surgery when accidentally given massive amounts of epinephrine (adrenaline). And there are definitely reports of people straight up dying of fright (of note is that most of those people had varying conditions that weakened their hearts already). Basically, adrenaline ends up opening the heart to calcium, and if too much calcium builds up it impedes the heart's ability to work, thus damaging it, and eventually the whole system collapses. I couldn't find any real time estimates on how long the calcium build-up takes 🤷‍♀️

So you can imagine, if you decided to, say, make a little computer chip that forced your brain into feeling fear every time it sensed adrenaline hitting the system, then the obvious result you're going to get is... more adrenaline entering the system. Which then kicks off the next wave of fear! Is it worse than the first? Possibly! That fear kicks more adrenaline into overdrive, which means more fear which means more adrenaline, which means more fear which means more adrenaline which means more fear which means more adrenaline which means more fear which means more adrenaline which means more fear which means more adrenaline which means more fear which means more adrenaline which means more fear which means more adrenaline and so on and so forth!

And that is to say nothing of the fact that - if we work under the assumption that Bruce put a chip in Jason's brain to cause the fear response to adrenaline being released - it means HE PUT A CHIP IN JASON'S BRAIN. HE PERFORMED BRAIN SURGERY!!! THE MAN WHO DITCHED MEDICAL SCHOOL PERFORMED A BRAIN OPERATION!!! TO PUT SOMETHING INTO SOMEONE'S BRAIN!!!!

conclusion: realistically, jason would be dead by the end of the day. if we go by dc logic, he'll probably turn into a speedster (kidding! I'm kidding. though you could make a case of adrenaline = hysterical strength which means tons of adrenaline = superman strength. probably not going to happen.)

Thank you for listening to my tedtalk on why bruce wayne is a fucking moron (and dc writers don't give a shit about biology 🫣)

[jona3d]

LA FUMÉE, VOL. 1 NO. 4

Full breakdown under the cut!

Here I'll go through each page as the Skills point out interesting details, though I'll skip the front cover; it's simply an edited version of the one in-game.

Encyclopedia [Medium: Success]: However, I will point out that the cover depicts King Frissel I — the last suzerain of Revachol — as dead, having sprouted antlers. Frissel was deposed and executed by communists, whose symbol is a pair of antlers and a star...the dots connect themselves.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Perception [Easy: Success]: The illustration used is concept art of the fishermen's shacks, to the west of Martinaise.

Empathy [Medium: Success]: Above the shacks, you see the word 'Méncompetent' — a cheeky pun from the designers. Now it's a Table of "Discontents" — no doubt in reference to their discontent with the state of the world. Or the lack of funding from their readerbase.

Conceptualization [Challenging: Success]: You recognize the names Exilus Bücher and Nasteb Encalada-Bernal, the pen names of those two university communards that meet above the Capeside Apartments, but the others seem to be even more fictional. The mononym "Dobrevardo" stands out, though...

Logic [Medium: Success]: ...didn't Call Me Mañana tell you something about Dobreva and Abadanaiz? Interesting.

EDITOR'S NOTE

Perception [Medium: Failure]: The image behind them is of the headless FALN rider, a plastic rendition similar to the statue by the lorry drivers. It's unclear how this urban legend connects to their plea for funding.

Electrochemistry [Easy: Failure]: It looks cool, man! That's what communism is all about: Looking cool.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

Inland Empire [Easy: Success]: The black letters are echoes from another world; the Dutch Anarchy magazine number 066, 1996. They have been flipped, cut, and edited to suit a broader purpose; they are not there for you to read them.

Encyclopedia [Medium: Success]: The article titles are real, though, plucked straight from Elysium. Uncle Sport refers to Sapormat 'Sport' Knezhinisky, president of the SRV. Despite rumors of Samaran news all being propaganda, their president's near-pathological obsession with physical fitness means he probably did wrestle a bear or two.

KUNST UND KULTUR: ARTIST SPOTLIGHT

Logic [Trivial: Success]: C.S. obviously stands for Cindy the Skull, if her face being obscured by a skull and the red paint weren't enough clues.

Perception [Formidable: Success]: It's hard to spot, but behind the interview text you can just make out the words of her most recent piece, Un jour je serai de retour prés de toi ('51, red-dyed fuel oil on concrete). And are those radiocomputers above the radio play reviews? How appropriate.

Encyclopedia [Medium: Success]: "Comrades at the Table" is a clear reference to the radio roleplaying show, "Friends at the Table". Instead of tuning in to participate in the game like Fortress Accident, listeners would instead passively tune in to an ongoing roleplaying campaign played by the show's hosts.

Conceptualization [Challenging: Success]: The other two are pure fiction, though they play on radio show name conventions. One could argue that "Vespertine Oranjese" is an oblique reference to "Orange is the New Black", but it's nothing more than a half-coincidence. Probably.

KUNST UND KULTUR: TIPTOP TOURNÉE

Perception [Easy: Success]: This slick-looking page depicts a motor carriage having knocked over a communist figurine from its pile. The designer clearly took pride in its conception.

Empathy [Trivial: Success]: They're proud of the whole thing, brother!

Encyclopedia [Medium: Success]: You recognize the phrase "cultivating plasm" — Steban and Ulixes must be referencing Ignus Nilsen's theories on Infra-Materialism. Plasm is described as a politicized energy that could be harnessed in a variety of increasingly fantastical ways; you're unsure what its cultivation would mean for a popular car race.

LOCAL CONCERNS

Endurance [Easy: Success]: It's almost over. You can feel it.

Composure [Challenging: Success]: Thank god.

Logic [Medium: Success]: It says the aerial shot of the dockworker's strike was taken by Evrart Claire? Clearly a fabrication designed to uphold the man's benevolent facade. No wonder you found it in the secretariat's couch on the way to his office.

Conceptualization [Easy: Success]: To reiterate, though: This replication of La Fumée has absolutely everything described in-game. Its length has been reduced for ease of printing and the creator's sanity, and a few details like subheaders and authors have been added for perceived authenticity, but it is scarily accurate. Everything described has been preserved in the transfer from Elysium to Earth.

Volition [Formidable: Success]: This is shockingly thorough for a costume that will be seen hundreds of times, and recognized five or six. This was made not for attention, but out of a deep love for the work that inspired it.

Empathy [Challenging: Success]: Or perhaps a deep love for communism?

Electrochemistry [Easy: Success]: You only see this kind of acute hyperfocus in something so trivial from fat cats with ADHD, or yourself after finding that bottle of Speed Saint-Batiste PREPTIDE and throwing back a couple pills. Your throat feels dry.

BACK COVER

Encyclopedia [Easy: Success]: Two symbols are featured on this back cover: The insignia of a star and antlers, and dried may bells, both of which became synonymous with communism during the Turn-of-the-Century Revolution of '02.

Shivers [Formidable: Success]: I used to be @shenaniglenn. I still am. The pockets of me that are strewn about the city remain, but they've remained quiet for years now. A young boy peers down into a storm drain, transfixed as the water collects and swirls outward. Where are you going, young ocean, and may I join in?

Half-Light [Easy: Success]: This is too much. Pack it up. Got to go.

Drama [Challenging: Failure]: Sire, dost thy loyal readers deserve not a performance for thine toil?

Half-Light [Trivial: Success]: OUT.

[Thank you for reading. If you skipped to the end, thank you for skipping to the end.]

Download/Print La Fumée Vol.1 No.4 here:

Zine PDF (How to cut and fold a zine)

Multi-page PDF

[alterundying]

Sometimes you are going through an article and something so silly in it pops up that you question the validity of everything else in that article.

Such was my experience today. Oh yeah, this is a nerd fight but no hate to anyone involved, mistakes happen.

So What did I read? Someone actually said Zatanna Zatara is a rip-off of the Scarlet Witch.

Okay so let's start unpacking this, let's take a look at the article itself.

Okay, so this is a very aggressive start, DC and Marvel have a history of taking ideas from one another, including a whole team in Marvel that are basically a parody of the Justice League.

So I come in this article to number 12.

Special Note: I tried to find this article not on my phone, but it isn't easily found on the website's desktop page. So what does this say about Zatanna?

This is an interesting way of saying she makes things happen by saying them backwards, which seems a little misleading. At this point, one might give the benefit of the doubt and say the writer just isn't that familiar with the character.

The way this article is structured it's likely attempting to take Zatanna's base description and make her sound like the Scarlet Witch. So time to do some unpacking. Talking about Homo Magi sounds like they are comparing Zatanna being a Homo Magi to Wanda being a Mutant. These two were introduced in the 60s. According to the Superfriends Wiki the concept of Homo Magi was introduced to comics in the 80s.

So Zatanna being a Homo Magi can't be a rip-off of Wanda being a mutant. Now maybe the implication is that because Zatanna has the same powers as her father it's the same as Wanda having her powers from being a mutant and Magneto being her father. This is very odd since inheriting traits from someone's parents seems like a pretty broad concept and not one that could be considered a rip-off.

But I will admit I am unable to confirm Wanda is the originator of the trope of a child inheriting superpowers from a parent in comics.

Next, we have the implied claim that being able to use mystical powers is what Zatanna is taking from Wanda, but this is an odd claim since when Wanda first showed up in comics her powers weren't magic-based, they were probability manipulation. Mutant powers, not magic.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about when Wanda's powers became magic.

So Wanda's Powers likely became magical in the 70s, remember these two debuted in the 60s.

But the Article does keep going on about these two, so what does it say?

Okay, so, the claims. Hypnotic Beauty? What Comic Book woman in the 60s wasn't beautiful? Ma Hunkel existed in the 30s so I am not going to discount it, Maybe it's something about their costumes or character designs being similar? Of course, the claim is that Zatanna is a Rip-off of Wanda so we need to look at what they looked at in their orinal costumes.

So Scarlet Witch has a head piece, and Zatanna has a tophat. Scarlet Witch has a cape, Zatanna does not. Wanda has opera gloves, Zatanna has bare hands. Scarlet Witch is wearing a full-body leopard in pink, while Zatanna has fishnets. These two costumes have more differences but just look at these two designs. MAYBE you can point out they both have black curly hair, but most pictures I see of Wanda's first appearance have her with brown-red hair, NOT black.

So the next claim is them having a Dramatic Flair. Now I think there is a much more logical reason for Zatanna having a Dramatic flair.

Zatanna is a stage magician, a literal performer.

Her not having a Dramatic Flair would be extremely odd. But where did Zatanna's inspiration come from?

Her father Giovanni Zatara who is a Golden Age character. His first appearance was in Action Comics #1 (June 1938), which means he predates the Scarlet Witch by 26 years.

She has the same powers as him, she is a stage performer like him. Her look mimics his, but with a feminine flair a stage performer would have.

Maybe I am too much of a comics nerd, but I believe calling Zatanna a Scarlet Witch rip-off really undermines Zatanna's impact as a legacy hero who has surpassed her father in the public consciousness.

And the conversation about comic companies wanting to get their own versions of various titles is really interesting so it's sad to see it handled this poorly.

There is speculation the original Doom Patrol was created because DC Comics wanted their own Fantastic Four, and rumours are that the X-Men were created because of leaked information about what Doom Patrol would be.

From what I understand, The Fantastic Four was originally based on horror Comics and concepts, making them a body horror comic.

The Fantastic Four is one of the first comics to tackle superpowers as disabilities, with Doom Patrol picking up the concept and making it more blatant. The X-men then took this concept making it about marginalization and disability.

Anyways this massive rant is over I hope you enjoyed this nerd fight.

[baeddel]

@elancholia ty for your reply i always like them ^/////^ i will try and respond better to your whole post another time. obviously the conversation has evolved into more of a larger discussion about plagiarism & intertextuality in general, but i wanted to point out something w/r/t what i was originally asking. when you say:

The specificity of citations means that each claim is easy (for a specialist) to find and address; the points of dispute are very clear. And it's possible to pick out anomalous patterns, like century-spanning claims being sourced from one very specific document, or a consistent overreliance on "problematic sources" which are known to have been "heavily edited and sanitized" at the time they were originally compiled.

you understand that this is again not the kind of knowledge that i'm talking about in that post. if i learned how to make an argument (in this example, a 'dialectical' argument) from a really problematic and flawed book, it wouldn't really help you at all in evaluating my argument—my entire argument is transparent to you as soon as you read it, and if you tried to attack (using my example) my post based on a criticism of Clausewitz it would just be irrelevant, because i'm not actually saying anything he said.

i realize that i muddied the waters in my wording by at the end saying "in philosophy or non-fiction" in general, but my surprise was about this kind of thing, not about claims. w/r/t the kind of citation in the quote i don't feel confused about it, i try to cite my posts as much as possible for several reasons, both practical and ethical (one tumblr specific reason is that it helps to avoid establishing onesself as a kind of priestly authority with access to secret knowledge & instead invites the reader into your context so they can argue with you as an equal—since a lot of people who read your post may not know how to access the information otherwise, a concern which arises strictly in a non-academic situation).

you get where i'm coming from right—i have textbooks that are supposed to show how to make a kind of argument, which forms are valid, etc. they're aimed at training you to argue in a certain way and they don't expect you to cite them or even really remember them. why does it change when you learn how to argue that way from another kind of text?

when i went to read some of the literature on plagiarism i was similarly surprised to find other things which are considered plagiarism at least by some definitions. in one study that looked at Iranian Applied Linguistics researchers' views of plagiarism & intertextuality (click), the questionnaire included the following questions:

Creating a new piece of work structured according to a documentation standard, by referring to existing work of the same type.

and

Using a published work to identify important secondary citations that make a particular logical argument and then citing only those secondary sources to support your own use of the same logical argument.

the first one (copying the structure of another article) was considered plagiarism by 68% of respondents (15% said it wasn't and 17% said they didn't know). it surprised me a lot to learn that anyone would consider that plagiarism. the second one (copying an argument and just borrowing the citations necessary without saying where you learned the argument) is quite close to what i was talking about, and the responses were: 32% yes plagiarism, 57% no plagiarism, 11% don't know.

my takeaway is that there is not a lot of certainty about what counts as plagiarism on offer & i'm probably not the first person to experience this kind of surprise, confusion or skepticism about it.

[maaruin]

The mass on Christmas this year felt different... I was less into it, more distanced from it. Part of it was that the Church didn't use candles and that I wish we could have sung more than 2 or 3 verses of the hymns we sung (if it is a good hymn, please let me sing the whole thing, I'm not in a hurry). Part of it is that this Christmas came at the wrong moment for me emotionally. But another factor was that while I have fewer doubts about Christianity than in the past, these doubts have become more specific. And they specifically hit Christmas. Three points: 1. I have settled on an answer to the Problem of Suffering/Evil. I think that God creates for the benefit of the creatures he creates, and if he does that he will create every (sentient) creature for whom existence is preferable to non-existence, even if that existence includes a lot of suffering. This is IMO a good answer (and I will try to publish it in an academic article next year). But it has the problem that many creatures who hope for eternal life will not experience it. They will have a good life, but will hope for something they may not receive - and I could very well be one of these creatures. There is perhaps a way out of this in Christian theology - maybe "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26) means that Jesus' ressurrection somehow makes death - going from existence into non-existence - impossible. But I do not know how and if such a thing would even be logically possible. (In addition, it hinges on a specific bible verse, which I view as problematic - see point 3.)

2. An understanding of God that seems plausible to me is that God is a being that has all true properties to the fullest extent, and that creatures are differentiated from God by not sharing all of his properties to the full extend. For example, humans have the property of knowledge and existence, but not of omniscient. Elementary particles have no knowledge but still share the property of existence with God. (This requires a depravation-theory of evil: evil is not a true property, but the lack of some property.) The problem with this, however, is that if God and humans are differentiated by God having some properties that humans lack, how can God become human?

God becoming human is what is celebrated on Christmas, and it is difficult to celebrate something that you are not certain is possible.

3. If I was confident that 2 is just a lack of understanding but that I could trust revelation that God did actually become human, maybe that would be enough. But I am not confident that everything the Bible says/everything the Church teaches is correct. I think the general events described in the New Testament likely happend, but the individual verses reflect the respective authors understanding, they aren't dictated by God. And I am not confident that the general events described necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jesus was God. In the Church the divinity of Christ was disputed until at least the end of the fourth century.

I do plan to do my doctoral research (if I get the opportunity) on the epistemology of religious revelations. Maybe I will end up with a sufficient justification for beliving in the divinity of Christ. Maybe I will realize ther is no such justification. But right now I simply don't know.

In the past, Christmas was often a sort of religious escapism for me. For a few days I would simply affirm what I hoped to be true, because I was uncertain about so many things that I felt it didn't matter, and the incarnation is very appealing as a concept. But now I am much more secure in many of my beliefs, so the points where I am not sure have become a lot more noticable and specified.

[frodothefair]

"Nisilë does not try," the investment edition

So, I am of the completely (uneducated, uninformed) opinion that the whole investment management business is crock and an elaborate way of taking away from people. My limited knowledge of economics has me convinced that a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard could do about as good a job in guiding investors as a highly "trained" economic adviser or portfolio manager. I am also of the opinion that if you simply invest in index funds (a small slice of every company on the market), you'll get where you need to go with overall steady growth as long as you keep your money in the market long enough.

(Of note, when I say my point of view is uneducated and uninformed, I mean that I've never truly understood economics at its core, though it was not for lack of trying. I took AP economics in high school, and while got my expected A in the class/5 on the test, it was still my overall worst subject in that I never gained a true understanding of the concepts. I memorized most of the material simply because I gave up trying to follow the "logic." I still try to read articles and various literature, but after a few paragraphs my mind invariably goes blank, and it does the same whenever Mr. Nisilë tries to explain things to me).

Now, Mr. Nisilë and I have retirement accounts through work (the ones where your employer matches your contributions), a professionally managed investment account, and an account we call "Mr. Nisilë tries," where he buys and sells stocks he thinks are promising. Once in a while, he tells me he "beat" the professionally managed account and the overall market trends by a small margin.

Now, as an experiment, I told Mr. Nisilë that I'd like him to make another account, and call it "Nisilë does NOT try," and put all of it in index funds and NOT touch it. We'll see how it compares to the other investments. I'll bet it won't differ by much, in which case I will have evidence that I'm right, and will laugh smugly.

[jeannereames]

Dr. Reames, do you think Alexandros really had megalomania?

Alexander and Megalomania

So many, many problems bubble up the minute one asks, “Was Alexander a megalomaniac?”

First, what does one mean by “megalomania”?

You might think that should be obvious. It’s not. It is, however, a good example of non-clinicians (historians or others) dabbling in pop-psychology, which I wish to hell they wouldn’t for reasons I outline in the first four pages of my article “The Mourning of Alexander” from Syllecta Classica back in 2000. The same thing leads people to decide Alexander “went crazy with grief” when Hephaistion died (he didn’t), or that he suffered from an Oedipus Complex (he didn’t), or even that he was a narcissist (he wasn’t).

Second, megalomania is not, itself, a diagnosis. It tends to be understood as narcissism, typically with manic elements, and/or part of a paranoid diagnosis.

Specific diagnostic criteria exist for narcissism (See below). But these criteria (unsurprisingly) are written for the modern world. That’s the second big problem.

His world and ours are quite different.

Additionally, the criteria are typically written for Joe Blow Average Person, and standard tests such as the MMPI* are notoriously problematic. As an older teacher of mine once pointed out, one of the MMPI questions then to indicate narcissism, “Do you think everyone is looking at you when you enter a room?” For most of us, the sensible answer is, “No.” But if you’re, say, Taylor Swift, the logical answer is, “Probably.”

If you’re Alexandros Philippou Makedonon, the answer is a definite, “Yes.”

Of course that’s just one question and one question does not produce a diagnosis, but you begin to see the problem.

Alexander was the KING around whom an entire court and army revolved. One of the modern short-hand descriptions of a narcissist (like, say, Trump) is that he acts as if he thinks he’s a king.

If you are the king, can that even apply?

Third, Alexander lived in a society that genuinely believed the gods got involved, at least occasionally, in the lives of mortals, even sometimes had children with mortals. Sure, a number of the intelligentsia elite questioned those notions, even made fun of them. And yes, Alexander was a student of Aristotle.

But he was also a child of a fairly Traditional, conservative, and religious culture. Macedonians believed their kings were descended from Herakles. They also believed their kings had a sacred duty to mediate between the gods and their subjects, on behalf of those subjects, via daily sacrifice as well as conducting multiple ceremonies and festivals throughout the year, as king.

Alexander took that responsibility so seriously, he continued to make sacrifices—after he could do little else—until he literally couldn’t get out of bed or be cognizant enough to perform them.

He believed he was special because his people believed he was special, as a Temenid/Argead, and he heard that from the time he could toddle.

Nor was modesty or humility a virtue in ancient Greece or Macedonia. That’s a pretty post-Christian notion. Hubris was a real fear, for which reason boasting needed to be moderated—and Alexander was critiqued for being too boastful even in antiquity—but we must take care with how we believe they “ought” to think or act. Furthermore, critique of Alexander’s hubris comes largely from later writers under Rome, who had somewhat different notions of proper behavior. For them, especially the Stoics, one topos about Alexander was the mad tyrant, who was a slave to his passions, so they exaggerated what he did do, and made up other stuff whole cloth.

Fourth, we can’t trust some of our evidence, especially when it comes to anecdotal stories, which a lot of folks try to utilize in order to make various diagnoses. Are these stories things he actually did, things people claimed he did, or just things somebody thought he ought to have done or said? If you don’t believe that could happen, I invite you to run a quick Google search on “Alexander the Great + quotes.” The whole lion/sheep quote found EVERYdamnwhere? He never said it. Not in any ancient source. But it’s become so embedded that I had a fight with the scriptwriters for the documentary on which I was historical consultant because they tried to use it. I think it still wound up in the final because they cared more that he “ought” to have said it than that he did. (poetic license)

You see the problem there, right? What you think he “ought” to have said may not be at all what he said, or even what somebody else thinks he ought to have said.

There was no little disagreement, even in antiquity, about what Alexander was really like.

For that very reason, we must be wary of the moralizing, editorializing, and thematic goals of the ancient historians writing about him. By Roman imperial times, Alexander had become an object lesson as much as a real historical figure. Where IS the “real” Alexander behind all of that?

So, with all these caveats, what does the DSM V list as diagnostic criteria? And keep in mind, one must have over half (e.g., 5+ of the 9). I’m going to strike through and put in green those criteria I don’t think can be supported. I’ll put in blue criteria that seem to be true, but can be explained by both his status and cultural expectations. I’ll put in red things that seem to be true. And I’ll put in purple things we have no way of actually knowing. After each, I give a short explanation.

Also, let me say that I’m considering Alexander post-Gaugamela only, after his phenomenal successes.

A grandiose sense of self-importance: e.g., exaggerates achievements, expects to be recognized as superior without actually completing the achievements (Dude totally did most everything he claimed to have done, then went looking to top that.)

Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (I’m really of mixed mind here, as, again, his position in society and the success of his father almost required him to attempt amazing stuff. Because, of course. But compared to other Macedonian kings, he did seem to have a big Romantic bone.)

Believing that they are "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions (He’s a king—of course he hung out with other courtiers, and as time went on, demands on his time increased to the point that access to the king had to be limited; he still interacted, at least sometimes, with the average soldier.)

Requiring excessive admiration (Does seem to have been true, especially when drunk)

A sense of entitlement: unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations (Again, he’s a king and a military general; of course he expects people to take his orders)

Being interpersonally exploitative; taking advantage of others to achieve their own ends (While in many ways he doesn’t fulfill this, I’m still tagging it because he did exploit his army to achieve fame for himself, and got angry when they called him on it at various points. So that’s not just a modern reading of him.)

Lacking empathy unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others (He seemed to show unusual sympathy for others even when he didn’t have to, although their relative status mattered.)

Often being envious of others or believing that others are envious of them (Expressing envy/competition as a form of admiration was a cultural “thing” in ancient Greece, so it’s half purple, half blue. It’s hard to say if he were any worse than one would expect given his successes.)

Showing arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes (If Plutarch can be believed, he adjusted his expectations for his audience and what they needed a king to be…except when he was drunk, then he got arrogant.)

So, we’re left with three probably/possibly accurate criteria. Another three that can be explained just by who he was, and what he could expect from others because of who he was. At least one we can't really know, and two more that don't apply.

One of the “don't apply”—a lack of empathy—is important to a diagnosis of narcissism, btw. If he has a few, but not that one…I’m gonna go with “not a narcissist.” Especially when the three he does display can be explained otherwise.

It’s much easier to understand Alexander as a product of ancient Greco-Macedonian culture and religion, as well as a victim of his own unbelievable success.

We need to STOP trying to hang modern psychological terms on him. Or at least, not until somebody invents a time-machine and can whisk him from the past, plop him on a clinician’s couch, and ask him a bunch of diagnostic questions—properly moderated for who he was and what he accomplished.

—————

*MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Indicator, one of several standardized tools employed to help diagnose clients/patients. Issues with it have been raised many times, ranging from socio-economic, to cultural/racial/sexist, to its uselessness with certain select populations, and the limited pool of the original sample group. In short, it has limited usage and should never replace analysis by trained clinicians. It might could serve as a starting place.

[cuddlytogas]

Fyre sent me an article that made me Lose My Mind, so instead of sending 800 tweets about it, I decided to just write up my thoughts here

so, in re: ET Fox, 'Jacobitism and the Golden Age of Piracy' --

Fox is definitely exaggerating. His logic jumps from 'ship names and alleged toasts', to 'every pirate was one contact away from a confirmed Jacobite', to "a Jacobite maritime community" (296), with little evidence beyond each previous assumption. He does demonstrate a link with popular Jacobitism, but overstates pirates' political commitment by far.

There's one letter to George Camocke, a Jacobite naval officer, suggesting that the pirate fleet should unite under his command and take Bermuda as a Jacobite base, but the source is shaky, and it went nowhere once Woodes Rogers ousted the pirates. (It's I think from 1718 and unsigned? Possibly from Charles Vane and his crew? Fox only says that, "Through these contacts [unspecified, between Vane and English Jacobites] a letter reached George Camocke" (286), which is suspiciously vague, and I can't access the original to check. Either way, it would still only prove the committed politics of one crew.)

Fox also makes a lot of Archibald Hamilton, governor of Jamaica from 1710-16, who commissioned and profited from the anti-Spanish privateers who turned pirate and made up some of the original Bahamas pirates c. 1715. Since "it has been suggested that [Hamilton] was a Jacobite supporter" (283), Fox claims that these establishing pirates were also committed Jacobites, and therefore the whole pirate community that grew around them must have been. (Which leads to Fox then being baffled when there's no direct evidence of Jacobitism among some of them, such as the crews of Anstis, Fenn, or Rackham.) He relies on these assumptions, and then claims that every connection between pirates proves their mutual Jacobite sympathies.

It's much more likely (and in line with the historians I've read so far) that the Jacobite toasts and ship names speak to a broader anti-authoritarianism among pirates, with no evidence of committed Jacobite actions by them, eg, specifically targeting Hanoverian ships, or materially supporting or trying to support Jacobite rebels beyond that one letter. Indeed, the 1710s/20s pirates are generally agreed to be distinct for not adhering to religious/national loyalties like the C17th pirates usually did. (I'm so sorry, I haven't consolidated my notes yet, but I know Marcus Rediker goes through this, as does Kris E Lane, and I think Tim Travers and David Cordingly.)

Fox does identify a correlation between the rise and fall of Jacobitism and piracy over the mid/late 1710s, but attributes a pretty shaky causation: pirates ceased their Jacobite loyalties due to the suppression of Jacobitism in Britain and Europe. A much more obvious explanation is that both anti-authoritarian movements simultaneously flourished in the post-war, post-succession instability, then were both quashed as the new regime established itself and cracked down on rebels.

So, did many pirates espouse Jacobite sympathies? Yes! They named their ships in favour of Jacobite causes and rulers, and there are plenty of reports of them toasting to King James / the Pretender. (Which it must be said, although the sheer volume lends a ring of truth to the trend, individual claims should be taken with a grain of salt, as Jacobitism was a common accusation against criminals at the time, with or without a basis.)

Does that mean that the 1710s Caribbean pirate community was centred around a heart of politically committed Jacobites, as Fox argues, or largely motivated by Jacobite sentiments? Yeah, probably not.

Anyway, I am SO sorry that this article got me riled up XD the whole point of this is to say, I've never read anywhere that "many pirates were Jacobites driven out of Britain", which I KNOW wasn't even your main point, but I am unfortunately Insane. We can and should talk about expressions of pro-Jacobitism and actual political engagement among 'Golden Age' pirates, but what we know of their actual actions and espoused ideals doesn't speak to a trend of committed Jacobite politics beyond a general loyalty to rebellious causes.

[practically-an-x-man]

⭐ and/or director's commentary for Catch and Release?

Thank you!!~

Long ramble ahead... I got carried away

Okay, first of all... I had to do so much research to write this fic. Sometimes I researched things just for a single line, like the flashback in chapter 6 where 11-year-old Olly and her dad realize the actuators are genuine AI:

Ophelia’s eyes fell on the very last line of code, all the way at the bottom of the screen.  System.out.formatname(“ISAAC”); A moment later, the code jumped back to life, lines of commands once again flowing down the screen.

I've done a little bit of coding before, both block and text coding, but not anything with Java, so I ended up scrolling through a whole article on how Java formatting works just so I could bullshit a made-up command for a single line in the fic.

Above everything else, I wanted this fic to read as genuinely scientific, since the protagonist herself is a scientist. Most of that was a rampant amount of speculative biology, but it is based for the most part on actual anatomy, biology, chemistry, and engineering. I wanted it to be a little bit more genuine than the usual "superhero logic", and it was actually a fun challenge to come up with scientific-ish explanations for things like the villain cures and what have you.

Another bit of speculative biology here in the fic - Flint Marko. I obviously haven't read all the Spider-Man comics out there, so I don't know if they ever tried to give him a more scientific backstory than just "turned into sand by a particle accelerator", but here was my explanation of it:

“It’s delivered as a concentrated beam of radiation.” Peter answered, “At least, that was the plan. The sand that makes up his body isn’t… well, it’s not actually sand. They’re mutated cells that mimic the physical characteristics of sand. If we hit him with the right kind of radiation, we should be able to trigger a mutation that returns his cells to normal.”

I mean, let's be real, the "right kind of radiation" to "return his cells to normal" is total superhero-y bullshit and I freely acknowledge that, but I was pretty proud of that first bit. I mean... how would he still be alive and conscious if he was really made out of sand? Doesn't it make sense for it to be something that looks like sand and behaves like sand, but still maintains certain living properties like cellular structure?

I think if this were an actual, published novel, I'd probably pull a total Andy Weir and obsessively research every point of speculative science in this piece. As fanfic... I still did more research than I probably needed to, but I gave myself enough grace with the knowledge that my readers are reading this just for fun, and even the ones who might have more knowledge into the hard sciences would give me a bit of leeway in that.

Here's one more section from the first cure-discussion scene, since I was just really proud of that whole part of the fic:

“What if we tried converting Connors’ cure to a gaseous form?” she suggested, tapping the rough sketch she’d drawn, “I don’t think we’ll be able to get a syringe through those scales, but if we could get him to inhale it instead…” “That could work.” Norman agreed, “Though I’d suggest a fine mist rather than a gas.” “Like an asthma inhaler.” Ophelia guessed.  “Exactly.” he confirmed, “It wouldn’t require heat, only pressure.” 

This one, I didn't do any initial research for, actually! I already knew the basics of how asthma inhalers worked, and the premise of "liquid to gas requires heat, liquid to more finely-distributed liquid does not", so I was actually super pleased for coming up with that on my own. I did later do a little more research into the mechanics of an asthma inhaler for when they actually built the cure, but the initial idea was all mine :)

As an author, my brain actually works very similarly to Ophelia's, which I think helped me a lot in writing this fic. I've had an interest in biology and anatomy since I was a kid (for a while, my favorite book was a children's encyclopedia on the human body), and certain things like the museum she talks about in Chapter 11 are pulled from my own life and experiences (with a little embellishment at times, of course). Also like Olly, I'm always seeking for the most efficient way to solve a problem, and I'm not going to shy away from a little research as needed.

Her perspective is remarkably fun to write! I think in some ways, she's a reflection of who I might've been if I'd tolerated college a little better. I really love learning, but the college climate was just overwhelming and stressful and it wasn't my passion. Now I'm in a career with both scientific and artistic elements, and I really do love the work that I do... and any time I want to tap into my more science-minded side, I can work on my sciencey superhero fics instead lol

____

Psst- for that star, and since I'm so late in getting the fic updated, have a little sneak peek at the next chapter!

He woke up beside her.  It was something he’d been imagining for months though, though he’d expected it to follow a very different chain of events. He certainly wasn’t expecting to feel like he’d been shoved into a massive pinball machine, with so much of his body aching that it all just became a fogged-over cloud of aimless pain, but… it was what it was, and he’d take what he had. He couldn’t change the pain, not now, but he could appreciate the rest of this.  Olly was still asleep. The bruises under her eyes had faded a bit, though he could hear her breath rasping in her throat as it failed to pass through her broken nose. Her knee was still braced, propped up on a heap of pillows, though still swollen and deeply bruised in a way that made him wince. She’d given up a lot for him, that much was clear. But she was here, right beside him, with her callused fingers wrapped loosely around his own. 

[quiveringdeer]

Sorry to fan the flames of your baby fever (except no I'm not), but pls consider Reiner giving the baby a bath in one of those little tub sets, being ever so careful not to get soap in their eyes and not even caring when he gets splashed.

😤HOW. 👏🏽 DARE. 👏🏽YOU. 👏🏽 😤

Nah, but this is cute as heck!! And what a lovely image to think of while taking a break from the "First day of the new year back at work + it's a Monday" grind.

Gosh, I really just love the idea of Reiner being a stay at home dad too tho. He would enjoy it soooo much. Just getting to be a kept man and dote on his babies all the time! 😫🥺🧡

He's always soooo careful whenever handling any kiddo as wee babes. I mean, also any age cause he's just a cautious guy due to his size anyway, but the DELICACY with which he holds and interacts with lil babies is the most heartwarming, cavity inducing scene to watch!

And after washing them up in that tiny lil tub, and getting them in their diaper, he cradles them close as he opens up their dresser or closet and talks to them in such a kind voice, asking them what they want to wear for the day!

And while it's a very gentle voice, he tries not to talk in "baby talk" because this man read sooooo many books in preparation for his first kiddo. (He's determined to do everything he can to be the best dad!) And I'm talkin not just "So You're Gonna Be a Parent" books, but also psychology articles about raising kiddos, and even pedagogy for teaching infants and toddlers! (especially if he gets to be a stay at home dad but you bet your breeches he's making time to read these even with a full time job and being sure to still keep the care and romance alive in y'all's relationship throughout the pregnancy 💞)

He gravitates toward the Montessori teaching approach for when they're really young. Oh! And the whole point of the above tangent, is he read a number of places that by talking to babies and toddlers in a "non-baby speak" voice, helps them better develop their speech skills. Both understanding and talking.

He'd probably even go so far as to incorporate sign language into their life, to better be able to communicate before they have the ability to physically talk.

"Reiner, honey, isn't that a little excessive?"

"But how will they communicate with us until their muscles are strong enough to talk?"

"Oh no babe, I get teaching them sign language to communicate before they can speak. I just don't think we need to plan to take an Advanced ASL course before they get here."

"But it says we'll learn dialogue for conversations that happen around home and school and common phrases associated with talking about the weather and sports. This way I can explain what's happening on the TV when we watch soccer and football."

"Babe, I don't know if they'd be able to understand what's going on regardless of you signing it or not...cause, that's going to be a lot to expect them to learn before they're a year old."

"Oh...right."

"But hey, why don't we put a reminder to take the classes eventually. Knowing ASL will still be a great skill to have. We just don't have to try and learn advanced conversational ASL in the next 6 months. Okay?"

"Yeah. That does make sense. Guess I'm getting ahead of myself. Sorry."

"Hey, hey! No apologies needed Mr.! I love how excited you are and learning all these new things with you. But it'll be okay if we don't know everything or have everything perfect before they get here. I don't even think that's possible with all the time in the world."

"...You're right." You open your arms and wave him to scoot closer for hugs and cuddles. "I just want to make sure they have a good headstart on things. And...that I don't mess things up."

"Reiner, look at me." Two fingers press under his chin to tilt his head up when he doesn't look up. "We're going to make mistakes. No matter how prepared we are. All we can do is love them, and show them we love them. Everything else will work itself out."

"Yeah."

If only speaking words out loud or knowing how logical they were could alleviate anxiety and worry. You press a kiss to his forehead. Then a few more all over his face until he's grinning and retaliating with his own smooching barrage. By the end you're both laughing.

"Love you, Honey Grahams."

The sweet nickname earns you the rich sound of Reiner's renewed laughter. "I love you too."

[septembersghost]

I know you must hate talking about this subject and you've given some really good advice for ignoring things, but just wondering if you have an opinion on the new sofia coppola interview/article on the movie from a day or so ago? I'm trying so hard to not care, but it really broke my heart. There's already so much bad press about elvis and this is killing me and making me so sad. It just seemed so different than the article from last week in tone it surprised me and took me off guard.

it's okay, i'm touched you trust and confide in me, even though i know there's not a lot i can do to assuage this as a whole, just having someone listen can help sometimes. tbh i'm not following press about this at all, so i only know anything when someone tells me. i'm not completely sure which interview you mean? in the most recent one that came up, she said:

"“I didn’t want to villainise him,” says Coppola, but she has been fairly honest about his flaws. “It was the most non-Elvis movie about Elvis. But I didn’t want [the film] to be about a drug addict. I like to leave things to the imagination. It’s just not my style to be in your face.”"

the article itself is what characterizes him in a particularly negative framing, but sofia doesn't actually say that? (and editorializing in articles like this is simply so annoying - when i googled this interview, a different article about the film came up which included a sentence saying elvis "blatantly stole his music," which is totally untrue and an incorrect framing, and i've read enough terrible/inflammatory/poorly fact-checked/unkind articles at this point that my brain shuts off when i see something i know is inaccurate or coming from a place of bad faith).

additionally, she said: "She was reminded of “my mom’s generation, and how my mom grew up with a big force of a husband”, but also the feelings that surround an early love. “All those stages of transition, from girlhood to adult womanhood. I felt it was relatable,” she says."

"I just put myself totally in her perspective and tried to make a film about what if you were her. I didn’t think too much about all the different perspectives. Yes, it was a different time, different culture, but there are elements that remain the same."

we know he could have a fiery temper (yet was always quick to apologize), we know he could get into dark moods and low moments of creative frustration, we know about the issues he had in romantic relationships, we know he struggled with his health, both physically and psychologically, and with managing that in various ways, some tragically damaging, and none of that erases that he was also profoundly kind, generous, loving, funny, spiritual, talented. so i hope it keeps that dynamism. i'd imagine it has to in some way, coming from that feminine perspective that everything is noting, doesn't it have to in order to understand why she fell in love with and was captivated by him, why she continues to love him and speaks highly of his legacy to this day? i know i don't necessarily have a...favorable...opinion of the casting choice here, but if he really does turn out to be that one note figure, it will entirely eliminate the power of the story, even for priscilla too.

my best recommendation is not to read the negative and salacious press and be aware of preconceived biases and misinformation, but i understand curiosity gets the better of us sometimes and we want to know what's happening, even if logic is telling us it'll make us feel worse. i'm so sorry this is making you sad! i know i always go back to elvis and his outlook/relationship towards fans to try to offer comfort with this, but i truly believe he wouldn't want our hearts to break over things we cannot control or change, over perceptions of image (as he himself said: the image is one thing, and the human being is another). his goal towards fans was always one of connection and happiness and the power of music. the focus on highly personal, intimate details ultimately makes me a little uncomfortable because it wasn't what he wanted us to hold onto. like i've said before, you don't have to fight battles for him, you can just keep whatever joy and emotions you feel towards him for yourself. outside opinion on most anything is varied, even divisive, but it doesn't change what you find - that's the sacred thing.