#and I am very different in progress than most people

[lynxgriffin]

Thoughts on future Eldritchrune updates

Hey folks! Just wanted to make a post about some long-term stuff regarding Eldritchrune, and other DR-related fan stuff I may be working on. I'm absolutely open to all of your thoughts or suggestions on it, but I wanted to try and lay down some long-term planning, since I like doing that:

While there's plenty of other scenes I intend to do comics for (I've got a whole new batch of them that I need to get to writing soon) I've also been thinking about how to approach the ending. While I'd like to wait for chapters three and four and see what new material we get from canon there, I also intend to finish the AU before the game itself finishes, primarily because I want to do a much more canon-based fan project after the full game is out. Eldritchrune is vastly different enough from canon anyway that I'm not concerned about the canon ending affecting the AU.

My primary concern is that, as I have it laid out now, Eldritchrune's ending is going to take a VERY long time to produce...it's an extensively long ending, with crowd scenes, fight scenes, huge effects, buildings falling apart, emotional conversations, etc...basically ALL of the things that take a really long time to draw! I am wondering if it might be best to approach that work by slowly chipping away at it over a long period of time, rather than trying to tackle it once I'm actually at the ending.

Of course, the issue with that is that if I'm setting aside time regularly to chip away at it, that'll eat into time to work on the other, smaller scenes that are still in progress. This is in addition to me wanting to do a special project (canon-related) for the upcoming anniversary in a few months. All this is to say that this may make the blocks of time between comic updates longer, and I know there's already quite a wait there, at least with these last few long ones!

This seems like the best approach to making sure Eldritchrune gets done in a satisfying way to me right now, but I also know that longer waits between updates might not be ideal for folks. To help with the waits, I was thinking of also updating my patreon with WIPs on a more frequent basis, but that also may not make a difference for most people reading. So, I am open to your thoughts and opinions on this as I move forward!

[nthspecialll]

Bill was not taunting Arthur.

Bill was not taunting Arthur when it came to his sa, I stand quite firm about this and I sometimes get quite annoyed when people say that he did, other than his tone there is no proof of him taunting Arthur about sa. I will agree he is taunting Arthur, but I would say it is not for sa, but for homosexuality.

I am in the firm belief that Bill did not know Arthur was raped, but merely thought it was a consensual homosexual hookup between Arthur and Sonny, now why do I believe this?

Being homosexual in the 1800 was no walk in the park, it was highly isolating and frightening as it could end with jail time and the death penalty, meaning queer people struggled a lot with finding one another. There were places like Molly houses (in short: a gay bar), a bunch of different clothing codes and so on but it was all risky because it could get picked up on by homophobic people seeking to learn these codes to cause harm.

This meant that when queer people found one another they obviously talked because they finally found a safe space, that said it was not a safe space for rape at all, just like in hetero communities.

Now how does all of this revolve around Bill Williamson? He is gay, it is quite obvious and although the Van Der Linde gang are progressive they are not supportive of homosexuals in cannon, you can hear several taunting jokes thrown at Bill throughout both games. "Is he about to punch that guy or kiss him?" "He likes to do a lot to men on their knees."

Bill, although in a gang and a progressive one at it, was isolated, so I bet he was real happy when he met Sonny, when he finally found someone who was like himself and whom he could talk to. I am sure that Sonny was also happy and when they picked up on the fact that they both knew Arthur, Sonny most likely mentioned "knowing all about him," but in the "hey your friend is a homosexual too" way, not in the "hey I raped your friend" way.

Sonny probably knew about these two being in a gang and if he had read the newspapers he would probably be able to see a connection between the sudden spike in violence and these men appearing, he knows they are fucking dangerous and unless he has lived under a rock he most likely knew the Van Der Linde gang as it is pointed out in the games several times that they are well known to the point songs and novels exists about them.

We all know Bill is fucking loyal and he does respect Arthur, unlike what people tend to think, he brings him along on the Valentine bank robbery because he knows if shit goes down he can trust Arthur ("you are just coming along as insurance"). Sonny does not know about their connection, he does not know if they like one another or hate one another so saying he purposefully hurt Arthur would be one hell of a risky move, especially considering the strong brotherly bond that gangs in this time had.

On the other hand, saying "hey your friend who taunts you for being gay, he is gay too" would gain him points with Bill because it would give Bill something to taunt Arthur with.

Thinking about it logically, it would not be smart for Sonny to tell Bill it was rape also because it would risk pushing Bill away from Sonny.

Another really good post about it can be found here:

[heavenlymorals]

Charles, Molly, and Micah: Sacajawea, Dracula's Bride, and the Devil - the Literary Symbolism of Three More Characters

(Warning: This post contains spoilers for RDR2.)

I've already written two symbolic analysis for Dutch and Arthur as being representatives of the literary vampire and stag. That was fun, so let's do it again for these three characters- I know, kind of an odd trio, but I am here to yap 😃👍🏼

Let's start with Charles. When it comes to literary merit, Charles to me seems like an example of a Sacajawea character. Well, what is a Sacajawea character? Let's establish some short context- Sacajawea was a real Shoshone woman who is most famous for her role as an interpreter and guide for the William and Clark expedition to explore the Louisiana purchase. There is a lot more context then just that, but hang onto the idea of Sacajawea being a guide. That is what the Sacajawea character is.

They are a guide. They aren't really mentors as they're not there to force the main character to do something in order to learn or to progress their quest lines. They make suggestions, via either words or actions or just difference of perspective, but they won't tell the main character what they should and shouldn't do. Another aspect of the Sacajawea character is that they are almost always a person of color and that the person they are guiding is almost always a white person. The Sacajawea character sometimes guides by introducing a new culture or new struggles that the white person doesn't have to face due to societal privileges. Other times, the Sacajawea character guides by simply being a person who acts as an antithesis to materialism, which in many cases in history has been the motivation of European colonialism. They will instead opt to focus more on people and the spirit.

A Sacajawea character can be kinda tricky as it can either create a very well-rounded character who does their role but who also maintains their own literary autonomy without the need of having to exist just for the sake of the white character, or it can create a disgusting caricature that exploits non white cultures and values.

Wow, holy shit that was a lot of yapping. Anyways, about Charles-

Charles is a Sacajawea character. Though he can exist on his own without having to rely on Arthur for his literary merit, he still operates in a similar way. In the beginning of the game, Arthur was pretty materialistic, but Charles still guides him right in that he emphasizes the value of people (Sean, the German family) rather than the materialistic pursuits of the gang. He opens up to Arthur about his culture, or at the very least what he remembers about his culture. He also offers Arthur a new perspective regarding morality and death. Is Charles a mentor? No. He isn't, he isn't forcing Arthur to do anything, but he makes suggestions. He is a half black/half native guide who offers Arthur, a white man, new perspectives. Charles is a Sacajawea character.

Now onto Molly. Since I've already established in a past post that Dutch is a literary vampire, it only makes sense that Molly is a Dracula's bride sort of character. To recap, a vampire character is a character who consumes for their own desire at the expense of others. The blood sucking can be a metaphor for selfish sex, fraud, toxicity, and just a disregard for others for the sake of one's own desires and ambitions. So if Dutch is a vampire, Molly is the victim of the vampire, or the vampire's "bride". A vampire's bride is a character who falls for the charms of the vampire at the expense of their own autonomy and happiness as they are tricked into thinking they would get it with the vampire. They also usually have these characteristics- they are usually a young woman, beautiful, naive, and "exotic" in the sense that they hold some sort of allure for the vampire.

Molly is all of that. She is young, she is beautiful, she is naive in thinking that she'll have this romantic adventure with Dutch by ditching her old lifestyle and family behind, and she's "exotic" is the sense that she comes from an overseas aristocratic family

Molly is "sucked dry" in the sense that Dutch uses her for his own selfish desires and once he is done with her, he discards her. He takes her "blood" or her life and leaves her "dead" or with nothing as she is used and discarded. She cannot handle it. She isolates herself from other people, which is also reminiscent to how the vampire's victims will isolate themselves from humanity, and her only company is her despair until she commits an indirect suicide by lying about telling the Pinkertons about the bank robbery. Molly is the vampire's bride.

Last but definitely- nevermind, last and least is Micah Bell. If you live in a western culture then you live in a Christian culture, whether you believe in it or not, so my interpretation of the Devil in regards to Micah is going to be biblical. Now Micah is just a bad person all around, but his Devil attributes show the most with his relationship and manipulation of Dutch.

A Devil character is a character that tries to offer something, maybe power, maybe fame, maybe money, maybe talent, at the expense of someone's "soul" or self respect and dignity. Hold on to this idea.

Micah is a representation of the Devil using the snake to ultimately have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit and defy God or "goodness". This is also backed by the blind prophet saying: "Your father is seduced by him with the forked tongue. There is no use hoping." Dutch is seduced by Micah who is a Devil character or a snake with a forked tongue.

Dutch, although one could argue was still very crooked from the beginning, was a likeable person and even someone worthy of following, or at least to Arthur he was, until Micah came and began telling him things that contradict with his original image of being a virtuous Robinhood figure. Micah convinces Dutch to make rash desicions (eating the apple) like killing Cornwall or ignoring John or abandoning Abigail when prior to that, Dutch was the one sending men to bust out Sean and Micah and he was also the one usually breaking Arthur out of jail. The rash decisions also represent Dutch's greed for materialism, which is what the Devil also convinces Adam and Eve to do when they ate the fruit.

Another aspect of Micah being the devil is how after Dutch works with him, he feels shame, but doesn't have the courage to admit to his wrongdoings. This also mirrors how Adam and Eve got manipulated by Satan. They know they did something wrong, but where they could've told God what happened, they instead ran away out of shame as they couldn't admit they did wrong. Arthur's death is the questioning of God and Dutch, having been seduced by the Devil, could only walk off in his shame as he cannot face his moral failure. Adam and Eve also don't return to the Devil just like how Dutch ignores Micah when he was yelling at him to go with him, which shows that they know they got manipulated and did stupid things because of it, but they are too prideful to face it at first.

Micah is quite literally the Devil in the most biblical sense.

(I hope my English teacher is proud of me-)

[cloudgremlin]

It is so strange and wonderful to cross things off of my giant dry erase task board, I just erased the tasks I had on there for a ttrpg I ran and my brain is like “huh, I am actually not static, I am making just as much progress through this universe as the world is”

[katyspersonal]

Speaking of "something intimate touched by dirty hands", I'll be real, I kinda do still need someone to "cleanse" image of Mic0lash for me. Ever since the grand fandom rift I've of course fallen onto the better side where fans are trying their best, I just can tell my Mic mutuals are trying their best with the guy. But something so incredibly bad is connected with the character- You guys know how negative experiences with people can ruin a character (and you're in luck if not the whole piece of media)? This character for me is a manifestation that if someone claims to really love and need me, I should keep in mind that it is a lie I should not trust.

I should know by now that when something sounds too good to be true - it IS, but he is like... an "avatar" of that realization. Someone I could just look at at be reminded without the words that yes, I should remember that I'll never be happy or valued like I want to. That my "ability" to see something good even in the darkest people or to listen to the intention of even the most distorted message is reserved for someone else. For something else. I am just not built for things like long friendships, celebrating holidays, exploring the world together, just being loved, just being able to trust, just being cared about, just sharing life with someone. My role in this world is to be a "tutorial enemy". Someone people would have a negative experience with but in exchange, understand who they are and what they really want in life, and let go of their struggles and wishes that tormented them. But I feel like I can only fulfill my purpose in this world for as long as I am ignorant about it. If I stop trusting people and seeking the type of love I need - I won't get attached, so I won't get hurt when people hurt me, so I won't be slain. Because this is what I am in - a videogame enemy that people need to defeat to level up and proceed to their own games. And if I stop respawning - how I can be what I am?

I just should not learn a thing, because people better off after they "murder" me. More cruel and reclused, but better off - more self-sufficient, more confident, more.. secure of how much good they deserve. It would just help them to be more cautious when someone actually toxic appears. Like, someone who is not even self-aware, not struggling and not remorseful. So they won't take chances, to the better.

But I just need to blind myself to the truth, because I've got nothing better to offer to this world than being that "tutorial enemy". People are better after slaying me. I drop Insight points upon being stabbed, and it happened so many times. I guess this character is just cursed with being associated with a truth so horrible that it is better off not realizing it and just be moved like a pawn.

[luvisia]

sometimes i feel like i haven't gotten anywhere and then i think, "well, even though i'm sitting in the same room, i'm not crouched over a folding table with a computer that's falling apart to do college assignments anymore," and that's tangible progress i guess.

[essektheylyss]

not to be an unhinged Capricorn of a writer, but I really love getting rejections. I'm taking up space as a writer! I'm getting feedback! often I get to know if I got to a second round or not, and if they actually want to see more of my work. sometimes they even suggest other markets to send the piece to that it might fit better!

I've never gotten a mean rejection—even when they're form responses, they are usually quite nice, and stress how many submissions the market or agency receives. and I understand that, but a lot of folks don't. just because you were rejected doesn't mean the reader didn't like the piece—because of how many submissions virtually every market and agency gets, there are dozens of reasons why they have to say no to things, even things they love.

and every personalized rejection I've gotten has actually made my day, because it is genuinely lovely to know that someone read my work and gave it enough thought and consideration to say something specific about it. because I get excited when anyone reads and thinks about something I've written! even if it's just one person!

like do I want the things to get accepted, yeah! cuz I like the pieces and I want other people to read them! but the disappointment of not having the thing published isn't personal, it's professional, and meanwhile I'm gaining a lot of insight into my writing just on statistics for getting a lot of rejections. I don't think that any given rejection is a reflection of me personally.

[snapscube]

so i don't know if this is a post i'm gonna keep up cause, like i said, i don't really like talking candidly about aspects of my personal identity often these days, and lord knows i especially hate talking about legal identity and all the dissonance that entails. but this week was a pretty big one for me and i can't shake the desire to share my enthusiasm for even just a fleeting moment.

my name has been a sticking point in my mind for a long time. i've adopted many different ones. first, middle, last, you name it. i've been searching most of my life for a moniker that represented my true self socially, and a surname to distance myself from someone in my life who hurt me very badly and never really learned how to stop.

obviously for a long time now I've been Penny Parker to 98% of people who know me, and for the past couple that number has been bumped up to a solid 99% with a few stragglers. it's a name that is so mundane and assumed at this point that tbh I've even come to resent certain aspects of it. which to me is actually beautiful. i find that mundanity, that nuance, extremely telling of how it encapsulates my life. it's a fully three-dimensional reflection, smudges and sparkles and everything in between.

of course, i only just moved out on my own 3 years ago. and unfortunately that had to be the starting point to make this social and personal progress i've been sitting on for half a decade at least now official, tangible, legal. i've been playing a game of catch-up i didn't sign up for, but it's one that does have a silver lining in that i feel more in resonance with who i am and who i want to be than i ever did before being granted this independence.

and as of this week, i have the pleasure of entering an era of my life where the dissonance between who i am in speech and who i am in contract is nonexistent. my name is Penny Olivia Parker. i'm the same as i've always been, but getting better every day at it. soon i'll even have a license to match!

sometimes more of an Olivia Parker in brief moments nowadays tbh but i haven't worked out the details yet. nothin you need to stress over, ill take care of it. the full set is just fine and legally recognized, which is all i've wanted for as long as i can remember.

this isn't the end of my journey, both excitingly and unfortunately haha, but this is yet another huge milestone for me and in certain respects it's one of the biggest i've managed. i'm so happy to still be here. if you're reading this, thank you for being here too.

also those of you who watched my direct reactions the other day might have a little more insight as to why i was so emotional that the day after a judge signed my legal name change a new game by the Sonic Mania devs was announced called "Penny's Big Breakaway" LOL, it was a lot to handle for me but i wasn't sure how much i wanted to say just yet.

[grison-in-space]

I'm genuinely sorry, I was really tired and couldn't think of the word that mad pride movements use. I'm new to all of this. I thought you would be more open to it because you've reblogged from radical leftists (anarchists and communists both) within the past couple of weeks and they're all for Veganism afaik. The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different. I'm not spamming people with it, but I was inspired by an ask by a nonvegan and started asking popular bloggers why they weren't vegan to open up conversation and potentially change people's views on animals. If I've made you uncomfortable I'm sorry, though I admit I'm really confused by your standpoint. You do know that the only reason communism hasn't succeeded is because of America? Anyway, sorry again, I'm also autistic and I didn't mean to dismiss your legitimate dietary needs. Can I recommend acti-vegan's posts? While I understand that you can't go vegan, perhaps their blog will at least help you understand our points, they're much more well-written than my asks and they have plenty of legitimate science resources at hand. Thanks for listening, I'll take your advice into account. I'm not trying to not listen, it's just frustrating because so many people say they get it but they don't change, and if they truly got it they would, you know?

Okay, I get that you didn't mean to be offensive, and fuck knows I shouldn't throw stones when it comes to forgetting specific words. (This happens to me fairly frequently; it's a thing.)

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

So yesterday I actually wrote out and then deleted a whole paragraph to the effect of "part of my deep, deep frustration with animal rights activism hooks into my commitment to the phrase 'nothing about us without us,' because I frequently see the same kinds of emotional projection without making the effort to listen to animals on their own terms from animal rights activism groups."

The first thing I need to make clear to you is that this--veganism and animal rights activism (ARA) more generally--is not new to me. I am in my mid-thirties and I have never had a job of any kind that did not revolve around animals in some way, I've spent time in rescue spaces and vets and universities, I'm queer and I have spent most of my life in leftish progressive circles, so it's kind of hard to miss.

Essentially, you are proselytizing to me as if you were a newly baptized evangelical convinced I had never heard of Jesus, because if only I had heard and understood his holy word, I would be converted instantly to his light! It's not any less irritating when the belief system isn't explicitly a religion.

More under the cut, because this one is long.

Disclaimer one: Veganism isn't synonymous with ARA ideology, but it's deeply entangled with it, and ARA ideology drives the movement of veganism as a (theoretically non-religious) ethical decision. And I object very strongly to the framework imposed by ARA activists. When I say I am not vegan, I am saying that I have considered the ethical framework that underpins veganism as an ethics movement and I have deliberately rejected it.

The second piece of context you should know that when I talk about being a behavioral ecologist, I mean that I'm a researcher who works on animals and that my framework is rooted in trying to understand animals in their own natural ecological context, without necessarily comparing them to humans. There's a lot of ways to study animal behavior you might run into, including attempts to understand universal principles of behavior that transcend species (animal cognition) and attempts to understand how to better treat animals in human care (animal welfare). You know Temple Grandin? Temple Grandin is an ethologist (the field that gave rise to behavioral ecology, also focused on animals within their species context) who worked on animal welfare (finding ways to make slaughterhouses less stressful to livestock, among other things).

Third point: my profession also means is that I work directly with animals--in my case, currently mice--and that I do not think research with animal subjects is wrong as long as all efforts are made to ensure maximal welfare and enrichment for the animals involved. This is another major bone of contention politically between my entire field and ARA groups, and you should know that I have also spent my entire professional career under the shadow of, well, people who care strongly enough about those ideas to invade my workspace and potentially seize my animals and "free" them into a world they do not have the tools to survive in.

So there's where I am coming from. Let's get back to what you're saying. Here, I'll quote again in case you have the same crappy short-term memory I do.

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

Point the first: Even within humans, I don't think that all brains should be treated the exact same. Especially in a disability context! After all, what is an accommodation if not an agreement to treat someone differently because they need certain things to access a space? Accommodations by definition fly in the face of this "treating everyone the same" understanding of fairness. I think all (human) brains are equally valuable, and I think all brains are worthy of respect, but I do not think that it's wise or kind of me to assert that everyone should be treated in the same way. For one thing, I teach students. If there's one thing teaching has taught me, it's that a good teacher is constantly assessing and adjusting their instruction to meet students where they're at, identify failures of understanding, and keep the attention of the classroom.

Point the second: animals do have different brains from humans. That does not mean that animals are inferior, but it does mean that they are alien. There's a philosophy paper, Nagel, What Does It Mean to Be a Bat, that you might find illuminating on this front. Essentially, the point of the paper is that animals have their own experiences and sensory umwelts that differ profoundly enough from humans' that we cannot know what it is like to be a different species without experiencing life as one, and therefore we must be terribly careful not to project our own realities onto theirs. That is, our imagination cannot tell us what a bat values and what it experiences. That is why we have to use careful evidence to understand what an animal is thinking, without relying on our ability to identify with and comprehend that animal. I have watched ARA groups deliberately encourage people to shut their reasoning brains off and emotionally identify themselves with animals without considering within-species context for twenty years. This is a mainstream tactic. It is not an isolated event and for that reason alone I would be opposed to them.

Point the third: there is a definite tendency in lots of people to care deeply and intensely about both animals and people who are seen as "lesser" in status--children, poor people, disabled people, etc--just as long as those groups never contradict the good feelings that come from the helper's own assessment of themselves and their actions. In humans, when the "needy" point out that some forms of help are actually harmful, the backlash is often swift and vicious. This is why animals are such an appealing target of support and intervention. They can't speak back and say "in fact, you are projecting my love of this frilly pink tutu onto me, and I think it's uncomfortable and prevents me from walking." They can't say "I kind of like it better when I don't have to worry about getting hit by a car, actually?"

(By the way: this is also why it's offensive to compare disabled people to animals, because this is generally done at least in part to silence the voices of disabled people speaking for our selves and our communities. We have access to language, and we use it, thank you.)

All forms of animal welfare intervention going right back to the founding of the first RSPCA have been incredibly prone to being hijacked by classist, racist, and otherwise bigoted impulses. This is because animals offer an innocent face for defense that conveniently cannot criticize the actions taken by their champions, and they therefore provide a great excuse for actions taken against marginalized members of human society. Think about the very first campaign the RSPCA ever did, which was banning using dogs as draft animals: a use that is not inherently harmful to dogs, which many dogs actively enjoy, but also one that was specifically used by poor Londoners and which in fact immediately resulted in a great butchery of the dogs that Londoners could no longer afford to feed rather than allowing poor people and their dogs to continue working together. No one was, of course, challenging the particular uses of dogs or any other animal favored by the wealthy. This kind of thing is so, so, so common. Obviously it doesn't mean that all interventions to prioritize animal welfare are inherently bigoted, but it does mean that we have to be critical about our choice of challenges.

On top of everything, the animal rights activist movement's obsession with "exploitation" is a function of the idea that humans are sinful or otherwise Bad in how we interact with animals by definition. For example, take the chicken rescue near me that is so obsessed with the possibility that some human somewhere might benefit from an animal in their care that they implant every hen they adopt out with hormonal implants such that the hens no longer lay eggs--a function that is normally a natural byproduct of a chicken's reproductive system, fertilized or not. A mutualistic relationship involves both parties benefiting, and that is the case for an awful lot of human relationships with animals. In general, the idea that associating with animals is a thing that can only harm animals rather than being a trade between two species to enrich one another is all over these groups. It's just so myopically focused on human shame that it prevents practical interventions that might benefit everyone, and often promotes interventions that don't directly benefit animals but sure do make humans miserable. For example, this kind of thinking is why groups like PETA are absolutely awful at effectively rescuing unwanted dogs and cats: they think pets living in "bondage" with humans are an essentially sad outcome, rather than one that might be mutually enjoyed by all parties.

I'm tired and my meds haven't kicked in, so I'm not currently going to handle the communism thing except to point out that while the US absolutely did destabilize a number of leftist regimes in South America and Africa, Russia and China between them have certainly not treated their own people kindly, either (and more so their own client-nations, as with the former members of the USSR). Please do some reading about the Holodomor and Lysenko in Russia (and frankly all of the details of Stalin's regime) and the Cultural Revolution in China in particular. Khmer Rouge might be worth looking into, too. I am not saying the US's hands are clean, you understand, because they are not; they're as steeped in red as anyone else's. What I am saying is that for people living on the ground, communist revolutions have this nasty habit of turning into bloodbaths and arbitrary slaughters. Do not let your distaste for the US's bloodsoaked imperialism (which, yes, is and was bad) let you fall into the trap of becoming a tankie.

And if you don't know what a tankie is, you really, really should take some time to learn.

[theleotarot]

What Makes You Different From Your Future Spouse’s Previous Partners? ♡

Requested Reading ♡

Choose the image you are most drawn to or resonate most with… pile 1, pile 2, pile 3, & pile 4 ✨

18+ pac readings available here 🔥

Pile 1

(Tarot cards: Queen of Pentacles, Three of Cups, Seven of Swords, Eight of Pentacles, Two of Swords, & The Empress)

The first thing I’d like to say about your future spouse’s previous partners is that they may have been much older than you, or they have experienced more in life than you have. They have this well-grounded energy and seem to very well-off with finance. Even though your future spouse’s previous partners are abundant and seem to be experienced, I am getting that they are deceitful, or even have been a cheater to your future spouse. Their previous partners also get along well with other people, and they may have many friends, but I’m seeing that they may have partied too much. As a result of being a party person, for some of you, I am seeing that your future spouse’s previous partners have cheated on them at a party or a bar, and they have lied a lot to them when they are with their friends.

For you, you are a wonderful work in progress, and you’re still pursuing your goals and dreams. I can see that sometimes you may be indecisive at times about certain things, but you always manage to make the right decision. This is what separates you from your future spouse’s previous partners; you know right from wrong. Even through during difficult situations or arguments with your future spouse, you would never go out of your way and cheat on them and be disloyal. You know the good values in a relationship. You are also more nurturing and caring than their previous partners towards your future spouse. Your future spouse knows how much you love them, unlike their previous partners who made them feel uncertain about their love. You may also be more independent and do things alone by yourself a lot, rather than being an intense party-goer.

Pile 2

(Tarot cards: Judgment, The Devil, Four of Swords, Nine of Cups, The World, & The Moon)

Pile 2, the energy I am getting for your future spouse is that they have not taken their previous partners seriously, or if they have been in relationships, it is built based on lust or physical attraction only. With their previous partners, there is also an air of toxic energy that I feel. Since your future spouse may have had relationships built on physical attraction only, I am getting that there may be jealousy from their previous partners and even possessiveness. I don’t believe that there is real love between your future spouse and their previous partners, instead, there is a controlling and toxic bond that may be mistaken as “love.” Them and their previous partners lack the emotional connection, and I’m getting that your future spouse has gained anxiety or stress due to not finding anyone who has fulfilled their emotional needs. Another thing I’m getting for some of you is that your future spouse and their previous partners have kept their relationship as private or secret. I am getting that they did this because as said before, they didn’t take their relationships serious due to lack of real love OR there was abuse (emotional or physical - take what resonates).

On the other hand, you are everything that your future spouse has been looking for. Seriously. With the 9 of Cups and The World coming out for you, I already know that your future spouse is not only so physically attracted to you, but they are also very mentally and emotionally attracted to you. They are very emotionally fulfilled by being with you. You are quite literally the whole package to them, and they love that they have finally found someone that they can connect with in all ways. The 9 of Cups also tells me that in your relationship, you won’t be overly jealous and possessive with them like their previous partners were. You’re not jealous or possessive because you have that self-love and don’t rely on anyone else to make you happy. Ultimately Pile 2, you give a really healthy love to your future spouse. They appreciate that you have put an end to their uncertainty about love and that you opened their heart up to a safe, emotional, and fulfilling love.

Pile 3

(Tarot cards: Three of Swords, Temperance, Six of Swords, The Fool, Three of Wands, & Three of Pentacles)

Okay Pile 3, I am getting that your future spouse and their previous partners have had a lot of troubles and difficulties in regard to differences in future plans and goals. I am really getting that them and their previous partners have different priorities which have led them to separate ways. For example, if your future spouse wanted to have children, but their partner didn’t want children, that would be an issue to them. It could also be different lifestyles that the both of them couldn’t handle with each other. With your future spouse and their previous partners, there was also a lot of waiting for the other to change, and they both lacked a lot of compromise with each other. I am also getting that for some of you, your future spouse and their previous partners were attracted to each other because of similar traumas, or they use each other’s company as an outlet to get away from their hardships. This really explains why them and their previous partners played the waiting game so long with each other- They had love for each other that was built from past experiences, yet they couldn’t work out because they were both actually very different from each other individually.

With you, instead of connecting with your future spouse on a trauma level, you connect with them on an adventurous and fun level. You are more about the fun and creative side of life and more on the “live in the moment” side of things. This is actually great because I can see that your future spouse admires that you have introduced them to their light and playful side, which they thought no one could bring out of them (Wow, that is so sweet). You also are a great planner with your future spouse as well! With the 3 of Wands, I can see that you and your future spouse do not butt heads with each other in your future plans, and the both of you are very successful in expanding your life together! In addition to the 3 of Wands, you also received the 3 of Pentacles, and evidently, the both of you work very well as a team. That is what separates you from your future spouse’s previous partners- you bring the light and joy into their life by being courages and supportive, and your dreams and goals align with theirs.

Pile 4

(Tarot cards: King of Cups, The Fool, Wheel of Fortune, Three of Wands, Five of Wands, & The High Priestess)

Your future spouse’s previous partners may have been people who are older, yet exude young energy at the same time. I am getting that they have this young and adventurous side about them that is not afraid to take risks, but they are also balanced by their emotional intelligence. They are full of adventure, yet they have a calming demeanor of emotions. I believe that their previous partners are more on the relaxed side while still enjoying life to the fullest. For instance, they might be the type of person to quickly and eagerly travel everywhere, but once they’re at the destination, they just like to sit back, relax, and enjoy the stay. They may have traveled a lot or have got really far into their career already. Their previous partners may also be very well-known in their community and seen as very affectionate or emotionally supportive.

With you Pile 4, you are more fierce. You love to playfully bicker and argue with your future spouse, and they find this spontaneous about you. They love the fiery energy you give off. You have a lot of inner strength and power to take charge in your own pathway. You are also always opened to overcoming new challenges and trying out new opportunities. I get a younger energy with you as well, but you are more independent, and you like to shine by yourself. While you are fierce and bold, you also exude feminine energy. Your future spouse puts you on a pedestal. It’s kind of like, you know your own worth, so you have standards of your partner treating you with good respect and even do chivalry with you. I can see a scenario where you drop something on the floor, and you ask your future spouse “Can you please pick that up for me?” and they do it because you are the queen. Overall, you exude this energy of a bold and fierce leader to your future spouse, which their previous partners lacked. With their previous partners, your future spouse was the one to be initiative, but with you, you take control to be initiative on your own will as well.

[caramiea]

a thousand faces in a thousand places

synopsis: the housewardens with a Sparkle (from honkai: star rail) reader. (headcanons)

gn!reader + reader is not yuu

RIDDLE ROSEHEARTS

uhm! 😨 (scared)

there is not a single universe where this man, pre-overblot, did not hate you.

so, how did you two meet? considering your mysterious, yet still childish personality- you probably got sorted into heartslabyul!

you’re basically like alice but.. so. much. worse. 

pre-overblot he’d, most likely, be very cross with you.

do you know how many times you’ve been off-with-your-head-ed? because it’s happened a LOT. and i mean, a lot a lot.

you were in and out of everywhere, were rather cryptic, and had a strong mischievous streak.

how could he NOT be annoyed? smh.

though, post-overblot, i think he’d be more relaxed.

of course, he’d still be exasperated, but not to the level of annoyance he had before. progress, woop woop !!!

LEONA KINGSCHOLAR

i am still scared. not for you, but for leona.

he’d be annoyed, i suppose. you’re like a creepy, more out there, more literally insane version of ruggie.

so, how did you two meet? it’s similar to how yuu and the lion met, actually. except.. there’s kind of a difference.

whereas yuu stepped on his tail (by accident!), causing leona to go “ooh i’m gonna eat you” like a shark on steroids, YOU were the one who.. tried to eat him.

picture this, leona sleeping on the botanical garden, you seeing his tail and immediately going

how romantic a meeting! be still, my heart! meetcute who?

you immediately started laughing hysterically when his startled awake gaze met your terribly amused eyes, so the impression you left to him.. eh.

you probably started a “Call Leona ‘Unca Weona’” trend on MagiTok (that cater undoubtedly joined in on), so he’s probably pretty annoyed at you.

— you’ve also probably used his money to fund some performances.

AZUL ASHENGROTTO

“you have bewitched me body and soul. 🤩” “HOW DID YOU GET INTO MY HOUSE”

he’s probably mildly terrified of you and your absolutely horrendous schemes.

so, how did this lovely pair meet? WELL.

azul, doing paperwork in his office or whatever he does, looking like he sniffs lint, jolts when jade enters abruptly.

it’s unlike the eel’s usual respectful manner, so he’s pretty confused, immediately going “what is it?”

a sheepish jade smiles awkwardly and goes to say something like, “blah blah vanished into thin air before they could pay.”

azul is BEWILDERED. vanished??

so, obviously, righteously wanting his money, he tells jade and floyd to go look for you.

they did not find you.

fun.

KALIM AL-ASIM

he has a new bestie now!

you two are great friends, your chaotic (one more so than the other) tendencies and fun-loving personalities make you a great pair.

jamil would say otherwise.

you two go on happy little excursions around the campus, terrorizing a few people here and there, and honestly just having the time of your lives.

he was so glad you weren’t his friend just for his wealth, but because you liked his personality as he liked yours.

though, you, as someone who can only have their interest piqued by amusement, didn’t understand why he’d think you were using him.

you wear the most stupid matching shirts (that kalim bought and jamil tacitly approved) and walk around, happily playing and leaving only destruction in your wake.

VIL SCHOENHEIT

you’re fashionable, he likes you.

with your skill in acting, you’re probably in the film studies club, which is most likely how you two met.

he admires your.. cough, dedication. and he also thinks your personality is a bit (is it?👀).

“your dedication to being you is admirable.” “hehe thanks but wtf🥰”

as literally everyone is, kalim not included, he’s pretty exasperated by your chaos-causing tendencies and unhinged personality.

illusion magic is your jam, so just imagine how shocked he was when looking into his mirror and seeing your evilly-grinning visage instead of his own face.

(rook approves.)

talking about rook, a curious vil had asked the hunter to.. stalk you for a while, because he was confused if you were really the person you portrayed yourself as.

a laughing rook gave the report that you had found him out and asked if he was close to his housewarden because he stripped himself naked and apologized for his crime of liking neige.

vil is flabbergasted.

IDIA SHROUD

on one hand, he’s terrified, and on the other- he thinks you’re funny.

you come up with the most unhinged insults, and you always get the last word- he thinks you’re admirable.

your level of extrovertness is shocking to him.

first kalim, now you? he is Shaking His Head™.

how you first met doesn’t matter, what matters is what he accidentally said when first meeting you and having a good short chat.

“mesugaki..” he mumbled in the middle of your sentence.

your ears were good. his ears were working well enough to hear his own damn self.

he wants to cry. he wants to dig a hole in the ground and bury himself in it.

“hikikomori.” you immediately responded.

critical hit! idia will have to stay inside his room for three weeks, tell ortho he loves him..

you’d say you two get along well, idia would say otherwise.

MALLEUS DRACONIA

he enjoys your rambunctious personality. he’s normally chilling quietly in the corner, so having you drag him around probably does wonders for how people see him.

he approves (sebek does NOT).

he’s sometimes concerned. he knows humans don’t live long, will you Doing What You Do somehow make your lifespan even shorter? 

you’re just being you and he’s standing menacingly right beside you. imagine how that looks to other people.

your local terrorist gremlin and THE malleus draconia. standing next to eachother. chilling.

you probably call him “that guy with the horns”, or something more animal aligned.

like “ram horns boy”. 

lilia probably laughed at it, silver didn’t know if he should’ve felt offended for malleus or if it was a friendly joke, and sebek is going to use it as a horror story for the future generations of his family.

you’re just causing chaos and he’s there like 🧍😄

[yourstardarling]

Scorpio Through The Houses: Part 1

So as I stated in my previous post, Scorpio in our charts symbolizes where you face death and drastic changes within our lives. The house Scorpio sits in shows where you will feel this energy most prominently. It also symbolizes where you are feared because of your power. As well as, where you need to be guarded and protective about your secrets. This is also a great place to look at in your birth chart if you are looking to make drastic changes in your life.

Also, a slight trigger warning because I know the topic of death is very sensitive. I am not trying to gloss over anything or undermine the effects of death. I do believe though that especially when pertaining to speaking about Scorpio, death is something we can’t avoid.

Scorpio 1st House: Your existence is filled with constant transformations. You are death itself. Scorpio in the first house creates for an individual who is always striving to evolve and change into a whole different being. However, the fixed energy of Scorpio can make this change to be internal and psychological rather than physical. When this change comes about physically though, people will notice as it is entirely different from who you were before. Some people will see you as not the same person they have met before. This should be taken as a compliment though, as it only shows the growth and progress you’ve made to grow out of your old skin. People fear or admire you because of your ability to withstand all hurdles life has thrown at you while still remaining strong. This can make others see you as a threat. Scorpio here is all about resilience and having the ability to fuel yourself again and again to come out on top. These people will face multiple challenges in life and how they maneuver through them is by peeling off old skin. Scorpio here is the embodiment of the Phoenix rising from the ashes to be reborn.

Scorpio 2nd house: Your sense of self worth and what brings you value is constantly changing. You may have faced significant financial challenges in the past that have made you keen on being on top of your financial matters. There may have been some fears of money growing up and a lack of financial security. There may have been a lack of security in general and not having adequate privacy. Eventually, you will need to learn to create a sense of security over your material possessions. By learning to get over your fears of wealth and financial stability you will gain a lot of power. Scorpio here can cause an individual to be very private when it comes to their financial matters. It can also be a significant indicator of inheriting valuable assets as well. In terms of your self worth, you keep the things that are valuable to you hidden from the outside world. This may cause other people to be skeptical of what you have to hide. May get questions about how you are able to afford your lifestyle?

Scorpio 3rd house: The voice of this individual is feared. People see how much power your voice has to be able to make things shake. These people are very cut throat. Your mind is feared because of your intellect and mental capabilities. There may have been a lot of drastic changes when it came to your education that you had to face. Getting access to education was not the easiest thing to do. You really do have a powerful voice though and a sharp mind. This is something that you need to own in order to stand in your own power, but be careful of what you say and how you say it. People will oftentimes try to manipulate your words against you. Your siblings may have feared you and could’ve had dramatic changes with them as well. You may have faced death within your relationship with siblings whether it be physical or metaphorical.

Scorpio 4th house: You’ve met death within your own home. This is really the harshest place to have Scorpio in my opinion. You may have faced a lot of drastic changes in your family dynamics. A family members death or absence could’ve played a huge part in how you were raised. Growing up may have been really intense with constant changes being thrown your way. The relationship with one of your parental figures could’ve been toxic. Your own family may have feared you and the potential you have. This could’ve led to you being shunned and being the black sheep in the family. There might’ve been a lot of secrets kept hidden from you by your family and vice versa. A lot of shadow work may need to be done surrounding your family. As you get older though, you’ll need to learn to make your home a stable place for yourself to be free and fully express your emotional needs. Having security within your own home may become a key priority. Your relationship with your family will transform over time.

Scorpio 5th house: Your talents and creative abilities are something that could’ve been hidden from you. This is where the changes come as Scorpio here can cause you to not have an idea of what interests you. There’s a need to explore multiple different outlets in order to find the things that light you up. You may be fascinated with things involving the occult, psychology, death and things considered taboo. Darker topics in life and the things others avoid can be exciting for you. Death can even be seen as something that fascinates you. Some people with this placement have fears surrounding childbirth and children. Children can be your greatest teacher in how you should make changes in your life. Taking care of a child can turn out to be extremely transformative. I’m not saying go pop out a baby though.

Scorpio 6th house: You meet death in your day to day. This means there are a lot of changes you need to face and adapt to on a daily basis. It can make you a problem solver who constantly tries to find issues that arise. However, you can have a tendency to self-destruct because of having to deal with daily pressures. This is what transforms you though. Everyday shouldn’t be the same for you and you deep down admire that. If things remain constantly the same you get sluggish and resistant towards doing anything. So change up the way you move throughout your day. Your routines are extremely powerful tools for transformation, so prioritize them in a way that resonates to you. Having terrible routines can make your self destructive tendencies more rampant. Drastic changes may occur to your health as well so be very careful of how you take care of your body. You may have some fears surrounding your own health. Remember to nourish yourself. You can also be very secretive about what you do in your day to day life.

[pippin-katz]

One Shots in Red, White & Royal Blue - Part 1: Alex's Room

Modern movies are fucking obsessed with jump cuts. Even scenes where it is completely unnecessary get cut to shreds. There's films I've seen where one, single sentence line got three jump cuts in it.

After watching Red, White, & Royal Blue over ten times now, I’ve noticed so many moments where they could’ve made jump cuts, but didn’t. There were moments where I was expecting it to cut because of how used I am to other movies cutting the shit out of scenes. They did not do that here, and believe me, it makes a difference.

Cuts temporarily remind the viewer that they're watching something scripted, professionally filmed, and edited. It's a subconscious feeling that most people probably don't even notice.

In case you're unfamiliar, a one shot in film is when a sequence happens without any cuts. One of the benefits of using them is the believability they add. Any amount of time could've progressed between cuts, like if they film a scene on two different days. When you see everything happening in real time, it just feels more real.

Red, White, & Royal Blue balanced their editing and camerawork incredibly well, and utilized one shots way more than I see a lot of other films doing nowadays. They use it for a variety of scenes, and it's done very well.

Example No. 1

From this moment, where Henry enters the room:

GIF by taylorz-nicholasg

To Henry pushing Alex onto the couch:

GIF by sheisraging

To when the sequence ends:

GIF by gay-bucky-barnes

is ALL ONE SHOT.

There are no camera cuts during that sequence, and there's a significant amount of movement and activity going on.

They are obviously aggressively making out, and crossing the room at the same time. Tracking this part might be common, but when they get to the couch, and Henry pushes him, I got this gut feeling that a jump cut was about to happen, but it didn't.

Instead, the camera rotates around to that side perspective, and lets Henry come back into frame and onto the couch in real time.

GIF by sheisraging

The camera doesn't change position until Henry moves down, which could've been a cut to Alex's face, but they opted to zoom in on him, keeping the shot connected.

GIF by sheisraging

This is not a small series of events to capture in one shot, and it means that Nicholas and Taylor had to memorize and perform the entire scene's blocking as a whole rather than in parts. If they mess up, they can't just say: "hey try that line again"

A one shot scene like this means that if you mess up at any point during the sequence, you can't use the take. You have to do it again from the beginning. That's the point of a one shot.

I think it's such a testament to Taylor and Nicholas' talent, skill, and dedication that they did such a long shot involving so much intimate, and difficult, choreography.

Breaking it down, they have to kiss for the first part, but it's not just kissing; it's aggressive kissing. Their eyes are closed, and they're grabbing at each other, while crossing the room. Taylor has to walk backwards. They need to have really good spatial awareness in order to move without hitting something or tripping.

Once they hit the couch, Nicholas has to undo the buttons on Taylor's shirt. If you've ever worn a button-down shirt, you know that sometimes you just struggle with those damn buttons; there's a moment in Paris where they joke about them. Nick has to undo them fast, and deliver his lines too. If he's too slow with the buttons, or they get stuck, take ruined.

Nick has to shove Taylor onto the couch. He has to be visibly forceful, but not knock him down so hard he falls off the couch, or land in a way that make it difficult for him to shift into where he's supposed to be. Nick also has to climb around onto the couch fast enough.

Obviously once they're on the couch, the difficulty comes in that they are being intimate, kissing and grabbing each other, and they need to remain in character. Then they have lines, and Nicholas has to get even more intimate by kissing his neck. He undoes another button or two and kisses his chest and down his stomach, all while delivering his lines correctly.

If either of them messes up a line, or breaks character for a second, or loses their balance, or anything, go back to the start, do it all again.

That is so much, and the two of them nailed every part of it. I still admire how they were able to trust each other and become confident in doing all that they do.

This being a one shot created a really incredible scene. It's fluid, and grounded in space and time. It's not the only scene that's drastically improved by the fact that it's a one shot, so I'll probably write more essays breaking down those scenes cause this movie has me in a choke hold.

[noneorother]

The art director & the Good Omens book cover tier list of doom, part 1

part 1 l part 2

This is going to have to be a multi-part series because there are *checks notes* 64 different covers that I've found so far.

I am your resident Art Director/Good Omens enthusiast, and welcome to my completely meta-free book cover tier list. Listen, making a book cover is HARD. I should know. But while we salute these artists for their hard work and time, I think we can all admit that once in a while, the vision is just not on. And on very rare occasions, publishers seemed to have managed to commission the cover art directly from hell... 1. The original UK cover

Ahh, the standard by which all shall be judged. We're starting off with a nice & easy cover, with adorable woodcuts of Aziraphale and Crowley flanking a custom Good Omens font! While I have to take a few points off for the terrible kerning of the word "GoOD", the blockprint vibes and general bitchiness of Aziraphale's teeny weeny wittle face, along with the sick colour palette puts the orignial in my good graces. Tier: Great

2. The duelling US covers

Progress! Hail to the designer who figured out trying to make "GoOD" and "OMeNs" fit the same width was a fool's errand, and even managed to IMPROVE on the original handmade title by adding a little halo and devil's tale to the design. Aziraphale and Crowley are facing each other, while also managing to serve absolute cunt. Aziraphale is wearing EIGHTIES SNEAKERS. Crowley's little snake boots have HEELS. They've managed to keep the woodcut vibes and colour simplicity, while balancing out the full title of the book. Both authors get to trade off on who's name comes first! Dare I say, this is a work of genius. I could dock some points for Crowley's sad bat wings growing out of his right clavicle, but who am I to question greatness.

Tier: Blessed by God Herself

3. The Halo Master Chief(?) cover

How the mighty have fallen... As a Canadian child, I was subjected to maybe the most horrifying ad in existence by the War Amps warning children about machine safety. This cover is the paper embodiment of that ad. I am confused by the purple haze. I am frightened by the seeming ethereal flatness of Adam and Dog. I am strangely aroused by Aziraphale's eyebrows, and intensely saddened by the terrible outline/drop shadow they had to inflict on the type to fit "Pratchett" in that god awful space. Tier: WTF

4. Germany, Ein Gutes Omen covers

This cover inexplicably exists in two colour ways: red and teal. I put the audiobook cover here so you could experience the full illustration, and also how fucked up it is that they cropped the book version to include three horse-people of the apocalypse, but cut off DEATH on the regular cover. Points must be given for drawing a pretty slick Bentley, but I think we have to take even more points away for turning Crowley into a Ray Charles/Mike Wazowski hybrid. The ducks are nice. Tier: Not so Good (Omens)

5. Germany, Ein Gutes Omen covers continued

I don't know if the German designer of this cover *knew* that they were using western yeehaw cowboy woodblock letters when they made this cover, but judging by how they spaced the rest of the text at the bottom, THEY DID NOT CARE. And that seems to be a running theme for this one. We get kind of a duality thing going on with the black and pink background, but it just seems like somebody whispered the general themes of Good Omens into a jar, and threw it down a well, and this poor chap came along and picked it up. The baffling choice to align every piece of text on the cover *except* Neil Gaiman's name which is right aligned and rotated 90 degrees (not even real vertical type) will haunt my dreams, I think.

Tier: Bad

6. US, UK The Traffic Jam cover

For the love of Good Omens, WHY. I can think of so many more interesting symbols to put on the cover of this book than the ODEGRA SIGIL TRAFFIC JAM. Props for keeping the good colours and type, but like, I think this cover was secretly designed by @amtrak-official, or someone who just really, really likes public works. Tier: Does the Job

7. France, De bons présages cover

Leave it to France to make sure people know that Aziraphale and Crowley fuck severely. While I can't condone leaving out half the title of the book (and thinking a red carpenter's square counts as decoration), I can begrudgingly acknowledge that Ron Pearlman and Benedict Cumberbatch's love child is excellent Crowley casting. I think I give this a solid dark academia/10. Tier: Good (Omens)

8. France, De bons présages covers continued

Just imagine with me, if you will, the absolutely hilarious reality that this cover posits: Good Omens is exactly the same in every respect, but Crowley drives a pink 1950s convertible. Why do all of the colours on this cover look like they've been pre-digested? Why are the font choices and placement so bafflingly bad. My face is the demon's face holding that car. I feel his pain.

Tier: WTF

9. France, De bons présages covers continued

Minus points for not managing to write the full title of the book once again. I don't know what it is with the French. They seem pretty set on Good Omens being demonic. While I do appreciate a good Bosch-style demon party, the dude in the middle confounds me. All-caps Museo Sans that isn't even *centred* in the frame is just so lazy. I am le tired. Tier: Bad

10. France, De bons présages covers continued

Uhh. The font. The font is okay.... I think? Yeah. The font and kerning are. Okay. OHHH GOD I LOOKED DOWN BELOW THE TEXT WHYYYY. Tier: WTF

END of round one. I need a nap.

[jessicalprice]

So I've spent a lot of time untangling Christian exegesis of parables and talking about how the way Christians interpret parables almost always ends up being antisemitic.

But aside from how it makes them think about Jews and Judaism and Jewishness, I also want to talk a bit about how it makes them sympathize more with abusers than with victims.

The easy-to-point-to culprit here is the trilogy of parables that culminates in what most Christians know as the Prodigal Son story.

The common interpretation of these parables is that God does (and therefore Christians should) value a repentant sinner over someone who's never sinned.

The problem here isn't the stories themselves--they're pretty enigmatic as far as their actual meanings--but Luke's gloss:

"Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

(Mark says, "So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost," which is very different.

So on its face, in 2023, that's a blatantly dangerous, abuser-supporting belief. What is it like to be a child sexually abused by your youth pastor and to hear that the fact that he hurt you is part of what makes him somehow spiritually "better" than you?

And we can see it play out in the way Kevin M. Young, a popular progressive pastor on Twitter (who describes himself as "post-evangelical" and was the senior pastor at a Quaker congregation) responded to being told one of his tweets was antisemitic, and then jumped in to support a woman who responded by identifying herself as a fan of John Chrysostom (the literal author of "Against the Jews" and the most antisemitic of the Church Fathers, which is saying something).

I'm not going to transcribe the whole thing, because it's not all that important for what I have to say about this, but I am going to call out a few lines:

"The American Christian approach to t'shuvah sees the victim's spirit, character, and speech as equally important to the offenders. I.e. in Christendom, the victim can exceed the sin of the offender simply by their reaction (if it be in sin or acted in a way that is not Spirit led)."

So, to be clear, if someone assaults you, and you don't meekly forgive them in a "Spirit led" way, you're somehow worse than they are.

The uniquely Christian brain rot here is in seeing every sin as an opportunity for forgiveness. After all, if being a repentant sinner gives you a higher spiritual status--if there's more "rejoicing in Heaven" over you--than that of your victim, then you have to sin to get there. It treats other people as props in your salvation journey, not as fellow humans whose suffering matters. (Combine that with the Christian idea that suffering is somehow virtuous in and of itself, and you've got a very toxic recipe. Not only, by abusing others, are you guaranteeing your own value as a repentant sinner, but you're giving your victim the opportunity to ennoble themselves through suffering.)

Of course, a key word here is repentant. Put a pin in that.

These sort of exchanges on Twitter--a Christian being outright genocidal toward Jews, and a supposedly progressive Christian figure jumping in to defend the Christian, with seemingly no ability to comprehend that the Jews in the conversation are human beings who may have their own trauma around violently antisemitic language, with boundless empathy for the Christian abuser and none for the Jewish targets of their abuse--happen frequently and just as frequently leave Jwitter baffled in addition to angry.

Why all this empathy for the abuser and none for the victims?

I think a lot of this comes out of progressive Christian exegesis of parables, which is frequently looking for the radical "twist" to the story.

E.g. in the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, the assumption is that the audience of the time would have empathized with the Pharisee, and thus the twist is to make them empathize with the tax collector. In the story of the Good Samaritan, the assumption is that they would have seen the Samaritan as a threat, and the twist is to make him the hero.

The thinking goes that the audience would have had empathy for certain groups and none for others, so the stories push them to feel that empathy for the latter, and that this was needed to balance the scales, to make sure everyone was receiving love and empathy and care.

Except that this, in modernity, has the effect of simply reversing the roles, not balancing them. The groups that are assumed to be in good social standing get no empathy, even become the implicit villains, and the groups (supposedly, since this is now a Christian-dominant society) traditionally looked down on get all of it.

That might still be a balancing act if the "looked down on" groups were actually marginalized. But in the Christian imagination, that role is filled by sinners in need of Christian grace, not necessarily demographically marginalized groups.

The idea seems to be that the victims are getting sympathy from elsewhere, so it's the Christian's job to make sure the abuser/sinner gets sympathy too.

But I'll point again to that pesky word "repentant."

Ultimately, when it comes to treatment of Jews and Muslims and anyone else who points out that a Christian has in some way harmed them, Christian sympathy goes immediately to the offender before the offender has even expressed any repentance.

The repentant sinner is so much more valuable, at this point, than their victims that they must be preemptively forgiven, that they are more valuable purely because they now have the potential to repent.

And this seems to be lurking under not just how "progressive" pastors act on Twitter, but in a lot of our cultural narratives around, say, college rapists and their futures, around white people who are publicly called out for racist acts, etc.

[drdemonprince]

Can you offer any (academic) writing advice for Autistics and ADHDers? You clearly write a lot and write very well and very clearly, so some insight into your process would be great. Personally, I tend to struggle with over explaining or over citing (cause I am always getting misunderstood) and that I get very fixated on not misrepresenting what my sources are saying to avoid feeling like I'm lying. All this is time consuming and makes it hard to say what I really want to say. Thanks!

Hi there! I've written an essay about a lot of this, here is the free link to read it on Medium:

Much of my writing process is inspired by the book How to Write a Lot by Paul Silvia, and it is specifically tailored to academics. The advice applies to people who write popular nonfiction or fiction just as easily, however. And he does have advice relevant to the self-editing and self-doubt you describe feeling.

The full piece gets into this more, but here are some of the stand-out tips:

Schedule a regular time to write every week and show up no matter whether you are feeling it or not.

Throw out all your magical thinking about what you "need" to be able to write. You don't need the perfect workspace, divine inspiration, the right pen, the right playlist. You just need to show up to write regularly, and do it

Editing, outlining, working with research notes, and drafting all count as "writing." Don't expect your initial drafts to be perfect or to equate writing only with getting new words on the page.

Try writing in public spaces to help get yourself in the mindset of explaining a concept to someone with a different frame of reference and type of expertise than you. Writing in a cafe or a public library can force you think and write in a more accessible way. (alternatively, you can pretend you are explaining the concept to a specific person in your life who you respect but who doesnt have all the same reference points as you -- sometimes this is called the "Grandma Test". Explain something like you are talking to your grandma.)

In addition to all this, I would add that you should read a lot of writing, both good and bad, especially work that isn't dry and academic. If all you read is journal articles, you'll write a journal article -- and most of those are hell to read, even for academics. read fiction. read bad wattsapp shipping. read substacks. read newspapers. read indulgent personal nonfiction in the cut or whatever. read reddit posts. notice what works and what doesn't. develop an ear.

and then write a lot! it took me 15 years to get good enough for anything i wrote to get noticed. you can expect to take many years to get comfortable developing your own voice, too. i dont know how far along you are, but even when you've made tremendous progress you'll only notice your flaws and feel the most turgid brain foggy moments. that doesn't mean you're failing.

also, to some extent you can embrace your citation-dense, precise manner of self-expression. we are living in a moment of maximalism and indulgent, long creative works. it's the decade of the 5 hour youtube essay and the 2 hour album. my 5,000 word essays do better than my 2,000 word ones. you should strip down unnecessary tangents and trust yourself and your reader a little more probably, but ive found that the more blatantly autistic and indulgent my writing gets the more the right people like it. a writer's flaws and their distinctive voice are kinda hard to separate. you're not for everyone!

good luck!