#a poem of sorts methinks

[elveny]

The world changes when I read.

It bleeds away into faces emerging from behind words, colors shining through the lines, scenes becoming alive and a part of me and I a part of them.

I always feel untethered when I'm snatched back to reality, sort of see-through. As if I'm a ghost flickering between worlds until I properly materialism, body and soul, in this reality.

Maybe that's how I'll die one day far, far from now. Reading. Slipping away to that other world and awaking inside a story.

I kind of hope it it.

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

Long time lurker here who finally took the plunge and watched/skimmed through their ‘historical’ doc. For what it's worth, here's my amateur psychoanalysis of it:

They both suffer from substantial minority complexes: Him for not being his brother (who’s more good looking, smarter and is to be king). She for being a child of a broken home and divorced parents with sometimes dubious backgrounds. She seems to always have wanted to be her own version of Gwyneth Paltrow, in all ways.

She seems to suffer from some sort of magical thinking, where her life necessarily must feel like a Hollywood film. I think her main sources of inspiration are Notting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral, You’e got Mail, When Harry met Sally, etc. The song choices, the wedding speech, poems etc. give it away. Reality probably became too painful for her at some point as a child, so she started inventing a magical version of it that she’s trying to recreate. Becoming rich and famous is prob her way of proving to anyone who made her feel inferior as a child that she is worthy, even superior. She needs people to think she lives in some sort of ideal Pinterest version of California where she’s a modern Gwyneth Paltrow, royal to boot. It’s all wide brimmed Cali-hats, barefoot Joni Mitchell running, hop-in-the-car for a secret beach swim with your lover, topped off with avocados kind of vibes. Not a care in the world, happy happy happy. It’s all very nineties, but it makes sense considering when she grew up. She’s enacting the dream of the hurt child of a divorce, and he’s paying for it.

Of course she hates Kate. She represents everything Meghan wanted to be growing up: from a loving core family, financially comfortable, tall and slim (I bet that’s a thing), polite, educated, artsy, knows how to carry herself, etc. Kate not playing into Meghan’s hugging and ‘American’ ways was probably too much of a painful rejection for Meghan, a reminder that she’s really a fairly clumsy person with poor manners from a broken family (my guess is this is what she actually feels like inside, even if it’s subconscious). You can see it in the way she looks at Kate that she triggers some deep sense of inferiority, and so her solution is to be a b****, because she was never taught that jealousy usually says more about yourself than it does about the other person.

Her mom doesn’t feel genuine, not a lot of kindness shines through there. It’s interesting how close she seems to have gotten to her daughter once Harry’s credit cards were in the picture. Harsh, I know, but the whole thing feels off.

I somehow think the truest thing they have in common is that they’re both products of divorced parents, with dads who have felt a lot of subsequent guilt, trying to compensate for their failings by not calling out bad behaviour, and not making them take responsibility for anything growing up. The result is two overgrown teenagers with no sense of responsibility, no self deprecation, and zero self awareness. Heading for disaster methinks. 

Everyone is taking advantage of his status and money, and he doesn’t see it. Very sad. 

He seems happiest when he's smoking weed.

She shape shifts constantly; in their ‘candid’ moments (who knows what is actually real, it’s all filmed), she’s the uber feminine, helpless, sweet girl that Harry gets to save, who makes him feel smart. When she’s being interviewed independently, or sitting at a UN conference table, her voice deepens and she shows up as someone completely different, the ‘smart one’. There are numerous examples of her shape shifting throughout the years; it's been there from the beginning. 

I actually find Harry and her dad quite similar - both bratty ***holes.

Sorry for the lengthiness, and thanks for a great blog! You've provided sanity with your great analysis of this whole drama throughout the years - thank you :)

Thanks for sending this in!

I agree with the inferiority complex, and I think they both compensated for that by creating these over-the-top personas based on their paid press. The trigger for Harry's new persona was his time in Afghanistan and the trigger for Meghan's new persona was getting her suits role.

They both suffer from magical thinking. Thanks for focusing on Meg's magical realism, instead of Harry's. I found the bus tour of Hollywood boring when I saw the documentary and I wondered why they bothered to put it in, but I think you're right and it's all about her magical transformation. I noted the romcom element as well and one thing I found interesting is that the first three episodes of the documentary resemble regular royal documentaries with stock music, but then the last three incorporate romcom music. It's a big shift in tone, and it also happens in the book. The first few chapters are royal biography (albeit kind of weird) and then it's all rom com with a big dash of spite.

I had not considered this aspect of the Kate rivalry, and I'm going to have to think about this. I think you're right, but it goes a bit deeper. I think Kate was supposed to become part of "the family she never had." She was supposed to be the loving sister Sam was not. That's how the magical thinking worked. That's why there is so much bitterness towards Kate. Notice that Charles actually stepped into the dad role Meghan expected him to play, but Will and Kate were not willing to play the part of loving brother and sister. That's why there is so much anger there.

There's something off about Doria, but she's smart enough to stay on the sidelines.

Divorce is a big factor, I agree.

He doesn't see it at all, which is odd because we all thought both he and Will had a good radar for users. It almost seems like he's used to lower-level users, and he doesn't realize how things work at this level of money where people are willing to give you one of their empty homes until they figure out how they can monetize you.

Drugs are a huge factor. I didn't understand how dependent he was on them until I read his book.

Everyone seems to experience a different Meghan, and many people (Naniki, Nina, staff) have said she starts out charming and then she turns on you and becomes a different person. It's going to be interesting to see how she turns on Harry.

They say you end up marrying your dad, and Meghan seems to be proving that. She turned a prince into Thomas Markle.

Thanks for the kind words. It has been a wild ride, hasn't it.

[nulltune]

anemone :   how does your muse view the world ;   as a cruel   &   unforgiving place ,   a land full of wonders ,   or something in - between ? where does that world view come from   (what experiences ,   life lessons ,   etc .) ?

botanical headcanons,   open !   @brawlqueen  ♡

definitely somewhere in between! hakuno has a very realistic view on things, she naturally views things in that very objective and rational manner (which makes sense considering how in canon, she's an artificial intelligence literally made to observe and understand aha-). hakuno sees things as it is and wouldn't delude herself to anything otherwise. she's surprisingly sentimental though, so she'd really be able to understand both ways of seeing it. the world can be cruel and unforgiving, but it can be a place full of wonders too.

i'd say that she's someone who has a very harsh yet honest view of things, but still wants to believe in the good in it! be it the world or people, that's pretty much the general outline of the way hakuno interacts with things.

hakuno's an amnesiac and has stated herself that she has no memories of "living" and no memories of experiencing any "enjoyable thing" (side note: 😭😭 I JUST WANT HER TO BE HAPPY WAAHH) and her life so far has been... pretty tough :,) i do have a general-ish backstory for it (and btw AAA TY LILY FOR LIKING ITT 💞 i hope it was a good read omg 😳💖), but yeah in canon she lived in a literal war for pretty much the entirety of her life! so you can probably imagine that it wasn't exactly the best quality of life, and it definitely is a setting where she'd get a firsthand experience of just how brutal the world is.

but it's exactly those experiences that makes her cherish the small things in life- even something as simple as having a meal with a friend is something extremely precious to her, so i think if she got the chance to properly live, there'd be many things in world that she'd appreciate too 🥹 she'd definitely be the sort that finds all kinds of magic and wonder even with the most basic and normal life methinks because she never had that kind of peaceful experience </3

that said! a key aspect for my hakuno is how disconnected from everything she is, so even with all this, i think she'd have an innate feeling that she does not belong to this world at all. it's also important to note that in canon, this is a legitimate fact! so i do want to make sure that in my portrayal, this isn't just something that comes from hakuno's insecurities, but a true and genuinely undeniable fact about her. she's a nobody with no home or place to belong to. so there's something bittersweet in it, because no matter how much beautiful and no matter how much she wants to be a part of this world, she'd an outsider to it.

i feel like these few line's from a poem (mary oliver's "october") sum it up pretty nicely:

so this is the world.  /  i'm not in it.  /  it is beautiful.

side note: it really explains some other aspects of her character too!! because while she does have a great appreciation for the world and all that, she's completely detached to it. it doesn't matter to her on a personal level, if that makes sense. that's how we get some brutal lines about how the world doesn't matter to her, which is just an instance of her brutal honesty rather than anything outright malicious. you can see this in her interactions with people too!

so hakuno may appear cold and aloof at times, (which is as a result of her just being really blunt i'd imagine avfjsbfb) but she's really someone who's slowly trying to understand her own emotions and be more human. you'll find that she's so incredibly softhearted and sentimental actually 🥺

[autocann1bal]

part eight of my playlist analysis!!

part 1 <;- part 2 <- part 3 <- part 4 <- part 5 &lt;- part 6 <- part 7 <- SOUPPP

be nice to me - the front bottoms 'i try to write you poems, but the words they dont make sense' TELL ME LOCKWOOD DIDNT TRY TO WRITE LUCY POETRY BC HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE ROMANTIC THEN THREW IT OUT BC HE THOUGH IT WAS BAD. TRY TO TELL ME. TRY I DARE YOU. (it was actually really really good hes just incredibly hard on himself.)

absolutely smitten - dodie hehehehehe fluffy fluff softest fluff toothrotting fluff ow ow ow

my body's made of crushed little stars - mitski you cannot tell me this isnt on lucys breakdown playlist.

i hear a symphony - cody fry lockwood sings it to lucy methinks.

i was an island - john-allison weiss GRRRRRRRRG IK YOU THINK IM GONNA SAY ITS LOCKWOOD BUT ABSOLUTELY YOU ARE RIGHT HAHAHAH. 'but i lowered my sword when you held me and swore youd stay, stay, stay' LOCKWOOD.  kill the director - the wombats this playlist is so lockwood-centric can you tell. hes never really felt anything like what hes felt for lucy before and hes just ??????>@!? and confused and is probably ranting to george about it or something and george is just laughing eating crackers or smth like "haha stupid loverboy." ykwim? - yot club lucy, laying awake in her attic room, wondering how the hell she got here and why shes staying. shes ruined the dynamic they had, hasnt she? shes the only girl in the house she does everything differently. she should leave. (she should Not). arsonists lullaby - hozier surprisingly, this is a lucy song!! its what she felt like having such a strong talent in such a small town and feeling like itd get to her one day. a burning hill - mitski another lucy breakdown song. she likes mitski. its kinda funny tho cuz yk. lockwood and his white button-downs. wet cigarettes - strawberry milk cult lockwood and lucy are avoiding eachother yet again, because theyre. them. but they keep passing eachother in the kitchen and other places in the house, stealing glances and all that. this song just has that vibe. sober haha jk unless - hospital bracelet l. lockwood song :(. affection - scruffpuppie feels like a lucy song and i cant explain why it just does. april to death - flower face god i literally cannot explain it for them specifically but this song goes in every character playlist i make. im so emotionally attached to it. breezeblocks - alt-j ok ik this is. a little bit of a weird one. but i dont care!! i love it!!! i live for slightly insane lockwood and you will too /threat (/j) bug bear - chloe moriondo despite lucy being so powerful talent wise, she never did great in school. stolen dance - milky chance DO I EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAAAAAAAAAIN its so soft dancing at night vibes dude. i love it sm. theyre just swaying together in the kitchen. alternatively, case montage of them by eachothers side pick your poison. black sheep - the evil exes (there are a million versions of this song gimme a break) just. mmm luce vibes dont ask why i will not be able to answer. can you feel my heart - bring me the horizon yall remember that one edit from 2020 where average looking anime boy #44658 jumped out a building? lockwood wants that. (its ok me too lockwood) (no but fr this is another weird emotional attachment song but it could probably work for some sort of lockwood breakdown. wait actually it could cuz 'im scared to get close/i hate being alone' ok i understand now thank you brain.) daddy issues - the neighborhood I believe ive briefly discussed my lockwood with daddy issues hc. do i rememebr his canon relationship with his dad? no!! am i projecting?? yes!! i cant handle change - roar self explanatory. hes not good at change, shes not good at change, they both suck at it but theyre working through it together. ill sleep when im dead - set it off lockwood insomniac agenda (its not even an agenda its canon atp) achilles come down - gang of youths you guys dont want me to go in depth with this one. strawberry mentos - leanna firestone hehehdfbjngbfdg fluffy fluffy fluff fluffle so fluffy so sweet so cute so owie i love them. fool - cavetown eepy reading vibes in the library mixed with a teeeeny tiny bit of crying on lucys part. why shes crying is up for interpretation. beorge gush - strawberry milk cult this ones for the l&co ot3 mfs. its all of them. odnt ask why it just is. them vibes christ we're so close to being done PART 9 HERE WE GOO

[gammija]

The final Web!Martin evidence list

Now that canon is done, and we’ve got word of god confirmation that Web!Martin wasn’t complete nonsense, I decided to go back to my lil chronological evidence list and actually clean it up a bit, delete parts that in hindsight weren't all that indicative, and put everything in a slightly more readable format. (Obligatory disclaimer that i don’t and never did believe or advocate for some kind of evil web!martin, and that I'm not intending to connect a moral judgement to martin (or anyone else for that matter) having some of these traits)

So here: The (hopefully, please) final list with Web!Martin Evidence! Presented in order of importance, according to. me

The final (hopefully) Web!Martin evidence list

(In order from most to least obvious)

Spiders

I mean, it’s called the Web. TMA reiterates quite a few times that Martin liked spiders. Sometimes it IS that easy.

MAG022: Martin: "I like spiders. Big ones, at least. Y’know, y’know the ones you can see some fur on; I actually think they’re sort of cute -"

MAG038: | Sasha: "A spider?" Jon: "Yeah. I tried to kill it…" [...] Sasha: [Chuckles] "Well, I won’t tell Martin." Jon: "Oh, god. I don’t think I could stand another lecture on their importance to the ecosystem."

MAG059: Jon: "I have done my best to prevent Martin reading this statement in too much detail. I have no interest in having another argument about spiders."

MAG079: Jon: "Apparently, biologically, his account of the spiders doesn’t make any sense according to Martin."

MAG197: Martin: “What? Because I like spiders? Well, used to.”

Lies and subterfuge

Martin is able to use lying and subterfuge to achieve his goals, and is called manipulative a few times.

Lies:

MAG022: Martin: "[He] became slightly more co-operative after I lied to him and told him that one of the upstairs residents had buzzed me in."

MAG056: Martin: "I lied on my CV."

MAG158: Peter: “But you said –” Martin: “Honestly, I mostly just said what I thought you wanted to hear.”

MAG164: Jon: "You – I actually believed you!"

MAG189: Martin: “Sorry. Sorry, John. Not sure how much everything up there actually understood what was going on. But, y’know, I didn’t want to take any chances so it made sense to… um…” Jon: “Put on a show?” Martin: “Yeah, basically, more or less.”

MAG191: Martin: "That's not true." Arun: "Liar!"

Subterfuge:

The plan in 118, which revolved around convincing Elias that Martin was only “acting out”, to create a distraction for Melanie. (Also compare the way he evades giving a straight answer here with the way Annabelle talks in 196.)

Working with Peter in s4 under false pretenses, to distract him from Jon and eventually try to learn what Peter wanted.

Manipulation accusations:

These, I know, are somewhat contentious, since it’s mostly villains saying this to him. I’m still including them, since

1): From a media analysis standpoint, being mentioned 3 times is a sign to pay attention, even when it may not be the full truth.

2): I only see it as describing Martin’s behaviour in the previous points, not as a moral judgement; Especially since he almost always ‘manipulates’ people in positions of power over him.

Still, if it bothers anyone, feel free to ignore these.

MAG138: Martin: "That’s it? No, no monologue, no mind games? You love manipulating people!" Elias: "That makes two of us."

MAG186: Martin: “I can be a real manipulative prick, you know that?” Also Martin: “Oh yeah.”

MAG196: Annabelle: “Because you always managed to get what you wanted through smiles and shrugs and stammerings that weren’t nearly as awkward as they seemed.” [SMALL SOUND OF MARTIN’S CONCESSION TO THE POINT] Martin: “Point taken.”

The Lonely/the Web

The Lonely and the Web sometimes affect Martin to similar degrees.

In season 3, when Martin is getting used to reading statements for the first time, most of them leave him emotionally affected: MAG084, MAG088, MAG090,

MAG095: Martin: “S-S-Statement… done.” [HEAVY BREATHING & TREMBLING AS MARTIN STEADIES HIMSELF] “I don’t like recording these. There. I-I said it.”,

MAG098: Martin: [Panting] “End of statement.” [Deep breath] “I, um, I think I might need to sit down. Oh. Yeah, I am. Right. I don’t, uh, I’m not really sure if these are actually getting easier or harder. I mean I don’t feel –”

Only the last two statements he reads are remarkably easier. This might be a hint that Martin is just getting used to reading them, but the quote from MAG098 seems to contradict that. Either way, it’s likely not a coincidence that those last two happen to be the Lonely and the Web:

MAG108: Martin: “Statement ends.” (exhale) “That wasn’t so bad…”

MAG110: Martin: “Statement ends.” [...] “I mean, I think it sounds like a Jurgen Leitner book. About spiders. Hm. Good John didn’t have to read this one, anyway. I know he’s not a fan. Although, this one wasn’t too bad, actually! I – yeah. Anyway.”

In season 5, there are two powers’ Domains that actually affected Martin mentally, as opposed to only physically: the Lonely’s, in 170 (and arguably 186), and, depending on your interpretation, in 172, when Martin went exploring without knowing why he did so.

Proximity

Martin investigates a lot of the Web statements during season 1 to 3 (in other words, when the archive team still researches statements). The only ones he isn’t mentioned in during this period are MAG019 and MAG020, when he’s being harrassed by worms, and MAG081, which Jon records by himself outside of the institute.

Most notably, he’s the one who discovered the statement in MAG114, ‘Cracked Foundations’, which is the one statement in the entire show that sets up the interdimensional properties of HTR.

The Web!Lighter passed through Martin's hands first, before he gave it to Jon.

Similarly, Annabelle mostly spoke to Martin in season 5, despite most other Avatars usually focusing on Jon.

Aesthetics

Apart from the above obviously Web related areas, there are some other aesthetics which are mentioned in connection to both the Web and Martin, throughout canon.

These are describing the Web;

These are describing Martin.

Tapes:

Martin is the only character to treat the tape recorders as friends - any other character is either indifferent, or treats them as enemies.

MAG039: Martin: "I think the tapes have a sort of… low-fi charm."

MAG154 Martin: “Oh. Hi. Hello again.” … (small laugh) “Sorry pal, false alarm this time.”

MAG156 Martin: “Mm? Oh.” [HE LAUGHS, GENTLY.] “Yeah. (rustling paper) I was going to read one. Hate for you to miss it!” [SHORT, FORCED LAUGH, AS HE FLAPS THE STATEMENT AROUND.]

MAG170 Martin: “Oh. Oh, hello. What’s this? Wow, retro! What are you up to, little buddy; just – listening? That’s okay. It’s nice to have someone to talk to.”

MAG190 Jon: "[The tapes] seem to like [Martin]."

Retro:

MAG069: Statement: “I only saw Annabelle Cane once during this period. She wasn’t hard to pick out. She dressed like a vintage clothing store exploded on her, and her short bleach-blonde hair stood out sharply against dark skin.”

MAG160: Jon: “Anyways, don’t tell me the phonebox down there doesn’t appeal to your retro aesthetic.” Martin: “It – might. Maybe.”

MAG163: Annabelle/the Web callying Martin via an old payphone: [ A PHONE RINGS. IT’S NOT THE TINNY, ELECTRONIC SOUND OF A CELLPHONE – NO, THIS IS A TRUE, HEAVY, CLASSIC RING.] Martin: “Uh. John? Uh, J, John – the, uh, payphone that’s – here, for some reason – it’s ringing?”

Hatred of burns:

MAG067: Jack Barnabas’ statement: “I looked up and noticed within the corner of the room, where there had been a spider’s web this morning, there was just a faint wisp of smoke.” “Another held a bag that seemed to be full of candles, while a third had a clear plastic container filled with hundreds of tiny spiders.”

MAG139: Statement by member of Cult of the Lightless Flame: “The Mother of Puppets has always suffered at our hand; all the manipulation and subtle venom in the world means nothing against a pure and unrestrained force of destruction and ruin.” Agnes burned down Hilltop Road.

MAG145: The Web ties Gertrude to Agnes, stopping the Desolation’s ritual (the only Power whose ritual the Web is known to have prevented).

MAG167: Gertrude enlists Agnes’/the Desolation’s help in order to burn her assistant Emma, who was Web aligned.

MAG169: Martin: "Look, I just – don’t want to get burned, all right? It’s, it’s like my least favorite pain ever. [...] I, I legitimately hate burns, alright? They’re, they’re awful, and they scar horribly, and they just – it – it just makes me sick; I, I hate it. Hate it!"

Phrasing:

MAG039: Martin: "I’m trapped here. It’s like I can’t… move on and the more I struggle, the more I’m stuck. [...] It's just that whatever web these statements have caught you in, well, I’m there too. We all are, I think."

MAG079: Martin's poem: "The threads of people walking, living, lovi–"

MAG117: Martin: "This last couple of years, I’ve always been running, always hiding, caught in someone else’s trap, but, but now it’s my trap, and, well, I think it’ll work. I know, I know it’s not exactly intricate, but it felt good leaving my own little web. Oh, oh, Christ, I hope John doesn’t actually listen to these. “Good lord, is Martin becoming some sort of spider person?” No, John, it’s an expression, chill out! Besides, spiders are fine. I mean, yes, people are scared of them, obviously, but actual spiders, they just want to help you out with flies."

MAG167: Jon: “Methinks the Spider dost protest too much.” Martin: “Jon –” Jon: “Joking! Just joking.”

Personality:

How applicable these are depends heavily on how you interpret Martin's own personality, so your mileage may vary.

MAG008: Statement: “Nobody ever said a word against Raymond himself, though, who was by all accounts a kind and gentle soul [...]”

MAG123: Jon: "The Web does seem to have a preference for those who prefer not to assert themselves."

MAG147: Annabelles statement: "I discovered a deep and enduring talent inside myself for lying. [...] My manipulations were not intricate, but they were far beyond what was expected of a child my age, and I have always believed that the key to manipulating people is to ensure that they always under- or overestimate you. Never reveal your true abilities or plans."

Word of God and Annabelle

I kinda wanted to ‘prove’ that Web!Martin had quite a bit of evidence to back it up, hence this header being last. But of course, in this post-canon world, there are a few lines that most obviously confirm the theory:

MAG197: Martin is Web enough to be able to read the 'vibrations', like Annabelle, and see Jon and Basira (the latter being especially notable, as he hadn't known she was there beforehand): [CHITTERING, BUZZING AND HIGH-PITCHED SQUEALS CHANGE CADENCE] Martin: "Wait… Wait, hang on, is that him?" Annabelle: "Yes. I guess you’re better with the Web than we thought." Martin: "And – Wait, ha– No, uh… is that… Basira? He – He’s got Basira with him!" Annabelle: "Yes."

Season 5 Q&A part 2: Jonny: “Essentially, it was fascinating looking at the fandom and, like, the Web!Martin believers, because what they were doing was correctly picking up on hints dropped in the early seasons that were later, like, not exactly abandoned, but it was much more like, ‘Well, no, he does have like aspects of The Web to him, but he is moreover The Lonely.’ And that came about very… very organically, really. Because throughout Season 3 and going into Season 4, we had this conversation and we were like, ‘No, actually he's like-” Alex: “‘It can't be, it cannot be, it must be the other way round’ Yeah.”

(Note that they say “throughout season 3 and going into season 4,” which likely means that season 1, season 2, and at least part of season 3, aka half of the entire show, were written with Web!Martin as an intentional possibility.)

If you read all that, thanks so much! Obviously, Web!Martin never really came to fruition, so it's fine if you still don't like it. This is just a post explaining where it was coming from, at least for me and the other theorists I've spoken to.

[spicycreativity]

So that “what would your AO3 Wrapped look like” tag game that’s going around got me Googling some stuff and i found this “AO3 Year in Review” template by @\athina-blaine !!

I’m not sure if it started out as a tag game, but I’m just gonna treat it like copy & paste template (meaning: don’t bother waiting for a tag or tagging anyone! If you wanna fill it out, just copy and paste this, delete my answers, and make your own post)

Top Fandom: Sanders Sides, with 7 fics posted

Date of First Fic Posted: Seek, and Ye Shall Find, admittedly started in 2020, but completed March 2, 2021

Top Multi-Chapter Fic: By Hits/Kudos: Seek, and Ye Shall Find By Comment Threads: Soft-Shoe Shuffle

Top One-Shot: At Least it was Here I’m counting it as a oneshot even though it’s technically the first half of an unfinished fic on permanent hiatus lmao

Fic You’re Most Proud Of: Soft-Shoe Shuffle. While I did slip into a sort of hyperfocus trance state as I was working on it, I was also conscious of this sort of “leveling up” sensation, like my writing improvement was a tangible thing. Also, I wrote a dirty sonnet in iambic pentameter and I think Shakespeare would approve

Fic You Wish Got More Attention: Not to be cheesy, but while I do absolutely adore getting comments on my fic, I’m absolutely blown away by all the lovely comments I’ve received. Every fic I published received at least one sweet, well-thought-out comment from someone who loved it, and I couldn’t ask for more than that. Even Fear in Friendship, which received 0 comments on AO3, didn’t go unnoticed because I had @\cadeorade-powercade to gas me up IRL. I’m deeply grateful for all the positive attention

Fic that Challenged You the Most: Fucking Intertwined. Oh my god. I still have three drafts of what it was supposed to be: “Destroy Everything You Touch,” the angsty Moceit slowburn that never was. But. People seemed to like Intertwined, so I’ll try not to be too frustrated skfkhdkghfd

Favorite Quote/Passage: From Soft-Shoe Shuffle. Strap in, this is a long one: Remus’ smile shattered into a laugh. “Go on, what did they do to you? Wrap you up in a blanket and make you cookies? Wash your feet with scented oils?” “Yes, right after the parade they held in my honor.” "And then they all took turns sucking your--" "Please put that image in my head." Remus just gave an apologetic shrug and settled back into the couch cushions. "So what's really going on, hm? It hasn't even been a day and you're already running back to me to bitch about it. They’re not still fighting, are they?” “Ugh, Remus.” Janus tilted his head back, pressing the back of his hand to his brow in an exaggerated swoon. Still, he was careful to keep his voice low in case anyone was listening. “They're all locked in their rooms pouting. Except for Patton, who keeps following me around like a lost little puppy. "It’s so…" A litany of words sprang to Janus' mind; to his horror 'endearing' was among them. "Ugh," he said, waving a hand vaguely. “You like it.” Remus’ grin was positively demonic. “Oh, yes, I do so enjoy having a nagging little tagalong,” Janus said, but it was too late. Remus had latched onto the idea like barnacles to a boat's hull. "You like him!" "Oh, yes, Remus, I've been planning out our wedding all day. I just love  the sad little puppy dog look he gives me whenever I try to leave the room. It was love at first self-righteous lecture." Remus' grin widened until it threatened to split his face (a very real possibility when he was involved). "The snakey doth protest too much, methinks." "No, I--" “What’s your plan?" Remus interrupted. "Going to seduce him? You going to write a love poem?” “Oh, definitely," Janus sneered. "What rhymes with ‘exasperating’?” “Masturbating? Kind of a slant rhyme, but I think you could sell it.” “Charming.” “Hey.” Remus shrugged. “You came to me for romantic advice.” “Yes, that was why I came to see you. Not to complain about how The Great American Nag won’t stop following me around and sighing wistfully about how his friends are sad, boohoo.” Remus’ eyes sparkled. “You do have a plan to deal with him.” “One that doesn’t involve seduction via dirty love poetry, I’m afraid," Janus said, making an exaggerated pouty face with accompanying hand gestures. “Boring," Remus replied. “But you’ll listen anyway because you love me ever so?” “Like flies love dookie.” Janus held up a hand to stop Remus from actually summoning a cloud of flies. “If I can at least get Logan out of his room, then Patton will stop following me around and I can get back to--” “Lusting over Daddy in the shadows?” Janus took a long, measured breath. “I’m not lusting--” “Face it, Snakehole." "Ew." "You can’t stand seeing Hot Daddicus Finch sad. You want to fix it for him. It’s funny, actually.” To illustrate his point, Remus gave a shrill, hyena cackle. "After all those nights complaining about his, what did you call it, 'saccharine simpering,' it turns out you--" he poked Janus in the chest-- "have a sweet tooth." “I--” All of Janus' instincts were screaming at him:  deny, deny, deny! But shock stilled his tongue and left him staring at Remus as a horrifying realization dawned on him. Remus seemed to reach the same conclusion at the same time. "Holy shit, was I right? I was just teasing!" If Remus were any other side, Janus would have thrown an insult at him and made a tactical retreat. Instead, he stood, fussing with his cape so he wouldn’t have to look Remus in the eye. “I have to go speak with Logan.” “That means I’m right, right?” Remus cackled again, longer this time. “Careful, Jay, you’re getting predictable.” “No, this was all according to plan,” Janus said, already walking away. “You’re just a pawn in my vast chess game.” “I prefer checkers,” Remus called after him. “Good luck! Don't forget to wear a condom!"

Total Words Posted: 152,113 Holy fuck.

[lostinafictionaluniverse]

Riverdale 1x09 thoughts

Under the cut bcos its super long, read at your own risk

Jughead’s opening narrative

Blossoms have controlled the maple syrup business since the town’s founding? No mention of the Cooper’s/ Hal grandpa

AAAnnnd we don’t hear Jason speak yet again.  

The sickly, sweet smell was inescapable - allusion to the Blossom’s influence on the town, how all-pervading their power is? And how they leave their mark on everything? That last comment by Cheryl after she kisses Archie - about her lipstick being Maple Red and the sweet taste being because of it? Was it really necessary? Is it some sort of clue? I love how Maple Syrup stands for so many things in this town - For the Blossoms, its obviously power and legacy; and its also the symbol for slut shaming so does that link slut shaming to the Blossom clan somehow? Its sweet, its sticky, its red - hmmm, blood is sticky and red too....

Bughead scene in Betty’s room  

THEY’RE SITTING ON HER BED LITERALLY ON TOP OF EACH OTHER (*DYING WHALE NOISE*)

SHE IMMEDIATELY AIRS HER CONCERNS TO HIM

HE’S HER ROCK, HE’S THERE TO LISTEN AND HELP HER AND ASSUAGE HER FEARS AND BUILD HER UP AND SHE KNOWS THIS!

WE’LL FIGURE IT OUT - BETTY IS NOT ALONE ANYMORE, JUGHEAD IS WITH HER IN ALL OF THIS SHIT SHE’S GOING THROUGH

COME HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (BRB - BUSY DYING)

HER SMILE AND LEANING TOWARDS HIM, HIS HAND SLIDING DOWN HER THIGH, HER HAND GOING UP TO HIS FACE, HIS SMILE, THE KISS

ALICE COOPER, I’M GOING TO KILL YOU!

THE STARTLED JUMP, HURRIEDLY BREAKING APART, THE LOOK OF IRRITATION ON BETTY’S FACE!

Alice shows no surprise at Juggie being there, means she knows, or she let him in. So Bughead already has the stamp of approval from Mama Cooper! It could be that Alice saw how their extreme disapproval had affected Polly (and Jason) and hence she decided not to do the same to Betty? Or maybe she genuinely likes Juggie like Madchen has said? 

Her deciding to go after the Blossoms reeks of anger about her own failure to get her daughter back. She talks about the Cooper-Blossoms feud, but its really something else, something we will know only in ep 12. What the Blossoms really did to the Coopers. Why would Alice hate the Blossoms so much for what they did to her husband’s grandpa? This is personal (Hal says as much)

“According to your milquetoast father”- what’s with Alice calling Hal all these coward names? What did Hal do or didn’t do that was so cowardly? She brought this up earlier - when Betty questioned Hal if he had killed Jason - she said he wouldn’t have the stomach for it. 

Seriously did Alice hate Jason so much just because he knocked up her daughter? She was hoping he’d rot in hell when they found his body, she was positively gloating when the coroner told her about scavenger activity and him being tortured, she thinks killing him would be a brave thing to do. This much hatred for a boy who got her daughter pregnant? Alice can be dramatic I know, but this is a bit too much, even for her.

Ronnie and Hermione

I’m glad Hermione told Ronnie exactly what was happening with Fred and how Hiram had gotten to know about them

Seriously the kids in this show seem so much more mature than the adults, Ronnie tells her mom to come clean - this is a small town, tell him before he gets to know from anyone else.

Cheryl and Archie

What’s with all this sudden interest in Archie, Cheryl? Has she always been interested? Remember Betty warning Ronnie in the pilot not to talk about Archie when Cheryl approaches them? Do they have a history? I don’t want Kevin or Reggie, I want you. She makes it seem as though it was all about him defending her to Sheriff Keller, but idk.

Ethel and Ronnie

Ronnie recognized Ethel’s poem for what it was - a cry for help. Then her confession to Kevin about what she and her BFF at Spence did to a girl called Paige (and the girl had to have therapy and transfer schools). Clearly she feels guilty as hell. Ronnie is trying to change and that’s what’s the best thing about her. She hardly ever backslides on her mission, in fact the only glimpses we see of the old Ronnie is possibly the regret laced in her voice when she talks about what they lost. 

I love that she immediately talked to Ethel and offered compassion and kindness. Ronnie is such friendship goals - really! 

Archie and Penelope Blossom

That far angle camera shot with both of them standing made me think they were gonna kiss! Archie - you truly are a ginger stallion offering rides to anyone who cares to get on!

Penelope brought up that jersey thing again - not only brought it up - they actually showed us that moment from the funeral when Archie offered her Jason’s jersey which makes me think this is important somehow. The fact that Penelope commented on his resemblance to Jason yet again - ‘i swear when the light hits you just right” - makes me wonder if that theory about him being the victim might not be true? Or the resemblance may not be concerned with the murder itself but to some other secrets that maybe revealed as to the truth of these kids’ real parentage? If Cheryl and Jason are not really Blossoms, then the whole legacy plot-line fails. Jason is not the heir, neither is Cheryl. 

Why does everyone need to reiterate the fact that Archie is good and decent unlike everyone else in this town??? Show us, don’t tell us. We had Cheryl, Mr and Mrs Blossom all talk about his great character and his goodness. Why are they rubbing in that fact? Is it not obvious? Or is it foreshadowing that he really is not good and decent and is going to do something dastardly? Or is it that in the Blossom’s book, good and decent people can be bought and /or used to their advantage? Like maybe they used some other good and decent people? Eg; Mary Andrews. What if Penelope was barren and couldn’t have children and since it was so important for the Blossoms to have a heir, Clifford had Jason and Cheryl with Mary (they need not have slept together, IVF and surrogacy were viable options) or someone else entirely? Maybe Fred needed money to set up the business and Mary was paid handsomely for it. And Fred wasn’t entirely on board with it, hence the tension between him and Mary and also the reason why they separated years later? Could this be the secret Fred is keeping? It was said that Cheryl and Jason’s twincest would be explored in this episode, but not quite in the way we expect. Was it an allusion to Cheryl kissing Archie? I know this theory has a hole because why would Clifford and Penelope actively encourage Archie to hang out with Cheryl? But I’m excited at the possibility that there maybe a link somewhere - Archie resembling Jason cannot just be a coincidence. The theory that Archie may not really be Fred’s son but Mary and Clifford’s has already been talked about. This could also be a reason for Fred and Mary to split if he found out years later. And maybe Cliff didn’t know, Mary never told him cause she was already married to Fred or something? But they’re drawn to Archie because he reminds them of Jason. Else its hard to understand the Blossom’s fixation with him! Archie’s loyalty to his dad keeps coming up too, he was willing to give up his musical career if Cliff would help his dad’’s business. It would be poetic if Fred wasn’t really his dad, yet they have this inextricable bond.

Archie was very believably seduced by the promise of a great musical future at the Bradenburg school and who wouldn’t be?

The kids in the common room

Jughead being the first to deduce that Mrs Blossom offering something to Archie cannot be without any strings attached - he’s so razor sharp, this boy!

Okay with you being a gigolo?

Ronnie is wise - she knows its hard to get by without connections but also that these connections come with a price-tag.

She looks to Betty for support, but Betty thinks its a great idea. Throwback to Archie asking Ronnie for support when Betty was attacking him about the Grundy thing, and Ronnie sides with Betty! Methinks Betty wasn’t thinking about Archie here, she wanted someone to get info on her sister for her, which is okay!

Maple syrup tapping scene

That scroll thing was ludicrous!

Cheryl was so nervous about the tree tapping thing, Archie’s encouragement got her going. Cheryl demeanor is a facade, she’s lost and lonely and also bitter and jealous. She wanted her parents’ attention, but Jason got it, he became the Golden boy. So she resorted to wild erratic behavior to get her parents’ attention. Inside, she’s just messed up, she craves approval and attention. Like all attention hungry kids she will do whatever it takes to ensure that all eyes are on her. She loves flattery and is immediately susceptible to anyone who even shows her a modicum of kindness, which shows she hasn’t had much growing up. Her parents are horrible to her, her brother was good to her, but he died. I wonder if her yearning for her parents’ approval made her hate Jason to deep down? Or at least resent him for being the favorite? Did she inwardly rejoice when he decided to run away, knowing that now her parents would now rely on her with Jason gone? Maybe they’d even cut him off from their legacy and she could be the heir? I did support the Cheryl killed Jason theory because of this notion. She does have a motive. If it were to come out that she actually really hated Jason and was jealous of him, she would have a very good reason to do away with him. It could also be that she loved him just like she says she does, and still thinks Polly killed her brother. That’s why she reddened Polly’s face and why she was the one to ask her to come stay with them in Thornhill. 

Polly thinks the Blossoms killed Jason, Cheryl thinks Polly did and the Blossoms just want their heirs aka Jason’s children that Polly’s carrying. Ugh! What a mess!

Archie standing up for Cheryl was sweet  and very Archie-like but it was a tad overdone - “Don’t underestimate Cheryl”? Don’t bet against her”? I think its foreshadowing about how crazed, dangerous and vindictive Cheryl really can be if you get on her wrong side which Archie managed to do by the end of the episode! Also her prompting him about her 4.0 GPA was so Cheryl!!! 

Archie gets sucked into escorting Cheryl to a banquet. And he’s going to have a suit tailor-fitted for the occasion! Poor sod!

So Ethel’s grandpa and dad are both called Manfred?

Hermione and Fred

Hermione finally came clean to Fred and told him about the land and the Lodges being the anonymous buyers. Fred was understandably pissed. Hermione is a smart cookie, maybe her business acumen is actually better than her husband’s and she’s the one calling all the shots while pretending to be this helpless, hapless woman. Didn’t Penelope say at the end that they should’ve sent Hermione to jail instead of Hiram?

So Clifford told Hiram that Hermione and Fred were together? Why? Just to gloat? Or to get him to sabotage his own building which is precisely what he did. So he knows exactly how Hiram would react. I’m curious about Hiram. If he was this cold-blooded businessman that everyone says he is, he wouldn’t react so impractically to his wife seeing Fred. He wouldn’t sabotage himself just for getting back at his wife’s lover, he could’ve thought up of other ways to deal with Fred. So Hiram loves Hermione, but does Hermione love Hiram? Was she just playing a game with Fred so he would get on board SoDale? But Fred was interested in SoDale anyway, She could’ve got him on board even without playing cootchie-coo with him. So did she really care? 

Fred toughened up and asked for a 20% stake and also ended things with him and Hermione. Which was great. Showed backbone and also his - I’m sick of you people using me and my family as pawns- speaks about his righteous anger against being taken for a ride. Hermione wasn’t pleased but had to grin and bear it for now. Hiram is certainly not going to be pleased. 

Back to Bughead and Cheryl (and I’m back to capslock)

POWER COUPLE WALK IN STEP

BETTY LOOKING TO JUGGIE FOR REASSURANCE SINCE SHE FINDS HER COURAGE FALTERING WHEN SHE CONFRONTS CHERYL

HE LOOKS BACK AT HER WITH A -YOU’VE GOT THIS BABE

AND OUR BABE ATTACKS - WHAT STOCKHOLM SYNDROME SPELL HAVE YOU CAST OVER MY SISTER?

JUGGIE LOOKS ON ADMIRINGLY AT WIFEY WITH A SMILE

THEN ATTACKS WITH HIS OWN - HOSTAGES DO NOT GET TO MAKE OUTGOING CALLS!

SO NANA BLOSSOM’S POWERS ARE TRUE, POLLY IS HAVING TWINS!

Cheryl mentions a Dr Patel, Is he Raj and Tina Patel’s dad? If yes, will we see them in Riverdale S2? Sidenote: Isn’t Tina one of Cheryl’s friends already?  

CHERYL DID YOU JUST CALL MY SON A HOBO YOU WITCH!!! (I love Cheryl btw, she’s so extra and Madelaine plays her so well)

SHE LITERALLY CUTS THROUGH THEM, PUSHING THEM APART! I already mentioned I think this is foreshadowing that she will be responsible for the conflict that creates a rift between Bughead.

BUT FEAR NOT, IT’S ONLY MOMENTARY. SINCE OUR BOY’S HAND IS BACK ON HIS GIRL’S BACK ALMOST THE IMMEDIATE NEXT SECOND! WHICH ALSO MEANS THE BUGHEAD RIFT IS GOING TO BE VERY VERY MOMENTARY AND THEY WILL BE BACK TOGETHER ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AND STRONGER THAN EVER!

Ronnie and Ethel

Ronnie telling Ethel her dad used to buy her expensive gifts whenever he did something wrong. Poor Ronnie. Her heartbreak at finding out Ethel’s dad had attempted suicide was so genuine, that scene was powerful and Camila played it very well, pulling apart the beads from her neck, symbolically destroying her dad’s hold over her. And her finally telling her mom she as done lying for him. It was a touch choice for Ronnie to make, loyalty to family or doing the right thing. I’m so glad she had the strength of character to make the more difficult choice!

Cheryl at Archie’s house

OMG Cheryl is really so extra. She called Fred DILF!

The Icewoman cometh!

Bribing Archie with an ‘84 Les Paul in their signature colour. Swoon!

I soo love Jughead’s expressions all through this exchange!

‘My claustrophobia acts up in small houses’. Is this going to come up again? Cheryl’s claustrophobia? Is someone going to lock her up in dark, dingy closeted space and that triggers something in her? Is she the one in danger that they’re trying to rescue in that snow scene like so many have already pointed out?

Cheryl kisses Archie twice and leaves a lipstick mark in this episode - on his cheeks and lips. Is this foreshadowing/ symbolism of some sort?

‘He’s also pimping himself out to Cheryl’ - Forsythe ‘subtle’ Jones everyone!

Hal and Alice

So Hal fired Alice and blocked her password? Really? He went there? And Alice calls him milquetoast?? More like fearless warrior to me! Hal showed his petty, vindictive side too, so there’s that!

So what’s this, Hal? You hate the Blossoms more than anyone, you don’t want to raise a child with Blossom blood, you have a personal vendetta against the Blossoms from before you were even born! And you’re telling Alice you won’t support her in HER personal vendetta? What even??? 

Okay, theory time! We know that Alice was mad at Hal for what he did to her - the same thing he did to Polly. But he only made an appointment for Polly. He may have done the same for Alice, but does that make it obvious she actually aborted the child? Maybe she gave it up for adoption (this was a choice the Coopers were on board with even for Polly)? Maybe the child was Cliff Blossom’s and that’s why Hal’s extreme hatred for any child with Blossom blood? Maybe Cliff raped Alice and got away because of his powerful connections and that’s why Alice’s extreme hatred for Cliff? I know it sounds crazy but it could explain a lot. I initially thought that Jason and Cheryl could be Alice’s kids (with Clifford) and they gave them up to the Blossoms to raise since Penelope was barren or whatever, but then Polly and Jason incest - yewww! But it would be delicious if the twins thing were actually a Cooper family thing and not a Blossom family one like everyone’s thinking, no??

Alice certainly has rage issues, throwing a brick at your husband, calling him a bastard all in front of your teenage daughter? WTF Alice?

Bughead at the Blue and Gold!

BETTY TELLING JUGGIE ABOUT HER PARENTS FIGHTING AND HOW ALICE THREW A BRICK AT HAL. LIKE I SAID, HE’S HER ROCK AND SHE CANNOT HIDE ANYTHING FROM HIM NO MATTER HOW UGLY!

JUGHEAD BEING JUGHEAD WHEN HE SAYS I WISH I’D SEEN THAT. HIS HUMOUR AND SARCASM ARE SO PART OF HIM NOW, THEY’RE NOT AN ARMOUR ANYMORE

BETTY ROLLING HER EYES AT HIM AND HE IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZING FOR BEING INSENSITIVE - MARRIED!!!!!

BETTY BREAKING DOWN - THE COOPERS WON’T EXIST ANYMORE. SHE’S TIRED OF FIGHTING, POOR BABY, SHE’S EXHAUSTED AND SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHERE IT’S ALL GOING AND NOTHING IS MAKING SENSE

*SUPPORTIVE BOYFRIEND MODE ACTIVATED* - YOU ARE STRONGER THAN THE WHITE NOISE, STRONGER THAN YOUR FATHER, STRONGER THAN YOUR MOTHER, YOU’RE HOLDING YOUR FAMILY TOGETHER, DON’T GIVE UP, DON’T 

 THAT COLLAR GRAB, THE EARNESTNESS, THE URGENCY IN HIS TONE, HE CANNOT SEE HER BREAK APART, SHE IS HIS CONVICTION, HER FIGHT IS HIS FIGHT TOO. HIS FAITH IN HER ABILITY TO HOLD HER FAMILY TOGETHER IS AN ASSERTION THAT IF HE COULDN’T DO IT SHE COULD! SHE HAS TO SUCCEED, THEN MAYBE SOMEWHERE THERE WOULD BE SOME HOPE FOR HIM TOO!

DID YOU NOTICE HE SAID YOU’RE HOLDING “THIS” FAMILY TOGETHER - NOT “YOUR” FAMILY BUT “THIS” FAMILY- HE CONSIDERS HIMSELF A PART OF HER FAMILY. SHE’S HOLDING HIM TOGETHER TOO! SHE MADE HIM WHOLE, FIXED ALL HIS BROKEN PIECES. HIS “DON’T LET GO” WAS A PLEA FOR HER NOT TO LET GO OF HERSELF - BETTY COOPER, OF WHO SHE WAS DEEP UNDERNEATH AND WHAT SHE’S CAPABLE OF AND WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN. 

SHE IS IMMEDIATELY CONVINCED BECAUSE “I WON’T” IS A PROMISE SHE MAKES TO HIM. A PROMISE THAT SHE WILL BE WHOLE, UNBROKEN AND STRONG FOR HIS SAKE AND WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP HIS FAITH IN HER ALIVE!

THE HUG!

THAT’S ALL - GO HOME

Val and Archie

WHAT DID CHERYL SAY TO VALERIE??

The Blossoms are buying you!

If you have to ask - you don’t know me at all! Slay, Valerie!

Val blowing off Archie - good for you, Val!

Archie at Thornhill

Cliff Blossom thinks Archie by his daughter’s side could improve her image? Why Archie again? 

What were Cheryl and her dad arguing about when Archie was dancing with Polly?

Polly was playing Nancy Drew, I was right! But she’s being foolish. She’s heavily pregnant (with twins!) and she needs to protect her babies first. She entered the enemy’s lair without a thought for her own protection? She’s scared, she doesn’t want the Blossoms to know, which means she thinks they are dangerous. Why would she put herself and her babies willingly in harm’s way just because of the Cooper penchant for sleuthing? Also don’t understand how Betty and Alice can be okay with this madcap scheme?

Cheryl again with the you’re-the-only-good-person-in-this-town which changed the minute Archie wanted to leave. So she’s susceptible to flattery and also petty and vindictive when rejected. Did she kill Jason because he was kind of ‘rejecting’ her for Polly? Or was she secretly happy he was out of the picture so now she could become the focus for her parents?

There could be 2 reasons Cheryl hates Polly. One because Polly’s kids would be the heirs to the Blossom legacy and not her. After Jason she may have thought herself to be the sole claimant. But Polly being pregnant ruined everything for her. Btw, did they do a DNA/ paternity test yet to find if Polly is telling the truth about Jason being the father? The Blossoms are just taking Polly’s (and the Cooper’s) word for it? I think they would smell something underhanded knowing the Coopers are involved. Also Cheryl could hate Polly because she still thinks Polly killed Jason and wants to exact her own revenge on Polly. 

So Clifford sent Hiram to jail and that makes Hiram a suspect. But does this mean Hiram is really innocent? Or that Clifford just exposed his guilty ass?

Bughead and Alice

BETTY LOOKING AT JUGGIE TO INVITE HER MOM TO THE BLUE AND GOLD!

*SON-IN-LAW MODE ACTIVATED*

BLUE AND GOLD HAS A HIGHER ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET THAN THE REGISTER? IS THAT POSSIBLE?

BUGHEAD BUGHEAD BUGHEAD

*SCREAMING*

BYE

ETA:

The last scene with Bughead realizing Hiram Lodge could be a suspect, Archie looking on clueless, while Betty and Jughead go back and forth completing each other’s sentences - OMG they’re so fucking attuned to each other!!

They have Hermione Lodge, the Blossoms, The Coopers, Hiram Lodge and Reggie Mantle (???? Why??) as probable suspects already. Why is FP Jones not on the murder board???? Because they don’t know about the jacket? 

THE PROMO FOR 110

JUGHEAD LOOKING UPSET AT THE MENTION OF A BIRTHDAY PARTY (MAYBE HE HASN’T HAD ONE IN FOREVER BCOS OF HIS DAD OR SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED AT THE LAST PARTY HE HAD AND HE DECIDED NEVER TO HAVE ONE BCOS IT BRINGS BACK BAD MEMORIES? *SOBBING*)

BURGER CAKE

BETTY IN A CROWN SWEATER

BUGHEAD ADORING LOOKS

ETHEL LOOKING SHADY AF

CHUCK CLAYTON GETTING SLAPPED BY BETTY

JUGGIE PUNCHING CHUCK

JUGGIE BRUISED ON HIS FACE (WHO’S A BRUISER NOW, MOOSE?)

RONNIE LOOKING UP WORRIEDLY (IS SOMEONE UPSTAIRS IN THE ROOM?)

SOMEONE IN A WHITE FUR COAT UNLOCKING (OR LOCKING) A DOOR - CHERYL?

ARCHIE AND RONNIE MAKING OUT

EVERYONE IS WASTED

WTF is happening?

[how2to18]

WHEN THE NEW SUFI MASTER came to Baghdad from his native Nishapur, in Khorasan, his fame had long preceded him. He had, the story goes, quite a reputation for his high spirituality and unique approach to ihsan (“perfection”), but also a reputation for his unorthodox ways. Some had heard fantastic rumors about him, outrageous things, but when pressed for details they professed ignorance. Be it as it may, on that February morning, not only a small group of aspiring disciples — all well dressed and well behaved, their manner appropriately pious, if perhaps a trifle too theatrically so — had gathered at the inn to welcome him, but city folk of all stripes: shopkeepers and passing peddlers, jewelers and perfume-makers from across the street, even teachers and students from the nearby university. As time passed, the crowd was growing impatient. The sheik certainly took his time.

As always on such occasions, among the expectant crowd there were also beggars and bums and other good-for-nothings. One of them turned out to be particularly annoying. All in rags, unkempt beyond description, and smelling badly of wine (he must have strayed from the Jewish or Christian quarters, some whispered), the bum was drawing closer and closer to the pious-looking, anxiety-ridden disciples. Taking his time, between hiccups, he examined them intently, one by one, which made the boys even more nervous: the last thing they wanted was to be found out by the great master in such unholy proximity.

Thank goodness, it now appeared that the bum was drifting away. As he was doing so, however, he addressed himself to the embarrassed youth, in such sober, educated Persian that their prayer beads suddenly froze in the palms of their hands: I’ve come for nothing, methinks. What am I to teach you? By the looks of you, you’ve all reached a state of purity compared to which I am nothing. My ways are messy, my teachings tentative, and my quest, far from pure, always gets entangled with my flesh, with my earthiness and my complicated commerce with the world. I am a failure, whereas you — just look at you! — you seem to dwell with the angels already! Now, if you will excuse me … And, with that, he slipped out of the inn. It was then, the story adds, that people at the inn realized that the sheik they had been waiting for had just left them.

The story of the Sufi master mirrors the state of much of contemporary philosophy. For there is at work in it a strong purist assumption: the notion that philosophy is reducible to a purely logical exercise, conducted strictly by the rules of rational argumentation and debate: whatever is not translatable into argument is irrelevant. Philosophers are somehow exempted from the laws that govern the rest of humankind, managing to operate on some superior, angelic plane, where their earthiness and their mundanity never follow them.

But philosophy has never only been about rational argumentation. It would be the saddest thing if it were, and it would not have lasted that long. What makes philosophy such an endurable affair, in the West as well as in the East, is that it engages not only our cognition, but also our imagination, emotions, artistic sensibility, religious impulses — in short, our being complicated, messy, impure creatures. To be human is to be always caught in existential entanglements, to have to deal with hybridity and messiness of all sorts. We are an unlikely union of high and low, spirit and flesh, reason and unreason. And philosophers, if they are not to lose their integrity, need to account for such wholeness.

That’s why philosophy — not the bland academic sort, but the lasting, transformative variety that we come across in Lao Tzu, Pythagoras, Plato, Saint Augustine, Rumi, Meister Eckhart, Spinoza, Marx, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Simone Weil — doesn’t come in a pure state. It always gets mixed with myth, poetry, drama, mysticism, scientific thinking, political militancy, or social activism. To complicate matters, often fiction writers (think Dostoyevsky, Huxley, or Borges) turn out to be particularly insightful philosophers, and so do filmmakers — such as Bergman, Kurosawa, and Tarkovsky — who philosophize just as insightfully on screen. All these entanglements and contaminations mark philosophy profoundly — indeed, they make it what it is.

Take a Sufi poem by Rumi. How can we tell, as we let ourselves be absorbed by it, where poetry ends and philosophy begins, or when and how mysticism starts stealing in? When Lao Tzu speaks of water — “the best (man) is like water. Water is good; it benefits all things and does not compete with them. It dwells in (lowly) places that all disdain. That is why it is so near to Tao” — does he really “make an argument”? Why should we care? There is a cosmic vision encapsulated here, a sense of being in the world and an understanding of the human condition that defy our petty notions of how philosophy should conduct itself. To cut open such a work only to extract from it its “argument” — discarding everything else, ignoring the design and vision of its author — is to kill the beating heart of that work, and to start dealing in corpses. Why should we do that?

Walter Benjamin used storytelling liberally in his philosophical work. He created fictions, long and short, or borrowed them from others, and this was no whim: Benjamin really thought philosophy and literature were profoundly interlinked; he speaks of “the epic side of truth,” and relates it to “the art of storytelling.” Humans are narrative-driven creatures for whom form is as important as any content. We can make sense of ourselves and the world in which we live insofar as we can weave narratives about ourselves and the world. Sartre, who knew a thing or two about philosophy and literature, wanted, in his work, to be both Spinoza and Stendhal.

If we experience everything as a story in the making, then there is indeed an “epic side” to truth, and philosophy, by definition, is bound to use literary craft. With every new story we make the world anew. Storytelling pushes the boundaries of what it means to be human: envisions and rehearses new forms of experience, gives firm shape to something that hasn’t existed before, makes the unthought-of suddenly intelligible. Storytelling and philosophy are twins. Plato’s “allegory of the cave” makes an important philosophical point in such a poignant manner precisely because it’s such a good story. Yet how are we to tell, in such a case, the storyteller from the philosopher? “How can we know the dancer from the dance?” wondered the poet. But why should we?

Since philosophy and literature are so intimately intertwined, pathos is not something philosophers just pepper their work with, but it’s already there, embedded in their work. No sooner do you start philosophizing than you begin emplotting ideas, experimenting with form, employing rhetorical tropes, toying with emotions, and making room for empathy — that is, crafting a piece of literature. One philosopher writes, with studied relief, of arriving to “the land of truth,” which is “surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the region of illusion, where many a fog-bank, many an iceberg, seems to the mariner, on his voyage of discovery, a new country.” The quote is not from Nietzsche or Benjamin’s work, nor from other “literary philosophers” — it’s from Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Even the driest of thinkers cannot help making use of literary images and metaphors, of fables and stories. (Ironically, the sheer act of “making an argument,” on which the philosophical purists swear today, is, in important sense, a form of storytelling, but that’s another story.)

A lively conversation has been taking place lately on mainstream philosophy in the West today and the way it treats non-Western traditions of thought as insufficiently philosophical. Such bias, though serious, is only a symptom — one among many — of parochial, purist philosophy’s misunderstanding of itself. Not only are other philosophical traditions easily dismissed, but within the Western tradition itself important genres, thinkers, bodies of work are rejected just as arrogantly.

Such arrogance comes with its own blinding punishment: we can no longer tell the essential from the trifling, a genuine problem from a passing fad. We are no longer able to detect the philosophical unless it comes to us in the form of the peer-reviewed academic article, published (preferably in English) in a journal with a stellar ranking and a top-notch editorial board. No wonder philosophy has become so irrelevant today. Why should anyone need philosophers, if philosophy limits itself so radically?

What we badly need now is a liberal dose of humility. We should at last understand that philosophy comes under different guises, and by many names, that it never comes in a pure state but loves messiness and hybridity, that it gets entangled with the philosophers’ lives and earthiness. Such an act of humility wouldn’t impoverish philosophy at all. On the contrary, it would empower the philosophers and make philosophy a richer, more sophisticated, and more relevant affair.

If only we could find a Sufi master to humble us a bit.

¤

Costica Bradatan is a professor of Humanities and the author, most recently, of Dying for Ideas. The Dangerous Lives of the Philosophers (Bloomsbury, 2015). He serves as the religion/comparative studies editor for the Los Angeles Review of Books.

The post Philosophy Needs a New Definition appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books http://ift.tt/2AIzJ0c via IFTTT

[topmixtrends]

WHEN THE NEW SUFI MASTER came to Baghdad from his native Nishapur, in Khorasan, his fame had long preceded him. He had, the story goes, quite a reputation for his high spirituality and unique approach to ihsan (“perfection”), but also a reputation for his unorthodox ways. Some had heard fantastic rumors about him, outrageous things, but when pressed for details they professed ignorance. Be it as it may, on that February morning, not only a small group of aspiring disciples — all well dressed and well behaved, their manner appropriately pious, if perhaps a trifle too theatrically so — had gathered at the inn to welcome him, but city folk of all stripes: shopkeepers and passing peddlers, jewelers and perfume-makers from across the street, even teachers and students from the nearby university. As time passed, the crowd was growing impatient. The sheik certainly took his time.

As always on such occasions, among the expectant crowd there were also beggars and bums and other good-for-nothings. One of them turned out to be particularly annoying. All in rags, unkempt beyond description, and smelling badly of wine (he must have strayed from the Jewish or Christian quarters, some whispered), the bum was drawing closer and closer to the pious-looking, anxiety-ridden disciples. Taking his time, between hiccups, he examined them intently, one by one, which made the boys even more nervous: the last thing they wanted was to be found out by the great master in such unholy proximity.

Thank goodness, it now appeared that the bum was drifting away. As he was doing so, however, he addressed himself to the embarrassed youth, in such sober, educated Persian that their prayer beads suddenly froze in the palms of their hands: I’ve come for nothing, methinks. What am I to teach you? By the looks of you, you’ve all reached a state of purity compared to which I am nothing. My ways are messy, my teachings tentative, and my quest, far from pure, always gets entangled with my flesh, with my earthiness and my complicated commerce with the world. I am a failure, whereas you — just look at you! — you seem to dwell with the angels already! Now, if you will excuse me … And, with that, he slipped out of the inn. It was then, the story adds, that people at the inn realized that the sheik they had been waiting for had just left them.

The story of the Sufi master mirrors the state of much of contemporary philosophy. For there is at work in it a strong purist assumption: the notion that philosophy is reducible to a purely logical exercise, conducted strictly by the rules of rational argumentation and debate: whatever is not translatable into argument is irrelevant. Philosophers are somehow exempted from the laws that govern the rest of humankind, managing to operate on some superior, angelic plane, where their earthiness and their mundanity never follow them.

But philosophy has never only been about rational argumentation. It would be the saddest thing if it were, and it would not have lasted that long. What makes philosophy such an endurable affair, in the West as well as in the East, is that it engages not only our cognition, but also our imagination, emotions, artistic sensibility, religious impulses — in short, our being complicated, messy, impure creatures. To be human is to be always caught in existential entanglements, to have to deal with hybridity and messiness of all sorts. We are an unlikely union of high and low, spirit and flesh, reason and unreason. And philosophers, if they are not to lose their integrity, need to account for such wholeness.

That’s why philosophy — not the bland academic sort, but the lasting, transformative variety that we come across in Lao Tzu, Pythagoras, Plato, Saint Augustine, Rumi, Meister Eckhart, Spinoza, Marx, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Simone Weil — doesn’t come in a pure state. It always gets mixed with myth, poetry, drama, mysticism, scientific thinking, political militancy, or social activism. To complicate matters, often fiction writers (think Dostoyevsky, Huxley, or Borges) turn out to be particularly insightful philosophers, and so do filmmakers — such as Bergman, Kurosawa, and Tarkovsky — who philosophize just as insightfully on screen. All these entanglements and contaminations mark philosophy profoundly — indeed, they make it what it is.

Take a Sufi poem by Rumi. How can we tell, as we let ourselves be absorbed by it, where poetry ends and philosophy begins, or when and how mysticism starts stealing in? When Lao Tzu speaks of water — “the best (man) is like water. Water is good; it benefits all things and does not compete with them. It dwells in (lowly) places that all disdain. That is why it is so near to Tao” — does he really “make an argument”? Why should we care? There is a cosmic vision encapsulated here, a sense of being in the world and an understanding of the human condition that defy our petty notions of how philosophy should conduct itself. To cut open such a work only to extract from it its “argument” — discarding everything else, ignoring the design and vision of its author — is to kill the beating heart of that work, and to start dealing in corpses. Why should we do that?

Walter Benjamin used storytelling liberally in his philosophical work. He created fictions, long and short, or borrowed them from others, and this was no whim: Benjamin really thought philosophy and literature were profoundly interlinked; he speaks of “the epic side of truth,” and relates it to “the art of storytelling.” Humans are narrative-driven creatures for whom form is as important as any content. We can make sense of ourselves and the world in which we live insofar as we can weave narratives about ourselves and the world. Sartre, who knew a thing or two about philosophy and literature, wanted, in his work, to be both Spinoza and Stendhal.

If we experience everything as a story in the making, then there is indeed an “epic side” to truth, and philosophy, by definition, is bound to use literary craft. With every new story we make the world anew. Storytelling pushes the boundaries of what it means to be human: envisions and rehearses new forms of experience, gives firm shape to something that hasn’t existed before, makes the unthought-of suddenly intelligible. Storytelling and philosophy are twins. Plato’s “allegory of the cave” makes an important philosophical point in such a poignant manner precisely because it’s such a good story. Yet how are we to tell, in such a case, the storyteller from the philosopher? “How can we know the dancer from the dance?” wondered the poet. But why should we?

Since philosophy and literature are so intimately intertwined, pathos is not something philosophers just pepper their work with, but it’s already there, embedded in their work. No sooner do you start philosophizing than you begin emplotting ideas, experimenting with form, employing rhetorical tropes, toying with emotions, and making room for empathy — that is, crafting a piece of literature. One philosopher writes, with studied relief, of arriving to “the land of truth,” which is “surrounded by a wide and stormy ocean, the region of illusion, where many a fog-bank, many an iceberg, seems to the mariner, on his voyage of discovery, a new country.” The quote is not from Nietzsche or Benjamin’s work, nor from other “literary philosophers” — it’s from Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Even the driest of thinkers cannot help making use of literary images and metaphors, of fables and stories. (Ironically, the sheer act of “making an argument,” on which the philosophical purists swear today, is, in important sense, a form of storytelling, but that’s another story.)

A lively conversation has been taking place lately on mainstream philosophy in the West today and the way it treats non-Western traditions of thought as insufficiently philosophical. Such bias, though serious, is only a symptom — one among many — of parochial, purist philosophy’s misunderstanding of itself. Not only are other philosophical traditions easily dismissed, but within the Western tradition itself important genres, thinkers, bodies of work are rejected just as arrogantly.

Such arrogance comes with its own blinding punishment: we can no longer tell the essential from the trifling, a genuine problem from a passing fad. We are no longer able to detect the philosophical unless it comes to us in the form of the peer-reviewed academic article, published (preferably in English) in a journal with a stellar ranking and a top-notch editorial board. No wonder philosophy has become so irrelevant today. Why should anyone need philosophers, if philosophy limits itself so radically?

What we badly need now is a liberal dose of humility. We should at last understand that philosophy comes under different guises, and by many names, that it never comes in a pure state but loves messiness and hybridity, that it gets entangled with the philosophers’ lives and earthiness. Such an act of humility wouldn’t impoverish philosophy at all. On the contrary, it would empower the philosophers and make philosophy a richer, more sophisticated, and more relevant affair.

If only we could find a Sufi master to humble us a bit.

¤

Costica Bradatan is a professor of Humanities and the author, most recently, of Dying for Ideas. The Dangerous Lives of the Philosophers (Bloomsbury, 2015). He serves as the religion/comparative studies editor for the Los Angeles Review of Books.

The post Philosophy Needs a New Definition appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books http://ift.tt/2AIzJ0c

[cloakedmonk]

What has Theater taught me? Ego indulgence and humility. Confidence and neurosis. Teamwork and competition. Empathy and retreat. Deception and honesty. The story of humanity in a microcosm. My story.

When I was a little kid, I learned that I could entertain and amuse my parents and my older sisters and get positive attention. As the youngest of four daughters, I was eager to exercise this talent to my advantage whenever my ego felt bereft. This helped me compensate for having fewer general skills and powers than my seniors. I couldn’t win at games or read or figure or run better than the rest, but I could sing and mime and look cute. I also was the only blonde, which helped.

When I was in second grade, I was very good at reading aloud “with expression”. I remember (and still have a written report about) my behavior when the class did a Reader’s Theater story about a snake. I told the teacher that I had a toy snake the class could use…provided that I got to read the lead role. Mrs. Richie declined my offer.

When I was in third grade, Miss White selected me to play Captain Hook in the musical Peter Pan. I was stunned. “I’m not a boy!” I protested. She told me privately that she thought I’d do a better job than any of the boys in the class. She could tell that I was a ham and would take risks to win attention and applause. And I did. In the final week of rehearsal, she gave me a monologue, a poem in rhyme that she would put into a particular scene if I could memorize it. I worked on it very hard. In the final performance, though, I skipped it altogether because I forgot where it was supposed to be inserted. To this day, I can rattle it off by heart. “Methinks I hear a spark, a gleam, a glimmer of a plan….”

The pirate theme lives on in my legacy.

When I was in seventh grade, I was double-cast as the lead in our pre-Bicentennial musical. I was the Spirit of ’75 for two performances (why the Music teacher and the Home Ec teacher chose this theme a year early is anyone’s guess). So was Kevin Bry. Yes, I played a man. Again. I vividly remember being in performance and feeling sort of bored with the dialogue the teachers had written to link together the songs the school chorus had rehearsed. So I decided to overact. “The sun still rises in the East….doesn’t it????!!” The audience roared. I think they were pretty bored, too.

When I was in High School, I took real Drama classes. I learned to dance, and I gained some confidence singing solos in the Concert Choir and the Jazz Choir. I became a lot more aware of my own vulnerability, too. I will never forget the Talent Show in my Junior year. I was in a leotard and character shoes, posed and ready to dance when the curtain went up. I was listening for our taped music to begin. And I heard nothing…until the audience started to howl and whistle. Suddenly, I felt naked and taunted. Then the music started, and I couldn’t concentrate on it. I was humiliated. My father and mother and boyfriend (who became my husband) were in the audience, hearing those students jeering at me. We all went out for ice cream afterward, and they tried to convince me that the performance wasn’t bad and the audience wasn’t being critical, but I just wanted to block the whole thing out of my memory forever. Obviously, I haven’t.

When I was in college, I was a Music major with Voice Performance as my Senior thesis. I auditioned for a part in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta as a Junior. I hate auditions. I tend to choke when I know that someone is out there in those dark seats judging me. I am awesome in rehearsal – prepared, alert, willing and tireless. I was working hard, getting better at performance in my Master Classes and feeling more and more that my teachers and colleagues were actually rooting for me. But not at an audition. I was nervous, my mouth was dry, and my voice wavered. I could see my choir teacher in the house, talking with the casting director. I am sure that Prof. Lamkin was telling him that I was a very good soprano despite my weak scale runs in Mabel’s aria. I managed to land a part in the chorus.

That’s me, third lady on the left.

After graduating Phi Beta Kappa with my B.A. in Music, I auditioned for the Los Angeles Master Chorale. Worst audition EVER! Oh well. I found out that I was already pregnant. Got the role of Mother at age 22…and 24…and 26…and 28, and stayed off the stage for years. Meanwhile, my husband performed all over the country with a competitive Barbershop quartet and once at Carnegie Hall with the Robert Shaw Chorale Workshop. My children were on stage quite a bit, too. I was their coach. They were in all the school concerts and plays, took dance and music classes, and I watched and cheered and videotaped my heart out.

#gallery-0-16 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-16 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-16 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-16 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Then some neighbors invited me to help them start a Community Theater. I was tired of being in the background. I stepped up, and brought my oldest daughter with me. The next summer, I brought three of my children, my husband, and my mother-in-law as rehearsal accompanist. The next summer, it was just me, and my husband told me that he wouldn’t be able to solo parent while I was at rehearsal after this. Meanwhile, he was performing with the Chicago Master Singers and rehearsing every week. A few years later, my youngest daughter started taking theater classes with a group called CYT. The next summer, they did a community theater production, and I auditioned again and got cast. My oldest daughter played in the pit band. One of the performances was on my birthday, and the director brought me out on stage for the audience to sing for me during intermission. * shucks, folks! *

Joseph CCT

Joseph CCT

Joseph CCT

Joseph CCT

Carousel Cary CT

Hello Dolly Cary CT

Godspell Cary CT

Beauty & the Beast CCT

I ended up working for CYT and becoming their Operations Supervisor full time. In addition, I taught Voice classes and Musical Theater classes and Show Choir classes to kids aged 8-18 after work. All of my children and my husband participated at some point in the seven years I was employed there. I watched kids grow up in the theater, auditioning three times a year, growing in confidence and artistry, and questioning their identity every time.

“Who am I, anyway? Am I my résumé? That is a picture of a person I don’t know.” A Chorus Line 

#gallery-0-18 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-18 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-18 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-18 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Accessing emotions, improvising with another person’s energy – initiation, response, vulnerability, defense. Mime, mimicry, mannerisms, artifice and accents. Playing in the muck of human behavior. This is Theater. It can be devastating and edifying. You can lose yourself and find yourself or never know the difference.

I wonder if I should regret raising up a bunch of performers and encouraging them in this charade or if I should be proud to have modeled survival in the arena. I don’t know. It’s complex. We’re complex. And maybe that’s the entire lesson.

© 2017, words and photographs, Priscilla Galasso

Theater Lessons What has Theater taught me? Ego indulgence and humility. Confidence and neurosis. Teamwork and competition. Empathy and retreat.