#OR has interpreted it in a valid way that I just straight up don't like

[dykephan]

i saw ur tags about snokoplasm being a queer metaphor and oh my god ur so right and u should say it

i'm sure someone smarter than me has already touched on it but this has always been my interpretation of snokoplasm and i'm happy to spread my agenda 😌

straight away, we see phil ask for snokoplasm, to which the exo helper automatically assumes he wants blue snokoplasm. this implies that a person's preferred color of snokoplasm can be inferred just by looking at them (or at least, you might think you know). upon hearing this, phil laughs and says:

we don't know why, but clearly blue snokoplasm is viewed as something outside of the norm in society, undesirable, though not necessarily "wrong" (it's still being offered as a valid option, after all).

the exo helper responds:

phil takes offense to this and says:

from this, we understand that yellow = the presentation of traditional masculinity, therefore blue must be the opposite. part of the joke is that phil obviously does not have big muscles or a traditionally masculine appearance, yet in this instance, he wants to be perceived that way.

a curve ball is thrown when the exo helper says they only have green snokoplasm. this confuses phil. he insists that it's yellow, effectively forcing this green snokoplasm into the binary he sees the world through (it's blue or yellow, there are no shades of green). finally, phil purchases the green snokoplasm, though he still insists that it's yellow.

as he leaves, the exo helper says this:

which cements the fact that blue snokoplasm is something to be enjoyed only in secret. furthermore, we know the internet played a large part in phil's self discovery as he used it to interact with all kinds of people, gaining confidence that he didn't always feel in person. and, well, we know phil did "buy the blue snokoplasm off the internet" around this time. ie. meet up with guys he met online and was interested in, without going public about it.

later, he asks the viewer whether we think the snokoplasm is yellow or green. this shows that he's conflicted now and he can no longer state with certainty that it is yellow.

despite this inner conflict, the video ends with phil covering himself in yellow snokoplasm (which may or may not actually be green). he has chosen to align himself with the color society expects from him, even if it doesn't suit him. he's not ready yet to call it green, and he's certainly not ready to cover himself in blue snokoplasm for the whole world to see. but maybe someday 🥺

so anyway that's my argument that snokoplasm is a queer metaphor!! also it looks like lube. there, i said the obvious thing

[eloves-writes]

💜 with carlos sainz!! could you make it spicy? it's ok if you don't want to as well it's your choice :)

fun fact! i can see you was one of my surprise songs at the eras tour and it is very near and dear to my heart😌😌 is this secret relationship trope overdone? yes. will that stop me? no!

song lyric prompt: “i can see you waiting down the hall from me, i can see you up against a wall with me” i can see you ~ taylor swift💜

warnings: kissing, reader n carlos being cute, slightly suggestive, oblivious charles leclerc

————————————————————

the whole press conference, you kept finding your eyes wandering over to carlos opposite you on the large sofa. he looked so beautiful today in his ferrari shirt with his summer break tan and messy yet perfect hair; this was the first time you’d seen him since the last race in spa, not managing to align your vacation plans but mostly not wanting to rouse suspicion if you were caught a beach together somewhere. the secrecy was fun and adrenaline pumping, it made you feel like you were in high school again sneaking around behind your parent’s backs- of course, the stakes were much higher due to your on track ‘rivalry’ with the spaniard. at least, the battling for positions and pushing each other off track was interpreted by the media as such; in reality, it was playful, teasing foreplay that you both enjoyed so much that the thought of getting caught and letting everybody else in on your little game disappointed you both immensely.

when the floor was opened up for questions from the journalists, hands shot up as usual and a question headed straight for you.

“this is for y/n and carlos,” the woman started, respectful in her tone which you appreciated after the shit men had asked you in the years since you started racing. “we’ve all liked watching your on-track battles so far this year, but we wonder if you two are coming in just as hot to the second half of this season, or has the rivalry cooled off over the summer break?”

she posed a valid question, but truthfully it was one you wondered the answer to yourself. had the heat between you cooled in each other’s absence? and if it had, was there an on-track rivalry without the off-track affair?

after a beat of silence allowing you both to think, carlos spoke.

“i don’t know about y/l/n, here,” he answered, connecting his big brown eyes with yours and making your stomach flip. “but i’m coming in just as hot.”

you knew what he was really saying. you paused for a second before answering yourself:

“me too,” you responded playfully. “carlos is a great driver, but i’m better.”

-

as you walked off the stage back to your team’s garage, a hand grabbed your waist and carlos leant down to level his lips with your ear.

“i’m good, but you’re better, huh?”

you turned to look at him, trouble in your eyes. “that’s what i said, yep.”

he grabbed your hand and swiftly dragged you into the ferrari garage without anyone seeing. pushing you up against the wall of the corridor, he kissed you feverishly and you kissed him back, welcoming the taste of his perfect lips on yours again and the gentle pull of his hands tangled in your hair.

“i missed you, cariño,” he breathed, pulling away from the kiss to take in every inch of your face as you did the same to him. you would never tire of seeing him so close up, admiring each feature like it was carved from marble. but it wasn’t; he was so, so real.

“mhm, you’re coming in just as hot,” you teased, quoting his answer to the reporter earlier.

carlos chuckled and nodded his head. “oh yeah. i’m definitely hot for you.”

his sarcastic tone made you laugh, leaning up to kiss him again. the kiss turned from sweet to rough in an instant, and your arms which had been previously draped around his neck dropped to hem of his shirt so your hands could explore his toned stomach under the red fabric as you continued to kiss him. his own hands fell to your ass, grabbing it in a way that pushed your hips forward into his crotch, earning a groan from the taller man.

footsteps down the hall took you out of your intimate moment, immediately removing your hands from each other and putting some needed distance between your bodies. you snorted when you noticed the semi forming in carlos’ jeans, and he lightly hit you on the arm for laughing.

“not my fault,” he said quietly through gritted teeth.

“you dragged me in here,” you whispered. “so kinda is.”

he hit you on the arm again as the source of the footsteps approached and carlos’ teammate came into view. he looked from you to carlos, suspicious.

“think you’re in the wrong garage, y/l/n,” charles joked, going in to hug you. “you alright? carlos hasn’t been trying anything with you, has he? can’t keep his hands to himself,” he continued, clapping his teammate on the back. carlos silently begged you not to start laughing.

“no,” you replied, using all your self control to sound calm and unbothered. “i thought i’d just come and inform him that i’m going to absolutely smash him this weekend.”

you smiled at carlos, milking the double entendre for all it was worth before leaving them both and quickly heading back to your own garage.

-

“you totally like her, mate,” charles laughed at his teammate once you were out of earshot. and carlos could deny it all he wanted, but he totally did.

[prince-liest]

Saw a post recently that rhetorically asked why authors and show writers leaving character sexuality up to interpretation is disappointing when fifteen years ago getting a statement that things were up to interpretation (as opposed to "Definitely NOT gay, you freaks!") was a blessing, and I make a point of never discoursing on the bird app, but wanted to share some thoughts on the subject here - particularly because Alastor is kind of a hot topic on this subject and I think he actually makes for a great example for my thoughts on this.

Honestly, as someone who did live through the "if you think my characters are gay then you're stupid and should die" era, I think it left me with the perspective that even if there is canon sexuality, then no matter what it is, you're free to then do whatever you want in fandom. People might call you a dick for it if you go about it in certain ways, but you're free to do it.

That said... that's not really what wanting canon confirmation is about. It's about having canon representation, especially for identities that we often don't see representation of. For example: Alastor being aromantic is "up for interpretation," and that specifically feels bad when it's explicitly been framed that way as a cop out to appease shippers (per Viv), especially when in canon you can see he's intended to be aroace based off of how Rosie talks about him.

Yes, things are better now than they were 15 years ago... but standards are higher now, too!

And in particular I think that while in 2008 or so, "It's up to interpretation!" basically meant "Yeah, they might be gay but I can't say it," nowadays the meaning has shifted. I see a lot of people chiming into any mention of aroace Alastor with this attitude of "Um, actually, he's NOT aromantic because it wasn't confirmed by Viv (even though he wasn't confirmed to NOT be aro either)," rather than the spirit of "Oh, yeah, he might be aro, that's a valid interpretation!" It actually feels very similar to seeing people go "Well, X is OBVIOUSLY straight (the default) because he wasn't confirmed to like men!"

...in 2008, haha.

Anyway, fandom always feels to me like a 'do whatever you want' zone, but I think just based off of the sheer volume and depth of genuine and heartfelt reactions people have had to Alastor as a character and his portrayal as aroace... having canon representation and seeing yourself in media you enjoy matters a great deal to many people.

I had a really emotional moment when I read my preorder of House of Hades from the Percy Jackson series back in middle school and realized that Nico di Angelo was an actual gay character in an actual real, physical book that I was holding in my hands, not "just" a headcanon from my nebulously safe online fandom spaces, for the first time ever. Similarly, people have been headcanoning various characters as ace for a long, long time, but to me it's never had the same punch to it as it being official when it comes to those kinds of feelings re: representation.

So leaving that kind of thing "up to interpretation" specifically as an alternative to providing representation to a group of people who rarely sees it is disappointing, but it's not for shipping reasons.

[anistarrose]

I want to talk about the way aromantic experiences can be represented in very meaningful and validating ways without characters being written as intentionally aro, and also I want to talk about aro-spec Magnus Burnsides headcanons. Luckily, I can do both those things in one post!

During the events of the podcast, Magnus is disinterested in and often straight-up uncomfortable with romance, because of the fate that befell his last relationship, with Julia. I've seen a reading (that I don't think is objectively wrong, though I do not personally share it) that interprets this trait of his as some kind of "sacrifice" he's making on Julia's behalf, being a choice to stay out of other relationships to carry on her memory better. It's a reading that seems pretty reasonable at first glance, but not especially aromantic.

(Because if anything, it almost seems at risk of turning into something like "there is no sacrifice more tragic than not having a romantic partner," right? Or worse, "this is a trauma response that needs to be healed for Magnus to have a happy ending, because being able to enjoy romance is vital to his happiness and self-fulfillment." Both of which are... varying levels of uncomfortable, to me as an aro person. Like, I'm not in the business of telling people how to interpret fictional characters, but I personally can't engage with these without a bad feeling in my stomach.)

However! Back to the various potential readings of Magnus's character! It's worth noting that so much of Magnus's arc revolves around unpacking his trauma, from the destruction of Raven's Roost and Julia's death — and that healing process doesn't change how he feels about romance! The Eleventh Hour is the turning point when he starts to seriously re-evaluate what the trauma and loss made him want, versus what Julia would want for him, and what would let him live in the moment instead of in the past... yet in the Heart Attack segment of Wonderland? Magnus still expresses disinterest in dating.

In Arms Outstretched, then Story and Song, he further internalizes and chooses to let himself be saved and ask for help, instead of punishing himself with martyrdom — and no romantic relationships come up in the epilogue! When he passes away after a long, happy life, it's Carey, — his best friend! — who holds his hand while they wait for the end!

Magnus's reasons for not wanting another relationship are obviously complex — not just a conclusion about himself that he came to lightly, regardless of whether he's on the aromantic spectrum, not on it at all, or deliberately not choosing a label. What makes his arc so unique and special to me, in contrast with almost every other story about traumatized characters finding a happy ending, is that his happy ending isn't contingent on romance! Whenever he says that he's that not into dating, no one doubts him or tries to undermine him (other than Lydia, who's literally trying to feed on his suffering) — and to me, an aro listener...

Well, the way the narrative takes Magnus's wants and lack thereof seriously is just so refreshing.

Ninety percent of characters in fiction who repeatedly stress that they don't want romance or marriage are only shown doing so to set up for the narrative later proving them wrong. It's to contrast with that later point in the story where they "find the right person," or "understand when they're older." Or "stop being so cold," or "stop acting like they're too fucked-up and 'damaged'." Or "overcome their trauma."

It has an air of "wow, isn't this character so ridiculous, for thinking they won't change their mind later?" Or occasionally, "isn't it so tragic, that they can't envision themselves being loved?"

For protagonist-y characters, for heroic characters like Magnus — for any type of character in which "happily ever after" is considered a plausible, fair-game, genre-acceptable outcome — we see the genre conventions also dictate that "settling down in a romance" and the "happy ending" are intertwined. I've seen TAZ posts from back in the era of The Suffering Game/The Stolen Century airing, expressing sentiments like "Magnus not finding someone to love again would be so tragic and mean-spirited, I hate grim and edgy endings like that." While I can appreciate people trying to subvert tropes like "you can only have one 'true love' in all your life," the incredibly non-subversive and ultra-amatonormative belief that "romance is a prerequisite for a happy ending, or even healing arc" is such a deeply unfortunate one to tag on.

I am aromantic. I don't want a romantic relationship. And I find joy in that! I refuse to accept that I need to be "fixed" or "healed" to live a long, happy life, because I'm not broken! What brings me the most joy beyond just living as an aro is seeing stories actually acknowledge that people can find this happiness without romance — like how Magnus's story does! Like how casually and matter-of-factly it subverts expectations — how Magnus says he doesn't want another relationship, and no one comes along to prove him wrong! He doesn't "find the right person" because at this particular phase of his life, and of how he wants to live, there isn't one in a romantic context!

He heals from his trauma enough to find all kinds of joy — doing things he loves, surrounded by people he loves — and not because of, or in service of pursuing, a romantic relationship!

I almost never see fantasy stories where one of the heroes gets to have an arc like that. An arc where they get to live out an ending that I would want. A happy ending that would be happy for me! For people like me!

Magnus Burnsides gives me so much Aromantic Hope. That this is a kind of happy ending that I am not the only one to idealize, and that I could attain, no matter what horrors are being thrown at me in the present. Magnus dies peacefully, after years of assuming that he wouldn't, and he does so surrounded by his dearest friends and family. Who are all so proud of the life that he lived. Magnus was true to himself, to what he felt would bring him healing and fulfillment — instead of what cliché and expectation dictated to him — and he was completely at peace in the end. Ready to rush in one final time.

I immensely doubt that Travis intended for Magnus's story to be an aromantic story in those words, if at all. But Magnus's story resonates so, so much with so many common aromantic experiences. And that means so much to me. I'm so grateful for that. In this day and age, in this world, I needed that.

I needed to have a good long cry about Magnus Burnsides. Aromantic icon, intentional or not.

...

...Of course, because this is tumblr, I want to make a clarification. This isn't some kind of claim like "shipping Magnus with people other than Julia is problematic." It is, however, a thesis statement that "no such ship becoming canon makes Magnus's arc so much more unique." It's an explanation giving full context to how I'm biased, not objective, but willing to argue that it makes his arc so much more meaningful, too.

And most of all, it's a desire to shine a light on a side of Magnus's character and growth that I think goes underdiscussed. Especially underdiscussed through an aro-spec lens. And speaking of which:

Sure, I said I don't think Magnus was intended as an aro-spec character, or that he can only be interpreted as such — but if you made it this far, you know I think this ruff boi's just chock full of aro-spec subtext! So just for fun — and because the world is always deserving of more aro-spec headcanons — let's end this post playing with some different readings of him as aro-spec!

Gray-Aro or Demiromantic Magnus who rarely falls for people to begin with. Why would it be some tragic heroic sacrifice to remain "chaste" and wait for Julia, when not being into romance is just Magnus's default state of being? He's so confused about why people think he's making some tragic sacrifice! So confused, guys! I even wrote a fic about the gray-aro HC a few months ago (link)!

Gray-Aro or Demi Magnus who thought he was just aromantic, no attraction whatsoever, for over a century — until he met Julia, and fell for her (perhaps very, very slowly). But that doesn't change those years gaining perspective as a platonically, familialy loving aro who values those bonds immensely, and always wanted them to remain a prominent part of his life.

Losing Julia devastates him, of course it does — but especially once he remembers the Stolen Century, he knows he has a long-term support system no matter what, and it won't revolve around chasing that unlikely possibility of feeling romantic love again. Why would it? Why would he need to chase something so fickle just to heal?

Aromantic Magnus who feels no romantic attraction, but in the era of Raven's Roost, doesn't not want a romantic relationship. Except, he doesn't after all. Except wait, he kinda does, it's just complicated. Maybe something queerplatonic? Well, he really likes the idea of a wedding, and that's not necessarily mutually exclusive with a QPR, but there's no guarantee his partner would feel that way too, and...

There's just these expectations that go with dating or marriage, of partners expecting him to love them in such a specific way that he knows he can't... and then he meets Julia, who's a romance-seeking aromantic too, with heavily overlapping feelings. Bonding over their similarities leads to dating, and eventually marrying, over a deep platonic love that may or may not still involve cuddles or kisses, or a desire to start a family. They don't panic too much over the labels — they're just so delighted to be with someone on the same wavelength!

When Julia dies, so much goes through Magnus's head. After a while, he can't help but start thinking again about how rare it is for people to want the same things out of a relationship that he does. Or to consider the way he feels for them to be enough. But as time passes, Magnus comes to terms with it more and more. He's happy to wait for Julia again. After all, he's longing, but not lonely. Mourning, but not incomplete.

Aromantic Magnus who is aromantic specifically because of his trauma, but no less aromantic for it. He just can't bear the thought of getting into a relationship again. Ironically, there's a point in time where he thought of himself as a romantic — back while he and Julia were courting each other — that now feels simultaneously so close and so distant. Magnus who has so much to grieve, and grieves this romantic side of him too — at first. Who thinks that there's only two options, for a folk hero in a story like his — settling down to live happily ever after, or dying in battle. And if there's nothing more upsetting, more uncomfortable, than getting married again — then living happily ever after has got to be off the table, right?

Magnus who slowly realizes that doesn't have to be the case. That no, barring seeing Julia again, he certainly doesn't have reason to believe that even time will change this new, alienating part of him — but maybe, it's not so alien after all. Maybe he knows people who won't even question it. Maybe he doesn't have to change it or overcome it to be happy again.

Why is romance some singular thing he has to chase, in order to settle down peacefully again? Why can't he do it with his friends? With his dogs?

And last, Questioning Magnus who might be aro, who might not be aro, and is maybe most likely to be something in between. But it's hard to tell; he's honestly not sure if he'll ever crack it, and.. ultimately, he's okay with that. Because all that matters to him is knowing he doesn't need a relationship to be complete, to take full advantage of his well-earned happy ending — and he's got a great grasp on that one, surrounded by people who never make him doubt it.

Aromantic Magnus Burnsides. Aro-Spec Magnus Burnsides. My aromantically beloved. Thanks, bud, for all the hope when I needed it.

[utilitycaster]

Unpopular opinion: parts of the cr fandom are really dismissive/ reductive of Travis’s characters. It feels like it’s due to Travis being seen as THE cis het man of the group, and by extension his characters must be heteronormative and bad, despite the fact that you could have queer interpretations of his characters. At the very least, Travis’s characters explore masculinity and the different ways it might look. It’s like the people who are all “ew men are gross and shitty” and act like that’s an absolutely normal reaction to a man just existing.

So this is another one in that I agree with the initial statement, but I'm actually not sure re: the reasoning why. I think it's possible but I could not tell you for sure.

I used to, again, think this was people carrying through Campaign 1 elements well beyond the point where C1 had ended, and so Grog having an intelligence of 6 was being applied to Travis; and this definitely does come through to an extent when people treat Fjord (objectively as smart as Beau without her circlet) as stupid or act shocked that Chetney is the brains of Bells Hells or that he can play a Cerrit, Fjord, or Nathaniel. However, again, I think this is one of those opinions that pops up among people who weren't around for Campaign 1 (or early enough in C2 to be exposed to it regularly) so I don't know if that's the case anymore. It could still be - it could be that Approved Fandom Opinions get passed down even when the logic behind them has long since been lost; that's a really common thing in institutional memory. But I can't say for sure.

I also have in the past credited it to, as you said, people assuming his characters are the cishet guys and then writing them off. That's still possible - I've seen both Fjord and Chetney called "token straight" despite considerable evidence of bisexuality, and they also paradoxically are both commonly headcanoned as trans while still getting called "token straight," which sort of ties into a post I would need to find from someone else from quite some time ago about which cast members are granted agency by the fandom in their choices vs. which are assumed to be the victims of circumstance. And I do think that there are people in fandom who have decided men are icky or whatever, and I used to think this came from a place of bigotry and a slide towards t*rf ideology but I now do genuinely think it's just idiots who don't grant interiority to characters outside their own limited understanding.

But I think it's also useful to consider a few things, most of which I've brought up before:

Travis is extremely offline. He is not here to entertain your headcanons; he has been politely but openly dismissive of some (imo, really fucking dumb) fanon/fan theories. I think the cast frequently talks about how it's their table, and I think that's valid and correct, but Travis is one of the players who lives it the most. He is playing this game with his friends, and he'd like it to be a good story, but if you don't like it, he is not here to make you like it. I think that really fucks with the parasocial connections some people desire with the cast.

Travis's characters tend to examine masculinity as a performance but also the general performance of the self, and the fact that you cannot in the end control how you are perceived entirely, and I think that really unsettles people who have equated presentation with reality and are again, looking for external validation of the self.

Travis can play it big but he's often extremely subtle, especially with his more serious characters, and he's not as easily quotable out of context as some others at the table. I think because he is a lot more naturalistic than dramatic at times (Chetney notwithstanding) and isn't as pithy and quotable in his characters as many of Taliesin's PCs are, and a lot of the strength is in the delivery, he gets overlooked despite being very good with words on the fly.

And finally: this would be a whole post on its own but people are still very foolishly wed to this idea that pressing the big red button in D&D is Wild and Chaotic and haha Big ADHD Man when it's actually how you play D&D if you're not a coward; the button is where the story is stored, and a lot of Travis's strength is that he is extremely good at understanding what the GM wants and supporting it with sufficient grace that it's only visible if you know what you're fucking doing.

[animebw]

So, I've been getting almost all my hibike euphonium knowledge from osmosis from what you say. So I wanted to know how integral to the plot is that guy some people ship kumiko with (never learned his name), not only in this season, but in the previous ones too.

Because I don't think you mentioned him at all while talking about this season, other then kumiko being tired when people think they are dating, but I have seem some people say that they did end up together bc something something hair clip in the epilogue?

Also wanted to know if they dropped or dealt with the Reina crush on the teacher thing

You do seem to cherish this show a lot, so I do wanted to check it out myself, but these two things are the only things holding me back at this moment

So here's what actually happens: in the original novels, Kumiko and Shu get together at the end. Unambiguously. She confesses, he gives her the hairclip back, it's a whole big scene.

In the show, Shuichi has maybe twenty lines of dialogue across the entire final season, not a single of which has romantic implications or framing, he has a single line of dialogue in the entire final episode, and then we see Kumiko has the hairpin in the epilogue but it's not commented upon and Shuichi is never seen again.

Last week when episode 12 aired, the original author Ayano Takeda posted on Twitter that she was happy with the changes KyoAni made, and she encouraged fans to appreciate her novels and KyoAni's adaptation as equally valid interpretations of the same story. There was, however, a follow-up tweet where she further clarified that she had the final say on any changes the show made, and if Hanada or Ishihara or whoever proposed a change she wasn't fond of, it was ultimately her call whether to let it happen or not. So what this feels like to me? Is a compromise. A compromise between Takeda's original vision and KyoAni just very obviously not giving a single shit about Kumiko and Shuichi as a couple.

Now, KyoAni's been changing things in Eupho ever since the first season, and in fact, most of their shows diverge pretty heavily from the source material. And since I haven't read the original novels, I only have secondhand knowledge on what KyoAni added or took away. But what I have heard is that while all of Kumiko and Reina's subtext is still there in the novels, Shuichi has a far more visible role in Kumiko's life, with many more scenes dedicated to them as a romantic subplot. In fact, I've heard there were a few scenes in season one between Kumiko and Reina that were originally between Kumiko and Shuichi in the novels. I can't confirm if that's true or not, but frankly, it would not surprise me one bit.

Obviously, I don't know the reasoning behind the decisions KyoAni made. But looking at Hibike as a whole, it feels like they looked at this story with a pretty standard het relationship subplot and realized there was actually a far more compelling love story lurking just underneath the surface, one that Takeda herself didn't seem to realize was as special as it was. So when they turned it into an anime, they made the conscious choice to downplay Shuichi's role as much as possible and cash all their chips on centering her relationship with Reina as the real heart and soul of the story. And over the course of nine years, they supported that story as much as they could, finding every way possible to prioritize them in the narrative and frame them with the cinematic language they've deployed for so many straight couples in the past, while simultaneously refusing to give Kumiko even a single moment where she appears romantically interested in Shuichi.

And I want to stress that last point in particular: outside of that one scene in the Year 2 movie where Shuichi almost kisses her, every single interaction Kumiko's had with the idea of being in a relationship with Shuichi has been "Oh HELL no." She's constantly avoiding him in their first year, she can barely work up the effort to be civil to him while they're actually dating, and it's only after they break up that they're able to be on good terms with each other as friends. Even in this final season, there hasn't been a single moment where it's felt like either of them were considering getting back together. Shuichi's just been happy to support her, and Kumiko feels comfortable around him for the first time ever, and that's the extent of it. It's only the comments from the first years that suggest anything about a romantic subplot still ongoing between them, but none of that is reflected in any of their onscreen moments.

Like, even putting Kumirei aside, there is just no romantic tension between them anymore. Not even in a "Wow, where did that romantic moment come from? That was so forced out of nowhere!" sort of situation- the love story between them is completely nonexistent at this point. The only evidence in this entire fucking season that they start dating again is Kumiko having the hairpin in the epilogue (which, side note, hasn't been brought up all season either), which, frankly, is so open to interpretation that Bandai's shareholders are salivating in jealousy. Sure, maybe it does mean Shuichi asked her again and she accepted, but it could just as easily mean he gave it to her free of charge and accepted she didn't think of him that way. Or it could even mean he gave it to her and said something like "Once Reina finally gets turned down by Taki-sensei, make sure you give this to her, I think it'll be put to far better use that way." And frankly, that last interpretation is way more supported by the show I just watched than simply them getting back together.

The point is, KyoAni does not care about Kumiko and Shuichi getting together. It has never cared about Kumiko and Shuichi getting together. Honestly, my crack theory is the reason they sped through Kumiko's second year in a movie is to get through her Dating Shuichi arc as fast as humanly possibly. But Takeda clearly does care about them getting together, considering that's what happened in the novels. And I suspect that's one thing she decided not to budge on when they were in conversations discussing the changes KyoAni wanted to make. So to compromise, KyoAni put in the barest minimum effort to suggest things technically played out like they did in the novels- "Look, she's got his hairpin! That means they got back together!"- while refusing to spend a single solitary second on it beyond that and removing any explicit confirmation so everyone who doesn't care about them as a couple- KyoAni included- can interpret it otherwise and be fully justified in doing so.

Because from start to finish, through the entirety of this season, the love story that stood at the center of everything was Kumirei. Every last plot beat, every last thematic throughline, every last bit of swelling music and romantic framing and effort spent making you root for two people to stay together, it was always them and no one else. Even the big change they made in episode 12 where Kumiko loses the soli only further cements their story as the story of this show, with Reina's utter devastation at losing her only confirming just how special Kumiko was to her in a way not even Taki-sensei truly measures up to. I've said it in the past, but even moreso now than ever, it is impossible to look at the arc of Hibike Euphonium and not see a love story between these two girls, a story about just how fucking much they mean to each other and all the reasons their connection was something unlike anything else on this earth.

And if you choose to see it as a story of Kumiko and Shuichi getting together instead? Then you are actively fighting against what the show is communicating to you every second of every episode. You are, in fact, the delusional shipper inventing a romantic subplot where none exists. You are everything that yuri shippers are accused of being when they choose to actively engage with the text as it exists and not as you imagine it to be. Because as open-ended as the ending is, as straight as it pretends to be, it is far easier to imagine a future where Kumiko and Reina reunite as lovers than a future where she somehow falls for the guy she's never shown any interest in before. Frankly, if I was a Shuichi truther I'd feel pretty insulted by this ending! "What do you mean their entire subplot is cut out and it's only half-assedly implied in the epilogue that it totally happened offscreen? What is this bullshit?!"

This is why I chafe so strongly against the queerbaiting label. I watched three seasons of BBC Sherlock, I know full well what queerbaiting looks like. But a love story like this does not happen out of malice. It only happens because every single person involved, from animators to voice actors to directors and everyone in between, believes in it so strongly that they're willing to push as hard as they can to make it as real as physically possible within the limitations at their disposal. Kumirei is Hibike. Their story is Hibike. And if KyoAni can't convince Takeda to let them embrace it fully, well, they can at least wrestle her to a stalemate that allows that interpretation to still be possible- and, even, more plausible than the direction she initially took it down.

Adaptation is an art of making changes. It requires a text to stand on its own, fully apart from whatever source it sprang from. And KyoAni in particular has always embraced the philosophy of treating adaptation not as a one-to-one copy machine like so many of its contemporaries, but an opportunity to build something entirely new. All of its shows are, first and foremost, shows before they're translations of their source material, works of art designed to be taken as wholly complete experiences however much they resemble their inspirations or not. In Hibike! Euphonium the novel series, Kumiko and Shuichi are canon. In Hibike! Euphonium the TV show? It's flat out impossible to come to that same conclusion unless you're dead-set on believing what you want to believe, evidence be damned. And if you're so obsessed with this mid het ship that you choose to ignore the single greatest love story of all time to pretend it's more plausible, then you're simply an idiot who's opinions aren't worth engaging with.

[sodasa-was-taken]

How subtle is the romance of G-Witch really: The language of romance and the bias in interpretation

First of all, I want to express my gratitude for all the feedback I've received. You guys are awesome. When I posted my first analysis, I had no idea how it would be perceived. Throughout my life, I've mostly been met with confusion, if not a bit of curiosity, when I've told people about my fascination with the romance genre. Even people who like the genre don't treat it with the respect I do but rather see it as something they can turn their brains off to. I was scared that people who saw my analysis would think that G-Witch, I dunno, had too much else going on to be considered a romance. I can't tell you all how validating it's been to get this much praise for writing about one of my biggest passions. Thank you so much.

This post is less an analysis of G-Witch as it's an exploration of the hypocrisy in how straight and gay romances are interpreted even by the queer community. I've engaged with a lot of female/male romances, especially when I was younger and thought I was straight, so it's quite surreal seeing similar stories being interpreted vastly differently based only on whether the main characters are queer or not.

There's been a lot of discussion about how explicit same-sex relationships in fiction should be. Many agree that the minimum for the characters to be unambiguously into each other is for them to kiss. That would be an ideal metric if the same applied to a man and a woman being into each other. It does not. For the vast majority of history, since people first started portraying characters in romantic relationships, explicit depictions of physical affection between those characters haven't been a thing. Depicting that sort of thing didn't become commonplace until the 20th century. For example, you would be hard-pressed to find any of the somewhat indecent positions Miorine and Suletta get into in a Jean Austin novel. Like, usually in a platonic hug, you lay your head on someone's shoulder or clavicle, and Miorine's burying her face in the upper part of Suletta's cleavage. How scandalous!

Of course, these views are centuries old, and the expectations of what should be included in a story about people getting together have changed drastically since then. Except in a lot of ways, it hasn't. Especially in manga, light novels, and anime, it can take real-life years for two characters to show affection through physician touch. Still, it’s expected that the characters are or will become attracted to one another and that they’ll end up together before the end of the story. Unless they’re the same gender, where not only is that not an expectation, but due to tropes such as Bury Your Gays, people are more likely to think one of them is going to die. That’s messed up. Being a main character in a romance or something adjacent shouldn’t be a death sentence for any character. Then there’s the fact that same-sex couples-to-be in fiction can be as forward as they want in their physical and verbal affections. Still, a straight couple-to-be that does nothing but bigger or just be the most prominent characters in their respective genders will still be perceived as less ambiguous. A man and a woman who get a bit flustered around each other are hopelessly in love. Yet, two girls sharing an intimate hug after a conversation about how neither wants their engagement to just be a transaction; that’s “totally platonic.”

Better yet, Hollywood has fine-tuned this to the point that the male and female leads only need to look at each other for about five seconds, and it’s enough to infer that they’re attracted to each other. This has become so ubiquitous that people have gotten confused when the leads are implied not to have gotten together despite having shown zero romantic intent. Having the character show romantic intent isn’t generally considered a requirement for them to end up together in a Hollywood film. No, seriously. All this is to say that literary and visual shorthand have always been and continue to be a major part of romances. Yet, the bar is much higher when it comes to the confirmation that two characters of the same gender are into each other. An author can use the exact same narrative tools that have become a staple of female/male romances/romantic subplots, and someone will tell you you're being led on for picking up on them.

The main reason for the high standards placed on same-sex couples is the desire for representation. If straight couples are allowed to or even expected to kiss at some point in the story, the same should be the case for same-sex couples. That said, kissing neither is nor should be the be-all and end-all of good representation. Yeah, straight couples get to kiss and have sexual relationships, but by all accounts, a significant amount of straight representation is absolutely abysmal. Lots of straight romances reek of sexism, outdated gender roles, and stereotyping, are toxic, and straight-up have a reputation for romanticizing abuse. If kissing or an “I love you” is the metric to which good representation is judged, two straight people who have zero chemistry or are downright abusive would be better representation than a same-sex couple whose relationship is built on mutual respect and support but who doesn't get to kiss or say “I love you” and that's ridiculous.

It’s also worth noting how people who tell others they’re crazy for seeing a queer story where according to them, there aren’t any, get characterized as needing to see something explicit to pick up that a story is or even just be interpreted as a queer romance. The thing is, most of these people aren’t dense; they’re willfully ignorant. They can pick up on the signs just as easily as they can in male/female romances; they’re choosing not to, even if it’s likely an unconscious decision. There seems to be a need among queer people to have depictions in media that even bigots can’t deny are queer. Why though? Representation is vital in helping to normalize the existence of various types of people, but for so many queer people, it just doesn’t seem to be enough. So what if some people wouldn’t get it unless the characters kiss? Those people will just start complaining about how they’re having queerness forced down their throats, and that’s their problem. There’s so much more to the queer experience than displays of physical affection, and this representation gatekeeping isn’t helping anyone. Normalizing same-sex couple kissing is important, but normalizing people of the same gender kissing is only going to normalize the kissing itself. If, for example, two people of the same gender get to kiss and then one of them gets killed off, that's the opposite of normalizing same-sex relationships.

Pulling from my own experiences, I've never been told that there was anything wrong with two people of the same gender kissing. Still, I saw same-sex relationships as inferior and believed being in one couldn't give me the life I wanted. I tried so hard to convince myself that I was straight and was only attracted to someone with a different gender presentation than me – because I was also an egg who told myself I was wrong for feeling uncomfortable for being referred to as my assigned gender at birth. Honestly, I thought that I would be happier if I didn’t even entertain the idea of getting together with someone with the same gender presentation as me. So, imagine how much it meant to me to see a show about two girls where one of them didn’t even think that getting engaged to another girl was an option, both of them having young men interested in them but asking each other to spend their life with them, and ending the show being married and being all the happier for being with the other. That's the kind of representation I've been looking for.

On a less serious note, I’d like to share an antidote from when I watched episode one for the first time. When Suletta sees someone floating around in space who appears to be in danger I didn’t initially consider that the person in question might be Miorine. The visuals planted the idea in my mind and the thing that confirmed it was the framing of the two inside Aerial’s cockpit. I couldn’t explain what I was picking up on, but to me, it was a dead giveaway.

[myfairkatiecat]

I think you're misunderstanding my point a bit, the problem is not "accidentally agreeing with someone when they also disagree with you on other points". I agree that worrying about that is silly. However both my hypothetical post and the actual post, in my opinion, have the problem of presenting a false dichotomy which is indicative of bias. "We need more single mothers in media" is a point which is completely unrelated to the much stupider point of "there are TOO MANY women with jobs in media", and the fact of the matter is that being bothered by seeing women in media who have jobs is, not inherently sexist, but certainly something you would expect more from a misogynist than a non misogynist.

Similarly the original post pairs a point that many agree with - "more fandoms/media should portray close brotherly friendships" - with an unrelated (and in my opinion, very entitled) complaint about fandoms being too gay, as if it's not possible for both gay relationships and brotherly ones to both be respected and given validity without choosing one as the correct or more valid interpretation. Or as if, as the person who responded to that post was alleging, the post was trying to imply that interpreting characters as gay is inherently worse than interpreting them as brotherly. Given that that's a very bold claim, I think supporting that claim with "btw this same person has said this on the topic of gay people irl" is quite normal?

The reason context matters is not because valid points become gross and wrong when said by the wrong person, but because valid sentiments can be used to mask other, less valid sentiments. If you agree with both points, that's one thing, but if you think complaining that fandom is just too gay is indicative of homophobia, "the person who said that has also publicly stated that they don't support the LGBT community" is relevant information in that discussion. And I frankly think that "actually, my friend thinking that fandom is too gay is completely unrelated to that same friend thinking being gay irl is sinful" is a very strange claim that I struggle to believe, in the same way I would not believe it if someone said "the fact that I get mad when I see women on TV with jobs is completely unrelated to me thinking women shouldn't have jobs because then I could sleep with them more easily".

Ok so this is the post in question by @gracefulchristiangirl:

why aren't guys allowed to have strong brotherly friendships anymore without being queer headcannoned anymore. like- not all strong relationships are because of romantic or sexual desire??? some people have life-long friendships with other guys who are literally their brothers???

Reading comprehension check: “NOT ALL strong relationships are because of romantic or sexual desire.” This post is a response to the frequent sexualization of male friendship, which feeds a culture of toxic masculinity. If showing affection is consistently interpreted as inherently gay (like posting a gif of Sam and Frodo with the caption “there is NO heterosexual explanation for this” which does happen quite frequently) then straight men are going to be discouraged from being affectionate with their friends because, understandably, they don’t want people unanimously agreeing that they must therefore be a sexuality that they aren’t.

This post is about people erasing the possibility of friendship between two men when they see a certain type of behavior, usually expressions of care or love. This isn’t a response to “I think it would be cool if Merlin and Arthur were gay so I’m going to write a fic where they’re gay,” it’s a response to “look at the way Merlin is looking at Arthur in this scene with so much love in his eyes. Look at the way he holds him tenderly ad he dies. They’re literally so gay, like wdym they aren’t lovers??” One such statement owns that it is something made up by the person with the headcanon, while the other statement makes affection between two men seem inherently romantic! I used the merlin fandom as an example because I have seen that second statement made, almost word for word, and it’s sentiments like those that make me glad for posts like the one we are discussing.

The post is not about gay people. The post is about viewing close male friendships as inherently romantic or sexual in fandom spaces, which is unfortunately very common.

This post is also not about fandom spaces being “too gay,” as you said in your ask. *wags finger like an aunt* mm-mm-mm, that’s not what OP said! She didn’t say fandom spaces were too gay!

[beanghostprincess]

What’s your opinion on relationship between Roger and young shuggy

Making this quick because I think I've talked about this already an awful lot (and I love it. Please. Anything that has to do with young Shuggy makes me go feral every time).

A lot of people believe Roger played favorites when it came to his kids because. I mean. Look at the scenes we have. Giving Shanks his hat (in fact, both of his hats in that Wano scene) and in general not paying that much attention to Buggy unless it's to tell him to stay behind instead of going to Laugh Tale because he is sick (which is literally what any father would do and this only shows that he cares for him).

But I think he loved both a lot, just in different ways. And I believe that both ended up pretty messed up with how they were raised.

From what we've seen, the flashbacks we have are from Oden's POV and Buggy's. We never have Roger's or Shanks' or even Reyleigh's interpretations of what happened. So, from what we've seen, I think Roger put a lot of pressure on Shanks to be his legacy at a very young age and Buggy interpreted this with envy and thought Roger didn't care about him the same. Which is a valid thought, especially from what we've seen. But I personally like to think Roger went just a little bit harder on Buggy because of the typical "You have a lot of potential but you have to fight harder than the rest to achieve it and by ignoring you I am giving you an opportunity to be independent" or something like that. Because I think it makes more sense than Roger straight-up playing favorites.

Seriously, where is my scene of Buggy resenting Shanks and saying that he was Roger's favorite and Shanks being extremely fucking confused because "What do you mean his favorite?! He only talked about you, moron!".

So to summarize, I think we don't have that much content to have a specific canon interpretation, but in my opinion, I think Buggy's POV is really altered by his jealousy and envy toward Shanks and it only shows that Shanks was also under a lot of pressure. But that doesn't mean Roger didn't love them. Those were his kids!!!! That is their dad!!! I'm not fighting anybody about this. So he loved them but since he knew he was dying he trusted Shanks a little bit too much being the face of the new generation and gave Buggy a bit of a harsher treatment because he thought he had to work more than the average.

And that is how you end up with two sons: A failguy with a savior complex who is always sacrificing himself and drinking himself stupid and a clown with an inferiority complex that only knows how to survive instead of fighting for what he wants.

[tobiasdrake]

I'd say that Tri, Last Kizuna and 02 The Beggining are a tad of a weird approach to try and bank into nostalgia, but not letting go the concept of "no you have to say goodbye to the 'mons"... which doesn't work after 02's epilogue. And then Adventure 2020 happened, and forgot that it was supposed to be an assemble show.

I don't have a problem with nostalgia banking, but Last Evolution Kizuna wanted really badly to be Toy Story 3 and failed. That, I take a lot of issue with.

There's a lot of heated debate surrounding LEK. The idea that the kids' partnerships with their Digimon break because it's time to put away childish things and grow up is extremely contentious within the fandom, but it's also not universally agreed that the film is even saying that thanks to translation issues with the subs and also some very ambiguous imagery with the ending.

There are basically two different interpretations of what happens in LEK.

1 - Sora, Taichi, Yamato, Jou, Mimi, and Koushiro all lose their Digimon Partners because they enter adulthood - but not Takeru and Hikari because they still have a few years to go.

This is a natural occurrence and the result of growing up. They have no choice and no agency in the matter; The Universe takes their Partners away because they're too old to be playing with toys anymore, and they just need to fucking suck it up and deal.

2 - Sora, Taichi, and Yamato lose their Digimon Partners because they're too irresponsible with their adulthood. Mimi, Jou, and Koushiro do not because they're responsible adults and are balancing their adult lives and their love for their Partners well.

What happens to Sora, Taichi, and Yamato is a rare and unusual occurrence, but there is hope that they will one day find their Partners again once they've gotten their heads on straight and made their way as adults.

For obvious reasons, the film is very unpopular with fans who take the first interpretation and pretty well-liked with fans who take the second. Which one is actually the valid and intended reading? Well. It's complicated. The movie went through a tumultuous creative process, to the point that Adventure series director Kakado Hiroyuki walked out on production midway through over disagreements and inconsistencies to the original series.

Which is, y'know, always a promising sign for a new entry in a series.

Watching the film, for me, it honestly feels like both readings are intended. Which is to say, you can find evidence to support either/or. I don't think that's deliberate, I just think the film was sloppily made and shows signs of conflicting creative visions.

Proponents of the Good Movie interpretation can point to the villain of the film, whose central motivation is literally that having your Partner taken away because you grew up is some fucking bullshit. In its final act, the film reveals that her Partner did come back - Just in an unrecognizably different form, not as the Partner she knew.

So the natural conclusion then is that Agumon and Gabumon will reincarnate and may find their way back to Taichi and Yamato; They just won't be Agumon and Gabumon. Which still contradicts the 02 epilogue despite proponents of the Good Movie interpretation insisting that 02's epilogue is still canon to LEK.

Which itself has evidence to support it (Taichi and Yamato are on their way to becoming the people they are in the epilogue) and evidence to refute it (Agumon and Gabumon fucking died).

As the translation breakdown in the above link shows, there's also some phrasing issues that created confusion. Gennai in the official English version describes losing your Partnership as a typical occurrence while, in the original Japanese, he seems to describe this more like a rare thing that he doesn't fully understand.

It's explained that what's happening is the narrowing of potential. Children have infinite potential, which something something Digimon Partnerships. As you make choices with your life, you narrow your potential, and eventually it can no longer sustain a partnership - Unless you're able to become an adult with limitless potential anyway!

That seems like it's setting Taichi and Yamato up to figure out their shit and save their Partnerships at the last second. But they figure out their shit and still lose their Partners, which gets described in the end as a rite of passage.

The blog with the big translation breakdown I linked above makes a note of the difference between the official translation, "This is how we finally grew up," and a more accurate translation, "This is how we arrived at the entrance to adulthood." As they say, it shouldn't be translated with finality.

But that's splitting hairs, because either version is still saying that losing Agumon and Gabumon was Taichi and Yamato's rite of passage from childhood into adulthood. Whether they've become adults or taken their first steps into adulthood doesn't actually matter; it's still describing this loss as the gateway that brought them there, which is the point of contention.

They did what they were supposed to do, they were still punished for it, and then they close by describing it as if it were an inevitable consequence of growing up despite what Gennai said. Which may or may not be corroborated by what happened to Jou, Mimi, and Koushiro.

Proponents of the Good Movie interpretation will point to Jou, Mimi, and Koushiro as proof that not everyone loses their Partners. Proponents of the Bad Movie interpretation will point to those same characters as proof that everyone does. This is due to a fundamental disagreement in how you interpret the final scenes.

At no point does the film ever say, with words, that Jou, Mimi, and Koushiro lose their Partners. But it does conclude with these images:

The final shots of Taichi, Yamato, and Sora show them to be moving forward with their adult lives, with no Digimon. The younger kids Takeru and Hikari's slides contain Patamon and Tailmon. There are also slides for the 02 characters, which show their Digimon Partners still taking an active role in their lives too.

But Jou, Koushiro, and Mimi? No Partners in their slides.

Good Movie fans will say that the film never says explicitly that they lost their Partners, so this means nothing. Their partners are probably just offscreen somewhere.

Bad Movie fans will say that these slides are meant to show the older kids moving on with their lives post-Digimon and the younger kids still having their Digimon Partnerships. There's a clear contrast between Hikari and Takeru's slides versus Taichi, Yamato, and Sora's - and Jou, Koushiro, and Mimi are presented like Taichi, Yamato, and Sora here, not like Hikari and Takeru.

Good Movie fans have the counterpoint to be made that their Partners still exist in 02's epilogue. So, y'know, canon faithfulness says that everyone's Digimon will come back or was never lost. Checkmate, naysayers.

But also Last Evolution Kizuna basically ignores Tri and makes no attempt to address the questions it left hanging, and also the Adventure story director walked out of production over inconsistencies to the original so I don't think you can really use canon faithfulness as a talking point here.

Taichi and Yamato are still on their way to becoming an ambassador and an astronaut respectively, so the epilogue hasn't been thrown out entirely. But it clearly has been thrown out. Jou was supposed to become a doctor in the Digital World, Sora was supposed to become a fashion designer instead of inheriting her mom's ikebana mastery, and Mimi was supposed to become a chef instead of selling cosmetics.

Yeah, Taichi and Yamato are still on-track to a similar life path than what the epilogue gave them, but nobody else is. So I don't think the movie is actually as faithful to 02 as the Good Movie side thinks it is. And apparently neither does Kakado Hiroyuki.

For me, I do think they were trying to say it's time for the kids to put away childish things and grow up. I don't think they meant that to be insulting. But I do think it's kind of insulting.

I think they were trying to do what Toy Story 3 did; To tell a story about the rite of passage from childhood to adulthood and what that means for the things we loved and enjoyed as kids. But I don't think that story works when the putting away of childish things is something cosmically forced on the children rather than a choice they make with their own agency.

Toy Story 3 wouldn't have landed the way it did if the movie was about Andy's mom pinning him down by the arms while garbagemen come in and throw Buzz and Woody into a woodchipper. But that's kind of what Last Evolution Kizuna does to the Adventure kids.

Taichi and Yamato get to give a powerful emotional farewell to Agumon and Gabumon. But they don't want to, they are not making this choice for themselves, and no reason is ever provided for why they should have to. And even the best defenses of the film just make it out to be a weird, random cosmic blip that maybe they'll fix some day, who knows.

Even in the best-case scenario, the universe just decided to grievously hurt Yamato and Taichi for no reason even though they were already making strides to undo the thing they were allegedly being punished for. It's still mean-spirited and cruel even in the best possible interpretation.

So. Yeah. All things considered, I find myself falling on the side of "It's a bad movie and I don't accept it as part of my personal Digimon canon." I don't accept that the children need to all have their Digimon deleted once they enter into adulthood, and I equally don't accept that they don't need to have that happen but that Taichi and Yamato deserved to have their Digimon ripped away from them at the end. There is no version of this movie that I actually like.

[howlsofbloodhounds]

I think the only headcanon I like and remember consistently is Killer having attachment issues in the way

When any relationship gets too real, he does his best to push the other one away. Actively doing things he knows the other one won't like so they'll leave him, because he doesn't deserve any kind of good-ish relationships. He thinks they'd do better in life without him. Uhh I think it's just a case of self-hatred, if I know my emotions right(which I don't)

Yes i agree. Although I think the reasons behind this isn’t as straight forward as it seems. Very important to keep in mind that Killer has a dissociative disorder—this will affect his attachments. Such as in his Stages.

For Stage 2, i genuinely think he is not interested in emotional connections, or at least is convinced he is. He views them as a threat to his independence and emotional detachment, and views himself as not capable of having them.

He prefers to live his fantasies out in his mind where it’s safer and less risk—where he has control. The second anything comes too real, and he starts filling engulfed, he will detach himself and start actively self sabotage to make them leave. This is to protect himself, and only himself.

There isn’t exactly a sense of “I don’t deserve this/you,” exactly. The most I can see this mindset cropping up is in his relationship with Color. For everyone else it’s more like, “I don’t need you. I don’t need anyone.” (Which is rich, considering his entire codependency shit with Nightmare. Silly little un-self aware bastard he is.

Although with Nightmare he doesn’t really have to worry about giving a shit about Nightmares emotions genuinely unless they impact him—he just does what he’s told or what he has to, and in return he gets purpose and direction.)

This is his schizoid and antisocial tendencies. Which i headcanon killer to have traits of in Stage 2. I think Stage 2 would have a dismissive avoidant attachment style.

In Stage 1, it’s much like you said—feeling undeserving—but also feeling deeply afraid of being engulfed, controlled, rejected, or abandoned or hurt again—although he deeply craves emotional connection and validation and safety.

For me, personally, Stage 1 is either anxious preoccupied attachment style, or fearful avoidant.

I’m not quite certain about how it’d manifest in Stages 3 and 4—mostly because killer doesn’t really attach much in these states. These two have bigger things to worry about than getting attached—and possibly don’t even conceive things like relationships.

Which, yeah, these are dissociative adaptations meant to keep killer alive or avoid suffering in ways that may be outdated to his current situation. Based on certain interpretations, Stage 3 is more likely to be entirely focused on the immediate moment and himself—nothing and no one else. Stage 4 is entirely unlikely to be focused on itself at all.

This would likely change and develop when Killer manages to form genuine connections and escape the dangerous abusive environment he is in— such as with Color, and then perhaps eventually with the rest of the Epic Sanses and the Chromatic Crew. And of course, the Stages are all still the same person— so there will be ripple effects.

[anonzentimes]

Hii!! I agree with your points and your interpretation is valid. But just wanted to say that I think that using a guy character not acting like a pervert and borderline assaulty around women as a proof of them not being attracted is a very flawed and harmful logic (talking ab the scene of Komaeda falling under Mikan’s skirt you mentioned). I’m attracted to women but if I fall under girl’s skirt or witness an embarrassing situation I will be uncomfortable too. Komaeda’s reaction is how a normal respectful person would react and I’m very saddened that the amount of pervert anime characters has normalized such behaviour

That's super fair! I only realize now I am using it under the expectations of Danganronpa since there are so many perverted characters in the franchise, you're right and thank you for pointing that out. That actually is really upsetting now that you mention it, yeah I'm going to edit that out ew.

I've made posts on twitter of small, even if silly, praises about how Nagito seems to really value consent. He's always the loudest and most annoyed about teruteru's behavior, and within the franchise he's the one who's the most respectful and realistic when it comes to the problematic subjects. It's sad that not every character is as respectful as him. In fact almost all of the dr2 male cast is crushing on girls, some being gross about it, the only ones who don't are Nekomaru and Nagito. Crushing on girls is definitely not the issue, but half of them being gross about it is.

Just to redeem the example because I'm upset by it here's some instances of his weird somewhat lack of interest in women that we've seen or general vagueness

Chiaki saying this isn't as straightforward but it still implies her being sexy wouldn't work to get Nagito's attention which still says things about his possible disinterest or respectful nature maybe even both.

During fan service scenes in every manga adaptation he never blushes while every other character does

He avoids the question of sexuality every time it's asked, he either doesn't know it himself, doesn't think about it because he thinks he's unworthy, or has to beat around the bush because he's closeted. Although outside of characterization wise it may just be kodaka staying vague because that's the common pattern Lmao. The question is avoided during Q&as and during ultra despair girls he just ignores Kurokoma altogether lmao (would add more but image limit on mobile is my worst enemy)

i've seen multiple interpretations for this so just ???

Either way the status of canon is: Nagito shows interest in men and we see he has sexual desires, he's anything that isn't straight or aroace. He doesn't show evident interest in women and there's been no official word on his sexuality, it is up in the air when it comes to specifics. He is absolutely a queer coded character, whether he's gay, pan, bi, or something else there's no doubt about that. I believe Nagito is gay because there's a lot of evidence supporting this, I think it also makes his storyline more impactful. But at the end of the day there is no said canon and people are free to headcanon what they want to, whatever people say that isn't invalidating important parts of his character we actively see is preferred.

[schmorpthe]

I see a lot of debate on this fandoms found family obsession and I want to add my two cents and headcannons that no one reaaaallllyyyyy cares about.

I think there's a balance of it that's good. For example, I think interpreting Maya and Phoenix as siblings is just as valid as best friends. Siblings can be best friends, my own sister is literally my best friend. It works with the dynamic of them both feeling like they're taking each other in after Mia's death, and I see their banter and can relate it to how my sister and I treat each other.

On the other hand, I don't like it when people give Phoenix and Apollo the father-son dynamic. I think there is a level of protectiveness from Phoenix, coming from seeing some of himself when he was younger in Apollo, as well as knowing he's Trucy's brother. But Apollo is an adult who looked up to Phoenix when he was younger, just his trust betrayed. At first it's a case of never meet your idols for Apollo. He also finds him irritating. I think there is a point where those two can get on good terms and Apollo forgives Phoenix, but they aren't family. It's a different type of love and care. They are mentor and mentee. Apollo will always find Phoenix annoying too, he just gets used to it and that irritation no longer is from a place of resentment, just Phoenix pushing his buttons.

As far as Athena goes, I haven't played much of DD yet because I started as the new trilogy got announced and decided to wait, but I think it's another case of Phoenix being protective but not quite in an adopted kid sense. He sees a young girl who needs some love, care, and guidance. You can love and care for someone a bit like a daughter without going all the way into they are my daughter territory. Trucy and Athena? Best friends. You know how so many of us have best friends that are basically like a sibling but we don't literally feel like siblings? That's them. They are an unstoppable duo.

As far as Edgeworth and Kay goes, I haven't finished AAI but I do see a little bit of adopted father-daughter dynamic, but not as intense. Kay is very self sufficient and made it through her teen years without her own dad or Edgeworth in her life. They are bonded over the shared trauma of losing a parent at the courthouse and Edgeworth is protective of her and his door is always open for her in the good and the bad. The paternal instinct is there and he would help her through anything. I feel like Kay called him Dad by accident one time and that did make them more like family, but apart from emotional times or jokes, he is Mr Edgeworth.

On the note of Edgeworth, I'm not keen on the adopting basically the entire prosecutor's office. I just don't feel like that's Edgeworth. I do think he softens yes. I do think he cares about his employees, but it's the vibe of a good boss being on professionally friendly terms. They can go to him for help, sometimes not work related. He can be a mentor. But he's their boss first and foremost, and in a more Edgeworth sense than Phoenix. More by the book. So yes he cares about them and can sometimes be protective, but not in a family way.

I do like Edgeworth eventually becoming Trucy's other Dad, but it takes time. For a long time he's Uncle Edgeworth and it takes him a long time to adjust to that even. Eventually he starts treating Trucy like a daughter, Phoenix pulls him up on it, he has a bit of a crisis. This is after the 7yg when Phoenix no longer has to live in the shell he did before getting his name cleared, therefore being able to officially be with Miles. Point being it's not immediate. He does immediately live Trucy but his instinct isn't familial for a while.

Honestly me explaining this hasn't completely gotten what's in my head across about I hope you get what I mean.

Also, at the end of the day everyone can have their own interpretation of the game. People will make it what they need it to be and that's okay. As long as what you are going with isn't illegal or straight up gross, go ahead. These are my own conclusions I've come to and it's these interpretations I look for in the media I consume, but whatever fuels your love for this series is what matters ✨

[thatseventiesbitch]

Do you think any of the Donna criticisms is valid? Or do you think fans are being to harsh. Also I find it cringy that some fans bleep out letters in the characters names. Like grow up

Thanks for the ask!

I think Donna, like every other character, has her flaws but I have not seen any recent discussion in the fandom about them. The "criticisms" I have seen recently are not ones I believe the show/canon supports. I don't think the newer fans are being too harsh, just inaccurate. They are coming to conclusions not based on canon, but on their own interpretation. Which is fine. It's just not my thing.

The greatest hits:

Donna thinks she's better than Eric.

No, she doesn't. There's little to no evidence of this in the series. On the contrary, Donna is one of the people in Eric's life who builds him up and helps him develop his self-confidence. She tells Eric - and others - constantly what she likes so much about him and their relationship. She doesn't take him for granted - she is obsessed with that boy! People who say otherwise are just cherry-picking (or they truly don't understand the show).

In her own words:

"You wanna know how I feel? Fine, I'll tell ya how I feel. [Opens to random page of her diary] Today at lunch I was looking at Eric when he didn't know it and I just couldn't believe how much I love him and how lucky I am to be with him." -S3E22

Donna never apologizes/the show puts her on a pedestal and acts like she never does anything wrong.

Simply not true. Donna is actually shown to be very reflective and can own her part in conflict (especially with Eric). Just off the top of my head:

S2E20 "Kiss of Death", she and Eric have a conversation where she admits she overreacted and explains why she thinks she did

S2xE6 "Vanstock", she admits she overreacted and tells Eric he's a really great boyfriend

S4xE7 "Uncomfortable Ball Stuff", she apologizes to Eric at the end of the episode and they both agree to figure out their new normal

S4xE27 and S5xE1, she apologizes to Eric for Casey and her role in their conflict all season

S6xE21 "5:15", she admits Eric was right about Mitch and goes to support him in fighting him

S6xE18 "Do You Think It's Alright?", at the end of the episode she admits Eric was right and forks don't matter, she just got all caught up in the wedding stuff and trying to follow the book but she's just doing that because she feels lost and overwhelmed

I could literally just keep going on and on and on! (One thing about me, is I'm gonna bring receipts 😂)

Donna's a bad friend to Jackie.

I do think Donna misstepped at points throughout her friendship with Jackie, but I also take into account how difficult it can be to be Jackie's friend and the kind of friendship Jackie returned to her.

For instance, Donna did tell Jackie that her relationship with Kelso was unhealthy and that she deserved better. Jackie straight up did not want to hear it, and insulted Donna for telling her the truth. Donna didn't initially want Jackie to move in during season 6 but look at why that might be. Jackie moved in and insisted Donna accommodate her (loud ABBA music to feel the vibration on the bed, anyone? 😂), read her diary and left mean comments in the margins, painted her own name on the bedroom wall, etc. Is that all for humor? Of course. Does it help me understand why Donna wouldn't want Jackie to move in with her? Yes. And in the end what happens? Hyde confronts Donna about the situation Jackie is going through and why Donna made her feel small by asking her to move in the way that she did, and Donna reflected upon the situation and changed her mind, did the right thing to help her friend.

I also think far too much is made of her being impulsive and/or destructive when she's under stress.

Yes, she responded to one isolated stressor (the disintegration of her parents' marriage) with those traits - the skipping school and failing classes for attention, making risk choices with Casey, etc. But I would argue that's not Donna's MO, it's not how she always or even usually responds to stress - by blowing up her whole life and making risky choices. For instance, when Eric didn't show up to the wedding. She was pissed and sad, but she sought comfort from her mom - she didn't go on a bender, run away from town, sleep with someone random, marry a stripper *cough, cough*. That's not how we see her respond when she briefly thinks she's pregnant. It's not how we see her respond when Eric decides to go to Africa. Etc.

Anyway.

In the case of Ms. Pinciotti, there's also a small but persistent faction of fans who think Eric can do no wrong and is some tragic victim, and Donna, of course, perpetuates poor Eric's persecution. I've always suspected that kind of attitude is rooted in internalized misogyny. But I don't think we need to open that big ol' can of worms on a lovely Friday afternoon. 😆

*I don't think I've seen the bleeping out of characters' names. I am not sure why one would do that?

[katyspersonal]

Fandomry tips on hcs.

I've met another user that was afraid to share their cool Maria story ideas out of fear that they'll get shunned as "hating masculine lesbians", so, just a few things:

1) No matter how popular a headcanon is, it doesn't become canon. Fandoms do not abide by majority rule in which you could never have an unpopular idea.

2) With LGBT+ headcanons, the less you justify them - the better. The rude minority might think that Maria "has" to be a lesbian because her hunter outfit resembles male Knight garb and she cares about a female friend, and everyone who disagrees "lack media literacy" and "has bias". What is it trying to say? That bi or straight women could not look masculine? That the only reason a woman would ever dress masculine is to be the 'man' for her femme? Or that women could not care about other women deeply unless they're attracted to them? Even "historical accuracy" excuse is obsolete, because Bloodborne clearly doesn't abide by real world's history Victorian antics. Female vicars/doctors/hunters and people of color being equal to white people is a dead give-away to that.

It is even more confusing with Malenia, who doesn't even look masculine. Not feminine, either. She looks like 'just a person'. So what makes her "canonically a lesbian"? The fact that she is a strong fearsome warrior? Why? Because bi or straight women would not fight but instead latch onto some guy to protect them...?

You see what I mean. Justifications for why an interpretation HAS to be one thing and not the other only make things worse and push people into very narrow, at times outright offensive stereotypes. 'She is this because I think so' is a good enough reason - and that's where you can see that someone else's thoughts will be JUST as valid!

3) Headcanons and fandomry are not activism. No minority will be effected just because in some fandom people ship some character in some ship. EVER. These things are for FUN, lesbians aren't fairies within which one dies every time you say "I don't headcanon X character as a lesbian". What do you think will happen if many, or even majority of people like bi (or even straight) headcanon instead of lesbian? A life essence of a whole demographics will be dried out?

4) "It is not that hard" is not an argument. It is never anyone's business why someone would deny a very inviting opportunity for a headcanon. Freedom and autonomy is the VERY base of having fun in the fandom. In fact, very often, it is this same toxic attitude what makes average users NOT want to celebrate a strong female character as a lesbian. Because they feel like they had no choice! And many people possess contradictory spirit, that might make them choose something as affirmation that they won't be mocked into thinking a certain way.

_______________

Honestly, it is NOT okay that here and there people have to feel afraid to do something as innocent as to share their ideas, and might just end up leaving an interesting character aside because loud and rude people scared them away. Do not let a character you like get "claimed" by some group just because they were the meanest, do not hide your awesome ideas but instead post them and TAG them. Fandoms are free spaces, not a middle school where the popular girls set the trends and decide who gets to be bullied.

And if some people can no longer enjoy a fandom or a character because other people got a different headcanon? Well, then they were not built to be in fandom spaces to begin with.

[scatteredpiecesofme]

I woke up this morning with a random thought in my mind.

In S3 I want a Wilmon intimate scene in Wille's room, in Wille's bed, but with the boys positioned with their heads towards the window (I'm going to elaborate, give me a minute).

We know that Wilhelm sleeps with his head on the window's side. But each time he is with Simon, both in S1 and S2, they lie in bed in the opposite way (their heads towards the door of the room). In S1 I thought it was just for logistic/cinematic purposes: August wouldn't be able to see and film Simon's face if they were lying on the regular side: from outside the window he would only see their feet. In order to shoot that scene they needed to lie the other way round. But then they repeated this in S2 and it started to feel like a pattern.

I remember some analysis posts where a symbolic/metaphorical meaning was suggested. Something about them breaking the rules. In pursuing a queer relationship Wille does the exact opposite of what is expected from him, of what his role would impose him to do. Just by being in love with a guy and acting on his feelings, he defies the whole system on which monarchy and tradition are based. The two boys being positioned in a reversed way, then, could be the visual representation of their actual circumstances.

We don't know for sure if this was the authors' intention or it's just us, the fandom, reading too much into it, but I loved this interpretation and sticked to it. Given the level of attention to details in yr, however, chances are that the choice was intentional.

In that perspective, in S3 I would really like Wilmon to be intimate and happy together lying in the 'regular' position, as a metaphorical statement about their relationship being equal to and having the same validity and dignity as any other (and by 'other' I mean straight), as well as the representation that something has shifted in their dynamics (as it actually has, with them now being together and out).

That said, I will gladly take any intimacy scene they give me, in whatever context, place, and position. Just let them be happy and carefree for a split moment!