#and get to where people have no context for the fact that it's wild for Louis or harry to do or say certain things

[statementlou]

Please tell me you get that all I do is about performing not larry. That metaphorical comparison between performing and addiction is all over Walls: Habit, Aways You, Kill My Mind.

if you think that even one of Louis' songs or even individual lyrics is straightforwardly about only one thing I feel sorry for you, that you are missing out on the number one thing that characterizes his writing style- the clever overlap and interplay of meanings and references in every line- and for him, that his fans are out here completely oblivious to the thing he is, I would guess, proudest of about his lyrical craft, the thing that's his writing SIGNATURE, in favor of just being like "x is just About this and only this that's what he Means period end of". The Way I Do is or can be about lots of things, but that has nothing to do with the fact that for Louis to use phrases such as "it's not one thing it's everything" and "next to you" (and both in a single verse even) that had been catchphrases and slogans basically of the larry fandom for a decade at the time he wrote and recorded that does not exist in a vacuum and is kind of fucking unhinged (and there's literally zero chance he doesn't Know). And the habit reference is used the same as he uses it on Walls; as a fluid is it love or is it addiction is it love of a person or of the fans/ performing metaphor. Of course it refers to that! And that doesn't for one second rule out or even make less likely that it also refers to any number of other things, have some damn appreciation for his CRAFT and subtlety!

[gibbearish]

oh psa but if you're in an industry that checks IDs and the person in front of you is clearly trans, don't make comments about anything on that ID. for instance saying "OMG your middle name's Danielle? that's my name too!!!" to someone 5 feet tall with a full beard is perhaps not the best choice one could make if one didn't want to put a neon glowing sign above that person's head saying "THIS IS A TRANSGENDER" to everyone they're with

[pearwaldorf]

I hate that you can't see a tweet thread anymore if you're not logged into Twitter (as a gesture of disrespect I refuse to call it by its rebranded name). Here is a copypasta of a thread from Dan Olson, a Canadian documentary filmmaker, expanding upon camera quality, the guilt trips Somerton used to goose his Patreon subscriptions, and how the best tools will never make up for lack of dedication or patience. I have added clarifications in [[double brackets]] where I feel it is necessary.

START OF THREAD

Okay, so, back in April I snapped at James in reply to a tweet that was linking to this video (which James has since delisted but not deleted) and I want to talk about the full context of that but I don't want to make a video, put your beatdown memes away. [[The video has since been deleted. I can see the title of the video is "Maybe the end (not an April Fool's Day thing".]]

The first bit of context is that I initially got keyed into James to fact-check his claims about indie filmmaking in Canada. As a filmmaker the entire Telos venture was immediately obvious as a juvenile fantasy dreamed up by someone with no idea how to make a movie.

Just wild claims about their plans that weren't worth debunking because they bordered Not Even Wrong. But in watching one of these pitch videos I noticed that he had a $4000 current-gen camera in the background as a prop, and that seemed both pretentious and weird.

You don't use your best camera as a prop, you use your second best camera as a prop. So being an obsessive weirdo I needed to know, and I watched his BTS stuff until I spotted his main rig, a $6000 camera with about $1000 in accessories.

Now, these in isolation are unremarkable because his Patreon at the time was bringing in ~$8000 per month, his channel was a full on Business business, and so investing in some professional equipment of that level is maybe a bit indulgent but justifiable.

What was weird is that he doesn't shoot multi-cam, doesn't shoot outdoors, doesn't shoot on location, and in a studio the two cameras kinda really step on each others' toes. Basically if you already have one and don't need a B cam there's no reason to get the other.

Again, on its own, this says nothing, it's just indicative of poor financial decisions, maybe impulsive purchasing, Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Biblical sins, but not crimes.

Paired with the constantly inflating fantasy scope of the Telos films it was clearly an expression of a very, very common bad filmmaker habit of "if I just get the right gear then my movie will basically make itself" Buying stuff because it feels like progress.

At the end of February he tweets "I want to start shooting anamorphic" and then three weeks later in March he posts the worst, out of focus, under-exposed "I just got a new lens!" video I've ever seen, showing off his trash-covered bedroom.

Based on what's available for his cameras and the lead time, that's enough time to get a Laowa Nanomorph or Sirui Saturn from B&H but not enough time to get a Great Joy from the UK or a Vazen from China. And with the flaring blah blah blah, $1300 lens.

Again, [gear acquisition syndrome] is not a crime and these lenses are budget options. Bit of a pointless impulse purchase since he only used it for the Showgirls video. But this is what he was doing just a few weeks before that above video came out: effortlessly impulse purchasing lenses.

James has (had?) a habit of regularly, aggressively driving viewers to Patreon by claiming that videos were getting demonetized. While tacky, it is something a lot of queer YouTubers have dealt with, so there's precedent there. But people were noticing he did it a lot.

Mid-March he humble brags about needing to work so hard to make 6 videos in April because he has over-booked sponsorships.

Then March 29th James posts this whole incel screed on Twitter about how sex work should be "subsidized as a mental health service."

[two image descriptions.

1. "For the majority of people sex (and human contact) can be imperative to a healthy state of mind. A kind and talented sex worker can make someone feel wanted for the first time in their life. I know sex workers who have pulled people back from suicide just by being there for them." 2. "Not only should (sex work) be legal, but it should be subsidized as a mental health service."]

He spends several days getting absolutely *roasted* for this, just dragged across the pavement and read for filth, and doubles down in the replies the whole way.

So this is the context immediately surrounding James waking up on Friday, and posts the above video and the below tweet.

[image description: "We just got the lowest Patreon payout we've gotten in well over a year. Like, a "maybe we need to rethink things" kind of amount... NOT an April Fools Day thing btw. But I don't know if we'll be making videos much longer."]

Now, this unfolds in kinda two directions. The first is that I'm convinced he was just lying about this income shock in the first place.

There's a million theoretical edge cases about what maybe happened and if maybe he just misunderstood the data or saw a glitch and panicked, maybe one of those happened, I don't believe it, I think he just lied because he was salty about getting dragged and felt owed a win.

A big tell to me is that he doesn't blame Patreon. He says he doesn't know what happened, but let's be real, Patreon screws up all the time, they're the first people anyone blames if anything confusing happens, just as a reflex action, even if it's completely not their fault.

The only reason to not blame Patreon is if you already know that it's not their fault and that any investigation on their part might reveal embarrassing details.

Instead he indirectly blames his viewers for not watching enough, not sharing enough, and not turning on auto-renew.

So regardless of the unknowable truth, this segues into the second, far more offensive direction of the messaging itself. "I don't know if we'll be making videos much longer." "Maybe the end" He explicitly framed this as an immediate existential threat to his channel.

In the video he is vague about everything, leaves a ton of hazy room for plausible deniability on how long the channel can keep going, but the messaging is "I need more patrons right this minute or my YouTube channel is over."

He repeatedly evokes all the "fun stuff" they had planned that would never see the light of day if this didn't turn around right away.

And his audience received this message loud and clear. Tons of people making far, far, far less than him left very heartfelt messages about digging a little deeper to subscribe or up their pledge or unsubscribe from other channels to move their pledge to his.

1200 new patrons in one day.

Since I simply don't believe the income shock was real in the first place that would put his post-"Maybe the end" Patreon income at around $10,000 per month. US. Add YouTube income, he's spent the last seven months making around $18,000 per month.

I have seen creators scale back their capabilities to the bone purely to keep making videos for the love of just, like, making stuff even as their funding evaporated and they needed to go back to a desk job to cover their bills.

You'd have to be so outstandingly reckless with your finances as a channel that a one month spook leads immediately to "channel over, sorry about all the fun stuff we won't get to do with you, our patrons, specifically because you, our patrons, aren't giving us enough money"

And not a spook where you then spend a couple weeks crunching numbers. Oh no. A shock so violent where less than two hours later you're weeping on camera about the channel being over.

Three weeks later he brought a brand new Sony FX6v for $8000 CAD to add to his pile of cinema cameras despite the fact that he was, but scant moments earlier, in such a precarious position that a single bad month would kill his channel.

He stole your money, and for that I'm profoundly sad and angry. That's why I snapped at him in April. I'm sorry I couldn't give you the full context then, and I'm sorry if that anger upset you.

END OF THREAD

[fictionadventurer]

Pop culture reduces It's a Wonderful Life to that last half hour, and thinks the whole thing is about this guy traveling to an alternate universe where he doesn't exist and a little girl saying, "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings." A hokey, sugary fantasy. A light and fluffy story fit for Hallmark movies.

But this reading completely glosses over the fact that George Bailey is actively suicidal. He's not just standing there moping about, "My friends don't like me," like some characters do in shows that try to adapt this conceit to other settings. George's life has been destroyed. He's bankrupt and facing prison. The lifetime of struggle we've been watching for the last two hours has accomplished nothing but this crushing defeat, and he honestly believes that the best thing he can do is kill himself because he's worth more dead than alive. He would have thrown himself from a bridge had an actual angel from heaven not intervened at the last possible moment.

That's dark. The banker villain that pop culture reduces to a cartoon purposely drove a man to the brink of suicide, which only a miracle pulled him back from. And then George Bailey goes even deeper into despair. He not only believes that his future's not worth living, but that his past wasn't worth living. He thinks that every suffering he endured, every piece of good that he tried to do was not only pointless, but actively harmful, and he and the world would be better off if he had never existed at all.

This is the context that leads to the famed alternate universe of a million pastiches, and it's absolutely vital to understanding the world that George finds. It's there to specifically show him that his despondent views about his effect on the universe are wrong. His bum ear kept him from serving his country in the war--but the act that gave him that injury was what allowed his brother to grow up to become a war hero. His fight against Potter's domination of the town felt like useless tiny battles in a war that could never be won--but it turns out that even the act of fighting was enough to save the town from falling into hopeless slavery. He thought that if it weren't for him, his wife would have married Sam Wainwright and had a life of ease and luxury as a millionaire's wife, instead of suffering a painful life of penny-pinching with him. Finding out that she'd have been a spinster isn't, "Ha ha, she'd have been pathetic without you." It's showing him that she never loved Wainwright enough to marry him, and that George's existence didn't stop her from having a happier life, but saved her from having a sadder one. Everywhere he turns, he finds out that his existence wasn't a mistake, that his struggles and sufferings did accomplish something, that his painful existence wasn't a tragedy but a gift to the people around him.

Only when he realizes this does he get to come back home in wild joy over the gift of his existence. The scenes of hope and joy and love only exist because of the two hours of struggle and despair that came before. Even Zuzu's saccharine line about bells and angel wings exists, not as a sugary proverb, but as a climax to Clarence's story--showing that even George's despair had good effect, and that his newfound thankfulness for life causes not only earthly, but heavenly joy.

If this movie has light and hope, it's not because it exists in some fantasy world where everything is sunshine and rainbows, but because it fights tooth and nail to scrape every bit of hope it can from our all too dark and painful world. The light here exists, not because it ignores the dark, but because the dark makes light more precious and meaningful. The light exists in defiance of the dark, the hope in defiance of despair, and there is nothing saccharine about that. It's just about as realistic as it gets.

[bomberqueen17]

tone indicators

I reblogged this post without adding any commentary bc queue and not a lot of computer time lately but like okay here's the thing about tone indicators:

they're yet another in-group set of coded speech. like an inside joke, or a meme, or a conlang. if you are in a group that uses them, they're great and perfectly comprehensible.

but if you don't happen to have come from inside a group that uses them, they are exactly as exclusionary as any other heavy jargon or inside joke or acronym. I mean have you ever listened to soldiers talk? The US Army communicates in heavily jargon-ified speech, liberally laden with acronyms, so much so that it's a self-referential joke to make up obscene or deliberately-obfuscated ones to slip into official reports since the sorts of people who'd kick up a fuss about obscene language won't understand them.

It is exactly the same thing. Except that's exclusionary on purpose, and tone indicators are exclusionary in effect but tout themselves as inclusionary.

So if I, an outsider to this, am reading along, and after a sentence, there's a / and then between one and three letters, that is not enough information for me to use to look it up.

This is absolutely inaccessible if you are not alreadhy in the group that uses it.

I wouldn't mind if the people who used them were just like 'oh ha sorry jargon, i'll try to explain if it's not clear, sorry i forget you guys don't know them' just like any other inside joke or meme or whatever.

But I was in a discussion with someone on a Discord and when I was puzzled about them including these weird slash-acronyms after their statements they were like oh how nice for you that you're not neurodivergent and don't need to use these.

Uh no. The opposite actually. I'm the kind of neurodivergent that needs context. I handle being excluded from conversations very poorly. And that's where I get pissed off, that people seem to be holding these up as the new be-all end-all of Finally Solving The Problem Of Ambiguous Tones In Social Interaction. The hell you are, kids. They're just another layer, and I'd say the worst one yet, out of many many many attempts to solve this exact problem. They are fundamentally inaccessible. Don't mistake the fact that you learned them (somewhere, in some context inaccessible to me) for them actually being universal.

Considered against the many different solutions that have been offered since text-only speech was invented, tone indicators stack up as among the very least-accessible of the lot, since they contain so little context in and of themselves-- if a key is not provided then they're totally inaccessible, and are exceptionally difficult for non-native English speakers, and in general require so much memorization or cross-referencing as to be prohibitively hostile to outsiders.

And that's fine, if what your'e doing is just meant for talking to your friends. But don't come into my conversations and berate me for not having memorized whatever incomprehensible set of acronyms you've newly-decided are the new universal truth. And what drives me the most insane is how many of these acronyms someone has now decided to assign a whole new meaning to are acronyms that are well-known and already existed and are in heavy use. So if you try to look them up guess what you get! is it gonna be the newly-created version or the one that's been in use for fifty to seventy-five years??

For one, P.O.S. has had a specific meaning in written and spoken English for a really damn long time and if you call me a piece of shit in the actual language I speak I am absolutely not going to interpret your conlang as having intended something nice. (YES REALLY THEY'RE USING THAT ONE TRY TO GUESS WHAT IT MEANS. NO. NO! I know. Fuck! That's wild. Absolutely the fuck not.)

[demonslayerunhinged]

Unhinged analysis - Sanemi

Why's Sanemi so aggro? (Part 1)

Sanemi is one of the most controversial characters in Demon Slayer and the most misunderstood, along with Obanai. People in the fandom just take him at face value, and it is a disservice to his character. You don't have to love him, but at least try to understand him, his background and how it all contributes to his behavior. So this is a character analysis on, in my opinion, the coolest motherfucker in Demon Slayer. Lesssgoooo!

His introduction

Sanemi's Hashira intro remains one of my favorite in the series. This is because we're fed so much information about him in such a short time.

The first thing we see are the W7s, the uniform belts around his shins, instead of the standard kyahan that other characters wear.

Then we see his back, his white haori which tells us nothing about his breathing style. At least with the others we can make an estimated guess at theirs. The only decoration is the kanji 殺(kill). Which is interesting because it's in the same position as the 滅(destroy) that we see on the backs of other slayer's uniforms.

Then we hear his voice for the first time. His speech is similar to that of a Yakuza member. I'll explain more later.

We then get the first glimpse of our man.

We notice a bunch of things. One is the fact that he's holding Nezuko's box with one hand, which tells us yea, this dude is strong as fuck. Then we see that his uniform is open at the chest, indicating a lack of care for his safety. We see the scars which lets us know that this guy has been through some shit, and he still keeps his chest open??? Nah.

Then we finally see his face and woah! The scary jagged scars, wild hair and bloodshot eyes combined with his rude way of speaking. We come to the conclusion: Oh my God! This guy's a crackhead!

Only kidding! But we can tell that this guy is not to be messed with and from the Jaws music that plays in the background and his signature Hashira theme, we also know that he's going to be trouble for our protagonist.

So let's break it down further with the first aspect of his introduction.

His haori, the kanjis, and their significance

Destruction has a certain impersonal feeling to it, like you destroy bad things not because you want to, but because you have to. Within the context of Demon Slayer, it's no different, the slayers have to destroy the demons because they are a blight on the world and there are no personal feelings about it. We can see it from the way Giyuu almost killed Nezuko, the way he killed Rui, the way Shinobu and Kanao almost killed Nezuko, and the way Zenitsu and Inosuke also killed demons.

Even in this episode where the Hashiras are introduced, their plans to execute Tanjiro and Nezuko show no personal feelings towards the situation, no maliciousness, and no hate. Nezuko is a demon she has to be killed. Tanjiro was harboring a demon so he has to be killed too and something tells me this isn't the first time they had to deal with a situation like this.

Kill, on the other hand, is very much personal and malicious in its intent. It doesn't matter if the target is bad for the world or not. What matters is that the killer thinks they're bad, and that alone is a justification to eliminate them. It's not about duty, it's a want spurred on by hatred, and Sanemi is full of hatred. We can see it from the sadistic way he stabs Nezuko, and the way he laughs at Tanjiro’s pain. Even when he wanted to test Nezuko with his blood, he gives her more unnecessary stabs instead of just simply opening the box.

Honestly, just by the kanji alone, I would’ve been surprised if he didn’t stab Nezuko. A demon can save baby orphans and kittens and sweet little old ladies from a burning building, and Sanemi will still gut the motherfucker.

Then there’s the color of his haori. The haoris, or absence of haoris, of the other characters (excluding Muichiro and Mitsuri) reveal information about their heritage, past, beliefs, and other aspects of their identity that extend beyond their role as Demon Slayers.

Sanemi has no heritage like Rengoku. We’re not given anything that tells us about his past like Giyuu. The kanji for Kill on his haori is in the same position as the Destroy on the standard uniform because, for Sanemi, being a Demon Slayer or more specifically a killer of demons IS his identity. It’s all he cares about, his entire life and the core of his existence. He has a one-track mind, and Kill Demons is the only song playing on a loop.

He doesn’t have time for anything he deems ‘frivolous’, has no special variation to his uniform aside from the fact that he keeps the chest open, and the uniform belts he wears around his legs are probably faster to put on than the standard kyahan.

So from his haori and kyahan alone we can tell that this guy is very strong, very wild and very dangerous.

Extra note: While doing research for this post, I also noticed that Sanemi’s haori is similar to the shirt he wore as a child, which could indicate how much his childhood affected him and how it led to his hatred of demons. Instead of the sleeve stripes, there is now the Kill kanji on the back.

Now let's move onto the other aspect of his introduction

His way of speaking

This part is based on my little understanding of the Japanese language and the research I did. So please don't attack me!

Sanemi kinda speaks like a thug or a Yakuza member. It isn't really noticeable in the English subtitles, but he uses particles and sentence endings that are typically used by men and can come across as rude, unrefined, and uneducated.

He doesn't use honorifics (unless speaking to the Master) when talking to people, even his fellow Hashiras.

He uses sentence endings such as ぜ (ze), ぞ (-zo), な (-na), か (-ka), かよ (-kayo) and だな (-da na) that make his questions and statements sound commanding, rough and forceful.

Not only that, but he often uses words such as:

"Urusee!" - a rough and rude way of saying "Urusai"

"Temee" - a rude way of saying you.

"Ore" - a very informal pronoun for "I"

Sanemi's way of speaking bears a teeny tiny resemblance to the Kansai dialect, which is like the Southern accent in the US. Kansai people are stereotyped as being uneducated, stupid, loud and aggressive.

That's why Tanjiro(bestest boy ❤) was shocked when Sanemi switched up real quick as he was speaking to the Master.

His default manner of speaking, even when it's to those who he likes or is okay with, is rough, forceful, aggressive and sometimes confrontational. It tells us about his personality and most importantly his upbringing or lack thereof.

I'll be going into his background in the Part 2 of this post, I'll also talk about how all these aspects makes our boy act the way he does.

In Conclusion, to be continued?

[spirantization]

"Wild Blue Yonder" dealt with some of the emotional fallout of the Flux, so I want to rewind a bit and look at what that means for the Doctor.

I know that the Timeless Child and the Flux are contentious topics. I'm not here to argue either way. But now those storylines have decisively not been retconned, and with both of these fresh in my memory, I feel the need to offer some context for anyone who may not have seen it, and to recontextualize it for myself and anyone who has.

NotDonna: You don't know where you're from. The Doctor: How do you know that? How does anyone know? How does Donna know?

In "The Timeless Children", we find out that the Doctor was discovered as a child alone under a wormhole, and adopted by a woman named Tecteun. There was an accident where the Doctor fell from a cliff and regenerated, and subsequently Tecteun performed "experiments" on them to try to understand regeneration. The show minces words about this but she killed a child a whole bunch of times is what happened. Her experiments created the Time Lords and allow them to engineer their regeneration properties. The Doctor has no memory of any of this, and only finds out via the Master and information stored in the Time Lord Matrix.

The Doctor, predictably, doesn't tell anyone about this revelation. She makes a speech to the Master about how this makes her more, we get a single shot of her looking a bit tired in the TARDIS, then she immediately gets thrown in prison.

Ultimately, the Doctor doesn't know where they're from or who their parents are. And the very fact that they're not from Gallifrey is information that no one in the universe should have. Everyone who knew is now dead.

NotDonna: I saw it in your head. The Flux. The Doctor: It destroyed half the universe because of me. We stand here now, on the edge of creation, a creation which I devastated, so yes I keep running, of course I do! How am I supposed to look back on that? NotDonna: It wasn't your fault! The Doctor: I know!

A fun fact about the Flux is that the Doctor did not cause it. So why does he blame himself? Because the person who caused the Flux was Tecteun.

The reason why Tecteun wanted to destroy the universe is because the Doctor interfered with things too much. Too much morality. Too inspirational to people. She calls them a virus. So her solution to the problem of the Doctor is to destroy the universe, with the Doctor inside, and take her ship to a different universe to start fresh. She also was the one to steal all the Doctor's memories of previous lives in the first place. She's dismissive and patronizing and clearly does not care about the Doctor on an emotional level at all. Tecteun is a piece of work, and the implications of her actions and how they've shaped the Doctor have the potential to go deep.

Thirteen doesn't get too much of a chance to react to any of this, because there is plot going on. And shortly after they reunite, Tecteun gets killed by a different villain. So there was no emotional closure in the moment, and there's now no possibility for the Doctor to make sense of her actions. The Doctor does not tell any of her friends about any of these events. She keeps promising to tell Yaz but does not.

"Wild Blue Yonder" is the first time we, as the audience, hear the Doctor discuss the Flux. And their perception of events is skewed at best. The Flux wasn't caused because the Doctor made a mistake and a lot of people were killed, which is what you can argue for many other situations. The Flux and the devastation of the universe was caused by their mother, who promptly turned around and told them it was their fault for being such an interfering nuisance. We know that the Doctor is often an unreliable narrator, but this is beyond that. These are the words of an abused child who has internalized the narrative that the abuse was their fault.

So the Doctor being able to talk about this with Donna, who has seen what happened, who knows him, and tells him that it's not his fault — it means so much to him. He wants it to be her so badly. And then NotDonna laughs in his face. You can see the devastation. He thinks for one moment that he can finally talk about this with his best friend, and it's snatched away from him. He gives himself a moment to break down in the corridor, and then you can see the walls rebuilding as he suppresses it all again.

At the very end of the episode, back in the TARDIS, he's trying very very hard to be nonchalant. I'm curious. The NotDonna could remember all these things that happened to me while we were apart. Can you? Just wondering. Things happened, but I'll be fine. In a million years. It's not a joke.

He wants so badly to be able to talk about this. You can see it in all the lines of his body language. He's keeping himself together but is prepared to fall apart in an instant. He doesn't want to actually tell anyone, but if Donna just magically knew already, and could tell him it wasn't his fault — well, that would make the world of difference. But she doesn't know, and he can't bring himself to tell her. And so the cycle continues.

[bonchobrick]

tw: slight suicidal actions (but not really the batfam are wildly clueless to the actual context to danny's bullshit hes not suicidal--in this fic--he's dead get it RIGHT brucie)

Au where Batfam are entirely convinced that the new vigilante in Gotham, danny, has time travel powers because he can vanish away from their senses completely

This becomes a problem however when 

Bruce searches for him because wants to save Jason. Danny can save Jason not in the--im a time traveler and i can bring him or you back from or to the past--but in the, I’m a ghost king and have domain over the dead haha

Batfam become really concerned watching Phantom fight because “if he has time travel powers why doesn’t he avoid getting hit every time he can” and get worried phantom is purposefully letting himself get hurt

Danny in all honesty is just vibin the entire time while the batfam is going crazy at every sliver of info they get about danny because like

okay hes a time traveler thats established they got over that

This guy whos somehow been able to stop and rehabilitate rouges (ghosts) in his town is 15??

he may be the kindest most self destructive kid they've ever met like who immediately agrees to help people who were trying to capture and interogate him because he 'thinks we are better than the last billionaire who did this' what the FUCK

Oh yeah and they find out as a bonus in the end that his normal unpowered form he is a teen with black hair and blue eyes (bruce no no dont do it dont--)

---

Bruce is losing his mind

Okay so at the start of this there’s an unknown vigilante (danny) that Batman tends to bump into. Except Batman isn’t sure what he is.

Every time they run into each other Batman can tell there should just be a person beside him but before he gets a glimpse and opens his eyes to empty fresh air.

A vigilante that can vanish before their very eyes?

What do the bats think about this?

They think this vigilante can control time and is doing that to sneak out of their gaze.

Now here’s where the funny part comes in

Bruce goes on a wild hunt to search for the vigilante with a plan. To make them turn back time so that he can save his son.

The problem with this?

Danny is not a time traveler most days–scratch that he's not one at all. He can save his son Jason though, in fact he wants to, it’s just he needs to figure out a way to do this whilst not blowing his cover that he is the goddamn ghost king.

So he pretends that he does have time powers and that he just… uh… needs a minute to figure them out… yeah that!

Cue Batfam getting progressively more worried about Danny because ‘if he could turn back time—why doesn’t he avoid those hits?’

They all kinda think Danny is like purposefully hurting himself so now Danny is forced to eat breakfast with them and sleep at their manor.  I mean he’s confused at why they always look so worried about something but he’ll make sure Batman’s son gets home soon! Plus the rich people temporary-living-situation without all the ‘I want to adopt you’ billionaire bullshit is pretty sweet!!

(somewhere in the ghost zone jason is tearing up laughing at the batfam as they struggle to not burst into flames trying to figure out danny-- like for christs sake they think the ghost king is an american doctor who and are trying to get him to spill where his tardis is)

[ignisgalaxia]

With the release of Prodigy season 2, the Trek fandom finally has an answer to what Chakotay's native ancestry is. He's Nicarao, a tribe from the western region of Nicaragua who actually share a common ancestry with the Nahua Aztecs of Mexico. The show even mentions the island of Ometepe specifically, which is the largest island in Lake Nicaragua made up of two volcanoes.

The reason this is so important to me is because my dad and his family are from Nicaragua. I’ve been getting more in touch with those roots over the last year or so, and I’ve found it very frustrating how there seems to be no Nica representation in media, at least not in the mainstream. But when I found out that Chakotay was a fellow Nica, I was literally bouncing off the walls. To think, one of my favorite characters has the same ancestry as me (well, almost, but I’ll get to that later)! When I told my dad, he laughed so hard because he never would’ve imagined.

But I haven’t seen a lot of people talking about this aspect. I get it, it’s a minuscule part of the wild ride that was season 2. But I’d really like us as a fandom to discuss this more. I mean, we literally don’t have to guess what tribe he’s from anymore!

So since nobody else has come forward, I am going to claim myself as the only member of the Voyager-Prodigy fandom with actual Nicaraguan ancestry, and am making this post to give firsthand information about the Nicarao and the nation as a whole.

Firstly, some context. My dad was born in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, and lived there with his family until he was 7. Then they fled the country due to the Contra War that was going on. My grandfather was born and raised in Bluefields, a city on the country's Carribean coast, then went to college in Mexico where he met my grandmother. Neither of them are Nicarao, and are in fact very European (the DNA tests proved it). However, when they were all living in Managua, my grandparents had a handful of maids that worked for them (they had six kids they needed some help), and a couple of them were Nicarao. Specifically, they were natives from a village in the nearby mountains. So while I don't have info on natives from Ometepe, I do have some on the people in general.

The maids lived with my dad's family during the week and would go home to their village on the weekends. They primarily spoke Spanish, but he would occasionally catch them speaking in their native tongue which I assume is Nahua.

My dad recounted a time when the maids invited the family to their village for a day trip. He said they were living in Adobe houses and had lots of livestock (cattle, chickens, goats, etc) as well as horses, which he apparently rode for the first time there. He also said most of the natives had two primary weapons: a machete to cut crops and other vegetation, and a 22 single shot rifle. They used the rifles to shoot iguanas off trees. Iguanas and iguana eggs are a delicacy in Nicaragua that the natives are experts at making.

This is a direct quote from my grandmother when I asked her about what she remembered of them:

The people I knew, they were good and hard working people. Smart, happy, funny… they really are sociable, like to talk and say jokes invented with their mind and history. The women were skillful, knew how to survive. They cooked, cleaned, planted crops and vegetables. Good merchants, they really knew how to sell and buy.

I wish I had more info to share, but unfortunately season 2 could not have been released at a worse time because my grandfather has recently begun developing Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia and has been losing his memory over the last few months. Even when my dad and I were with him in May and I asked him to recount his earlier life, he repeated himself a few times since he evidently had forgotten he'd already told us those parts. If I had known how fast he’d be deteriorating, I would’ve started my work sooner.

If I do end up learning anything more from my relatives, I’ll update the post. For now, I hope this is of some use to people. And if anyone has questions about Nicaraguan culture in general, I’ll be happy to pass them along to my dad.

[layraket]

AYO TIME FOR LU UPDATE COMMENTARY YESSSSSSSS

Well i mean, thats the best way of explaining Zelda dungeons, and thats also the thing that makes me love them, great things

Finding the object of the dungeon is one of the main objetives before anythng else, the majority of cases because without it it is impossible to keep going foward

Also holy shit the cane of Pac's design is so beautiful i love it i've been staring at it for a while now its so beautiful

that right there

is Hyrule's special sense for hidden things. Inside his dungeons its more difficult to navigate because of the lack of a map and compass, so he had to learn ways to identify secret rooms and hidden traps

Lucky guess my ass you literally went straight up to where the wall was you know so many things and never acknowledge it i love u rulie

Something that i have learned while playing a lot of the games is that if they give you the map almost at the start it means that the dungeon will be the next thing you will be seeing in your dreams/nightmares (points to snowpeak mansion in tp.)

HE DID THE THING YEAHHH

Beautiful reference i love it

I saw a lot of people pointing out that Legend at the start was really playfull and then started acting more serious and stressed, mostly towards Wild. He's the one together with Wars that has no experience in dungeons, the rest at least know how to manage by themselves, but Wild is a completly different story. Yeah he had shrines and the Divine Beasts, but compared to a real dungeon, filled with traps and full of monsters, going too confident could put in danger his life. And Legend Does Not want That.

As I already stated, Legend does not want to see one of his brothers get in trouble or injured by a dungeon trap if he can help it. He doesn't want to sound too overprotective or that he's exaggerating a little, but he can't really help it, he almost lost one of his brothers, specifically one of the ones that he's most close with

Wind knows how it feels, he has been in that same situation a lot of times. And Sky knows that too. At least Wild now understands how Wind felt that time that he stepped in front of him to recieve a blow in one of the first chapters

Again, Legend is now on his Vet mode, he's the one with most experience and will do anything on his power to avoid any accidents during their stay in this dungeon

the fact that Legend doesn't seem too amused with Wild's small atempt to calm the ambient shows more what i just said. There is no more room for playfully jokes or goofin around, the situation is more delicated and everyone should act acording to it.

Wars is still a little angry with Wild about his impulsive metods, and inside a dungeon like this he will not let the same situation happend again

this is meme material. beautiful.

Four knows this really well, he has gotten competitive even with himself during dungeon exploring, so it makes sense that he will be the one pointing this out. At least if they split up this could be less of a problem and more of a small inconvenient

Now my fav parts without any further context as always!

Small note but the fact that this is the Nervious Scratching The Back Of His Head™ thing that almost all Links do is a little but cool detail, i love it

there was a lot of Hyrule im well feed thanks to this update yesss

art as always belongs to @linkeduniverse !

[reblogandlikes]

Self insert Fandom

I've come to realise that most of the toxicity within the acotar fandom is often rooted in a ridiculous amount of self insert. They see a character as them, therefore their actions are absolved. They see another character in their abuser, or worse, 'as' their abusers and so they can never be impartial towards them, thinking the worst because in real life they've dealt with a lot.

I get it. Art can sometimes mimic reality, but they are indeed forgetting that this is a whole fantasy fiction book about human women turned fae getting dicked down with a hint of war and political intrigue. These characters are not, in fact, you or your abusers. Making the series so personal to themselves can then lead to a lack of introspection of the work as a whole made to be enjoyed and critiqued to the readers' preference, whether shallow or in depth.

But because this fandom in particular seem to make these books so personal than reading it as a piece of fiction, they're inflicting real world scenarios onto fictional characters and if their characters face any backlash or reasonable questioning, they take it as a personal attack which for some reason leads to insults and wild assumptions of very REAL people.

"No, no one is saying you should forgive your abuser mum, boyfriend, sister, because this literally isn't about you. I dont know you or your situation. Im talking about *insert character*."

"No, I don't think reactive abuse is OK, though I also don't believe lying about SA is OK either, let alone condoning SA."

"What do you mean it's abusive to lock someone up and then make an excuse to say it's not abuse to lock someone else up?"

The mental gymnastics is truly outstanding. If they're so called morally grey, let them be just that.

Speaking for myself, it's easy to find some commonality in a characters personality. It's written by a whole human who has a personality too, after all. But I do not attach myself to these characters as if they are my family members or those dear to me. They are, in fact, not real, and I will talk about them in the context of a fantasy text, generally.

Now the moment you take their actions out of a fantasy text, every character, and I mean, every character, needs to be dealt with the same scrutiny. Your faves will be called out and dragged. You cannot call real people names, but then think highly of yourself when your faves have done worse. What does that then make you? A racist? A misogynist? An AS denier? An abuse apologist? Someone who endorses apartheid? Someone who's OK with controlling the female body? A war criminal?

You see how absurd that all is?

Honestly, it's not that deep. But again, it's not bad to see yourself in character. Just realise that when people have some reservations about them, they are not calling YOU out. They are strictly talking about that character and that character alone. But maybe if you find so much offence, perhaps you should think about why that is. Look deep and figure out why it troubles you so much. Perhaps they're holding up a mirror, and you simply can not bear to look into it, seeming that that character represents you so much.

I think this is the only fandom I've been involved in where simply daring to disagree with the main MC and side characters can lead to online prosecution and just so much hostility. I've seen some truly nasty comments, and it's boggling. I can imagine how off-putting it may seem to newer readers.

I long for the days when people can talk about the characters and narrative alone without feeling the need to make disclosures about what they support in real life because it's truly unnecessary. I thought reading fiction was meant to be a form of escapism, not defending my moral standpoint.

If I said I enjoyed Katherine Pierce, Klaus Mikaelson and Kai Parker from TVD, what then? They're despicable, but fucking enjoyable. Don't get me started on Game of Thrones characters.

Alright, I'm done now 😅

[thefirstknife]

so like im lost, i didnt play any of Act 1 or 2 or read lore bc life happening (house fire+car crash+laid off+homeless in 2 weeks)

so like whats going on eith the whole

Maya → Lakshmi → Conductor → Maya again??

(or is it Lakshmi→Maya→Conductor???)

like where's one "start" and the other "end"

Oh I'm sorry this all happened to you. I see you have a donation link on your pinned post, if people are able to help, check it out!

Also! Lakshmi is not relevant here; it's just the face that Conductor!Maya is comfortable using. Lakshmi was a sort of copy of Maya that Maya made using the Veil, but her life is separate and she's gone. There's also the meta reason that it's easier to reuse Lakshmi's face than make a new model, though they did show us what Maya actually looked like back in the day (and Chioma too)!

It's still not entirely clear which Maya we're dealing with however, though this week's lore tab added a bit of possible context. In here, Maya is talking about her experience communing with the Veil and how close she got to the Vex Network from it and then she ends up completely crossing over into the Vex Network. I think this probably implies that when original human Maya died on Neomuna ("in the conductor's chair"), she crossed over into the Network.

She is very disoriented inside so we don't really know how it worked time-wise, because for Maya it was almost instant? She ends up in the Network, tries to understand things, shapes herself a body and is still excited to talk to Chioma about all of this, then realises that A LOT of time has passed and that Chioma is now dead. Then she goes wild with grief and decides to find her Chioma because she's convinced that Chioma would've kept looking for her.

There's also the question of all the simulated copies of Golden Age Maya with the other Ishtar scientists: 227 of them. Some of that is also talked about this week in the mission. From what I can understand, those Mayas are not part of the Conductor!Maya; as a matter of fact, that Maya on comms in the mission sounds a lot different to me.

I think the Conductor!Maya is a continuation of the real original Maya that died on Neomuna, though that could still change or remain kinda unresolved overall because a lot of the stuff this episode is about how much it doesn't really matter who is the "original." We'll see though. It's also possible that Conductor!Maya is a combination of the real Maya with an addition of some of her copies from the Network. We're probably going to get more stuff in the next two weeks about all of this, including the simulated copies.

Here's a post with some extra details about this week.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

The Dondon Post (or: the bizarre TotK's side content counterpoints to its main quest's immuable binary morality)

Speaking of strange TotK Choices, I think I have one singe post left in me about this game; and it's about the Dondon quest, "The Beast and the Princess".

(and about other stuff too, you'll see, we'll get to them)

More specifically: about how... strange of a thematic point it feebly attemps to make in the larger context of the storyline, and how it seems to be yet another mark of a world that, perhaps, once tried to be more morally complex that it ended up becoming.

Buckle up: it's a long one, and it gets pretty conceptual.

(good gem boys notwhistanding)

The Princess and the Beast

So, a couple of things about the setup. We are investigating potential Princess sightings; but at this point, either because we have already completed a bunch and know the general gib, because we have met a couple of wild Fake Zelda shenanigans, or through the simple fact that we are completing a side quest, we know there's a good chance it won't lead to an actual Zelda information. So when we ask Penn about what is going on and he replies with the ominous "we saw the Princess riding some kind of beast --a frightening one with huge, brutal tusks-- that the princess seemed to control", we get Ideas. Then the sidequest is registered: "The Princess and the Beast".

So. You know me. And if you don't know me, here's what you should know: my brain immediately flared up with the thought there was no way in hell this wasn't some kind of wink towards Ganondorf's renowned boarish beast form, especially given tusks were given so much focus.

My first assumption was: that's a miniboss right? I will get to fight some small boar-like thing that Fake Zelda rides sometimes. Cool! I didn't hold too hard onto my hope that the relationship of Zelda and/or Ganondorf to the natural world, or to each other would be expanded upon, since I had already been burned before, but my interest was piqued.

You have to understand how starved I was for any hint of complexity or mystery or ambiguity at this point. I was extremely eager for the game to throw anything at me that would surprise me, enlighten something pre-established, make the exploration lead to a meaningful discovery or deepening of characters, world or themes (and not just slightly cooler loot, or a bossfight, or a puzzle devoid of emotional context --cohesion and depth is what motivates my play sessions, especially in an open world game that I want to believe is worth losing oneself into). This was about the most intriguing task on my to do list at the moment, and so I plunged in immediately.

After really REALLY misunderstanding what I was supposed to do (I stalked every corner of every forest surrounding the tropical area at night or during blood moons in hope to see something --which was very much the wrong call), I arrived to the other stable, then was guided to the other side of the river where Cima awaits and explains that these creatures are actually a new species discovered by Zelda; that they are gentle and kind and not at all scary ("Dondons aren't beastly, they're adorable!"), and even somehow digest luminous stones into gemstones. They like the company of people and liked Zelda in particular.

I was... I felt two different ways about this conclusion, and I think it's worth to explore both: disappointment and some sort of... "huh!" Hard to describe this emotion otherwise.

I'll get the disappointment out of the way first, because it's the least interesting of the two. While I think the little emotional arc I was taken on was not devoid of interest --I was indeed taken on by the rumor and intrigued by its implications-- I wanted, well. A little bit more. And if the creatures were to be Zelda's pet project, I would have loved for them to be actually terrifying and feisty, and for her to develop an interest for these creatures in particular regardless. It could have been very interesting characterization that veered out of the perfect princess loving the perfect world floundering around her, always bringing her clear, practical benefits from the interaction.

(I have made another post that speaks of my discomfort that Zelda does everything everywhere and everyone loves her for it --I get what they were trying to go for, but it either lacks conflict for me to buy into that dynamic at the scale of several regions, or they went on too hard for my taste, as she is, at once and in the span of a couple of years at most: a schoolteacher, a gardener, an animal researcher, a scholar, a traveler, a military expert, a knower of landscape, a painter, a horse rider, an infrastructure planner, a [...] princess --at some point it begins to sound made up, "Little Father of the people"-esque to rattle the hornet's nest a little bit, especially if it's not shown as either a clearly godly characteristic or, even more necessary imo, a negative trait; another expression of her killing herself at work to compensate for a perceived flaw she's trying to earn forgiveness for, like she did in BotW. But that's another topic, and the clumsiness of her character arc has been well threaded by basically everybody disappointed in the story already.)

But, if I decide to be a little graceful, I'd like to explore my "huh!" emotion, and take it apart a little bit.

I think there's something interesting to have such strong parallels to setting up a story about the relationship between Zelda and Ganondorf ("The Princess and the Beast", like come on guys that's the conflict of over half the series), or at least Zelda and the concept of Evil since Ganondorf pretty much represents it in this game, and then have it go: actually, there was a horrible monster that everyone was afraid of, but Zelda was wise and patient enough to approach it and realize its potential beyond the tusks, what beauty can be brought upon the world if one makes the effort to look for what exists underneath. It says something a bit deeper about the world and about Zelda in particular. It intrigues, at the very least.

Is it a reach? Probably! Is my first interpretation that the quest is actually about "eww you thought Zelda would be interested in *disgusting vile monsters* and not sweet and gentle and human-loving animals that literally shit jewlery when cared for? jokes on you, she never would feel any ounce of sympathy for anything that isn't Good and Deserving" uhhh definitively truer? Probably! But I also don't want to dismiss that the quest made me think about it. If I had completed it earlier, I might have even felt like it was (very clumsy, not gonna lie) setup about the main conflict.

But that's also a good segway into my next section: the arbitrary limitations between the animal and the creature, the monstrous and the human.

And the fact that TotK points directly at it.

A Monstrous Collection

(these two guys are just. doing So Much and being So Valid despite being massive weirdos the game wants us to be slightly repelled by. I, for one, respect the Monster kinning grind and their general Twilight Princess energy.)

So. These two guys. There is so much to say about these two guys. I don't think I have seen the Trans Perspective on Kolton on tumblr, and I would love to get it because. I feel like it's a worthwhile discussion (just, how gender and identity is handled in TotK overall, I feel like it's a very complicated conversation and I have not seen super deep dives and I'd be very interested in hearing more).

Beyond the throughline of voluntary consumption of magical objects to turn into less human creatures being a weirdly prevalent plot point in TotK (Zelda, Kolton and Ganondorf casually transing their entire species for funsies --Ganondorf being particularly relentless with Fake Zelda, mummy/phantom shenanigans, Demon King and then literal dragon), I want to focus on Kilton a little bit.

Kilton is genuinely the only NPC in the game willing to acknowledge the inherent personhood that monsters have (the game does showcase them picking up fruits, mourning their boss if you kill them, being cutesy and happy to identify you as one of their own if you wear the appropriate mask --and that's not even getting into creatures like the Lynels, who seem to really edge on the limit of being a conscious creature with a system of honor and property and many other things). He does encourage us to think of monsters as more than a species whose only worth lie in how fun it is to eradicate them; even more, gameplay-wise, he does give us a reason to interact with them in other ways than just our sword with his museum. He does encourage us to see that beauty for ourselves and then select what we think is coolest/most intimidating/cutest/eight billion ganondorfs in every pose imaginable

The fact that Ganondorf is considered a monster was a great win for this feature in particular, and is very funny, but it's also... A lot, if we dig at it a little more than warranted. Beyond all of the Implications and all of the things of representation and political conflict and values already discussed ad nauseum: when did he stop being considered a human? What does that mean about the flimsiness of what is a monster and what is a creature and what is an animal and what is a person and what is even a hylian, as sheikahs got absorbed into the definition in this game? Especially with the stones taken into account, how profound changes in nature are a huge part of the plot (even when reversed and ultimately pretty meaningless): how easy it is, to make that slip? Who decides when that slip has been made? What is acceptable to hurt without remorse? What is beautiful and worth preserving? What is both at once? What is neither?

And again, in a classic Zelda conundrum (appreciative(?)): who the fuck gets to decide that, when, and why?

The Bargainers and the Horned God

(major shoutout to these big guys for being the sole and only providers of actual depth to the Depths, and for looking cool as heck)

So. Let's move the conversation to the Depths.

Conceptually: what an interesting idea!! And so well executed (initially)!! A mirror world to the surface, dark and hushed and full of unknown creatures; haunted by gloom and sickness and the unknown. Not a first in the series, far from it: from ALTTP to ALBW, and even taking the Twilight world of TP into account, this idea of a Dark World acting as a deforming mirror to Hyrule and revealing many interesting aspects as we get to explore both is always a very interesting take on corruption and envy and fear/weakness and/or some sense of darkness looming under the perfect exterior. I'd argue even the Lens of Truth of both OoT and MM's serve a similar function, both gameplay-wise, but also in terms of theme: not everything is as it seems. In the world of Light, darkness must hide itself; but darkness also possess its own beauty, its own hardships, and will stare back at you without blinking if you go seek for it. It's, in my opinion, one of the series' most compelling conversation about the cyclical nature of fate, the coldness of godhood, and how small one feels in the face of a universe that is more complicated than it initially appears --which is why Courage must be invoked to push forward regardless.

The Depth's otherworldly ambiance is truy wonderful, whether in the plays of light and shadows, the creatures native to the environment we meet there (wish we met more!), the soundtrack, the strange aquatic/primordial plants, the fact that the dragons visit this place and connect them to the outside --invoking ideas of balance and interconnectivity, that the tree branches look like veins. The coliseums, the mines, the zonai facilities and the prisons do seem to poke at many things about what the relationship to the past was to this place; was it ever truly a place? Did it look like this back then? Why was it buried? Why did it come back? But in spite of it all, I think the Depths struggle overall to question or reveal anything about the surface that we couldn't already assume going in (that the only thing congealing there is Ganondorf's gloom, his lonely domain of Wrongness, only shared by Kohga and the yiga --the only naysayers of Goodness and Light, contemptful and blinded by self-importance and rage). The zonite is mined by gloomy monsters --why, what for?-- so any notion of greed and over-expansion that could have been associated to the zonai is now reabsorbed into Ganondorf's general evilness, since it needs to be reminded he is everything and anything bad with the world: darkness and conquest and greed and capitalism and pollution and bad weather and sickness and darkness and violence and war and death and betrayal and fakeness and lies and patriarchy and exploitation. No matter that he never does a single thing with zonite in the game; rather set up elements of conflict that never go anywhere than, for a second, let the foundations of absolute goodness and absolute evil risk becoming shaky --and you coming to this unwelcoming dark place that hates you, killing the miners and taking their resources for yourself is, on the other holy, royal fur-covered hand, utterly legitimate. The resources were once Rauru's after all, were they not?

And this is what I would say, except... except for the dead. The fallen warriors, the poes, and, most important of all: the Bargainer statues.

The Bargainers are, in-universe, godly creatures guiding the fallen to a place of final respite, regardless of moral alignment. The poes are all, fundamentally, cleansed of judgement: they are lost souls whose past reality does not matter anymore, and all deserve that peace regardless. In spite of the heavy paradise/hell parallels drawn in that game, with Rauru/Zelda/Sonia as the guardians of Light where Ganondorf gets to become a Devil-like figure, it is confirmed here that no such thing exists when you actually die in this universe.

It almost feels as if the fabric of Hyrule itself, in a brief moment that refuses to elaborate on its own point, goes: "yeah, whatever is happening here between Light and Darkness, it doesn't actually matter. This conflict is futile and doesn't understand the real nature of being alive, dead, a god, a person, a monster, an animal. The truth lies elsewhere --but you will never be told what it is."

It's: wild.

One of the game's most striking traits of narrative brilliance in my opinion --to the point where I'm wondering whether it's there on purpose or was effectively an oversight since every other aspect of reality breaks its own back trying to reassure us that everything is at its correct place, receiving the appropriate treatment by the universe in a way that is never to be questioned.

Another case of that ambiguity being allowed to exist without being immediately crushed and repressed is the case of the Horned God (interesting parallel to Ganon's actual horns that he develops in this game in case the hellish parallels weren't clear enough already): a demon Hylia sealed into stone and pushed far from humans in a clear case of questionable behavior since, while the Horned God isn't exactly nice, does propose a different philosophy you are not punished for exploring; and yet, a proposal that has seen itself persecuted in a very real sense by the goddess of absolute goodness, patron of hylians, Zelda, and many more. Pushed away from view.

Interesting.

And Yet, Light Must Prevail

Okay, so, after all of this, we're left to ask... What the fuck is up with morality in Tears of the Kingdom?!

What do we trust? These half-breaths in the occasional sidequests that Light and Darkness is just the wrong frame of reference, that nature cannot be this simple, is ever-shifting and can be recalled or reaffirmed by arbitrary forces, and might even not matter at all in the universe's fabric, despite having so much of its lore soaking in the dychotomy? Or... everything else about the game, this insistence that Good must not only be assumed as whatever tradition the kingdom has passed down for thousands upon thousands of years, but remain utterly unquestioned the entire time? That Bad is without cause, graceless and unworthy of investment?

Are the Bargainer's statues the only thing worth listening to, that morality is a fable the living tells themselves --or should we be moved when Darkness destroys Light, when Light suffers to preserve itself and the world --but not when the Other is rightfully slain?

Was Kilton correct to see beauty in the monstrous? Was Kolton onto something when he let go of his previous form because there is no clear distinction between what should receive an arrow to the face and what shouldn't? Or should we rather focus on Zelda losing her human form as a beautiful and tragic sacrifice --but something that never actually altered her nature as a hylian, the descendant of a lineage of Good Kings meant to rule forever?

Is the Dondon good because it always was, or was it worth Zelda's love in spite of the fear it initially provoked?

Either way, at the end of the game, evil is slain. Ganondorf is, not killed, but --like his angry BotW boar counterpart-- destroyed, as monsters tend to be. He explodes over the lands of Hyrule, freed from Darkness; freed from everything wrong, since the foreign menace that embodied it all was wiped out in one fateful sweep of a holy blade cradled in sacrificial love. Nothing wrong remains. The Sages reaffirm their vows to protect the kingdom forward, and a very human --hylian-- Zelda smiles: Hyrule now forever and ever basked in eternal Light.

[nartml]

I get that THW was going for a sobering message of "sometimes you have to let people go" and "some friends can't stay forever", but it was hilariously unsuccessful.

It's still baffling to me, the amount of raving reviews calling it "the perfect ending".

Apart from the wild thematic inconsistencies, and the endless flaws with Hiccup's logic of "oh, yeah, I know that things have never before been this good for dragons, I know that Berk is living proof that even the most stubborn people can change their minds on dragons, I know that dragons thrive on companionship and love their humans, I know that good people exist, I know that I'm the instigator of a huge revolutionary period, butttttt..... because bad humans exist I'll lock away the entirety of the draconic population in a glorified underground cage, in the hopes that one day humans will stop being bad and learn to cooperate with the creatures that they question, or even forget, the existence of a measly decade after their disappearance. Magically.", this message plainly didn't fit.

Not just in a thematic context. I mean that it literally doesn't fit in this situation, and it doesn't fit the characters.

It doesn't even fit reality, because you have to let go of people for reasons. Some friends can't stay forever, for reasons.

Valid ones. Reasons like, you grew apart, you don't have shared interests anymore, they betrayed you in an unforgivable way, they're not good for you, they're not good to you, they died, etc etc.

Had any one of these happened? At any stage? The one thing you could, albeit pointlessly, argue is that they grew apart. That they outgrew each other.

Only that...they didn't? Did I miss something? Because Toothless flying away for, what, a day to spend some time with his love interest, is not outgrowing. Toothless finding romance does not mean that he and Hiccup grew apart.

And this isn't just about the Light Fury. I'm not discussing whether or not she's a good character (she isn't), and I'm not discussing whether or not she deserves Toothless (Ha, you're funny). Even if she were the absolute best, most perfect match for Toothless and a compelling character, it still wouldn't even remotely mean that he and Hiccup grew apart.

In fact, if you grow so far apart from your best friend that you can say goodbye to them forever, just because you found a new partner, then I really don't know what to tell you. (Except that you're probably not a good friend.)

Hiccup realizing that Toothless doesn't make him who he is, and doesn't define him, that he doesn't need Toothless in order to be someone, or even that he doesn't need Toothless at all, doesn't mean that he outgrew him. Not even slightly.

I mean, come on, I don't need the vast majority of people in my life. Arguably, I might not even need any of the people in my life. This doesn't mean I don't want them there.

This doesn't mean that I won't fight for them to stay right here, by my side.

Oh, look, how's that for a change? How about a movie where your friends refuse to leave you? Because that's what I want, and that's what How To Train Your Dragon deserved.

That's what Hiccup, and the rest of the Berkians, deserved. And that's what fit. That's what thematically fit, what fit reality, or at least the httyd reality, and what fit the characters themselves.

This movie treated the dragons as mindless pets, whereas in every other step of the way, they were treated as people.

Toothless isn't a just slobbery puppy.

Toothless is intelligent, curious, kind, understanding, funny, snarky and sarcastic, graceful, elusive, protective, loving, wary, and fucking loyal (plus much more).

I can't think of a character that has demonstrated as much loyalty and protectiveness as this guy.

And yet he was barely any of the aforementioned things in thw. He became unrecognizable.

All the dragons became unrecognizable, for no justifiable reason.

The final message shouldn't have been that your friends sometimes have to leave you, and that you have to let them go.

(The humans left the dragons just as much as the dragons left the humans btw)

It should've been that they'll fight tooth and nail to stay, even when the going gets tough, even when priorities shift, even when you tell them to go.

No matter how passionately you insist that caring for you is rotten work.

It's not to them.

[vidavalor]

"You love trains": Crowley & Aziraphale inspired 'North by Northwest'

Putting my film studies background to good use here with some film history & historical context under the cut.

The "what does the J stand for?" exchange in The Blitz, Part 1 and the inability for the audience to initially understand what Aziraphale is mouthing in The Blitz, Part 2 are both references to Hitchcock's classic spy thriller, 'North by Northwest'. I didn't link the clip that goes along with The Blitz, Part 2 in case some of you have never seen this film because it would ruin your experience of it. (Definitely watch it if you have not as it's a masterpiece.) Since The Blitz scenes are taking place in 1941 and 'North by Northwest' was released 18 years later in 1959, Crowley and Aziraphale aren't referencing the film in the dialogue but, instead, could be presumed to be the source *of* the dialogue in the film... just like how Shakespeare lifted Crowley's love poetry for 'Antony & Cleopatra'... and the 'North by Northwest'-referencing part of The Blitz, Part 1 *is referencing* the 'Antony and Cleopatra' reference because it's the reveal of Crowley's first name. But... it gets even better...

The writer of 'North by Northwest' was legendary Hollywood screenwriter Ernest Lehman, whom we're now presuming to have been a friend of probably at least Aziraphale's. Lehman wrote a dozen or so classic films and, outside of 'North by Northwest', is most famous for writing adaptations of several famous musicals, including the adapted screenplay for... 'The Sound of Music.' But, no, somehow, we aren't done yet with how amazing this is lol.

The thing that makes this all even funnier is that 'North by Northwest' is responsible for probably the most famous train metaphor in cinema. I'll spoil just this bit as it won't really ruin the overall movie for you if you haven't seen it but don't go any further than here if you don't want to be spoiled at all. If you've already seen it, you totally know what I mean. *laughs*

In 1959, when this film was released, you still couldn't really show sex on screen in a mainstream film. If you showed two people in a bedroom at all, they were cisgender, heterosexual and married and they slept in two separate beds. The level of sex happening in the above clip was *wild* for the era and the fact that it was put into the film the way it is-- that an unmarried woman picks up a hot guy on a train and they sleep together and she's still the heroine of the film and all of that-- was really nothing short of feminist revolution in a film in this era.

The film has a famous "love scene" of sorts that follows not long after the one I linked above, where the two of them are in a cabin on the train and starting to get it on but constraints of cinema coding at the time limited how far it could go. So, to imply that the main characters do, in fact, sleep together, the film famously cuts away to a shot of the train entering a tunnel-- making the train itself symbolic of sex. Because of how famous the film overall--and this scene in particular--became, it became a thing to use trains euphemistically for sex in other cinematic works following it. There is literally no way that Crowley and Aziraphale have not seen this movie so while Aziraphale was happy to make The Bentley into a sexual metaphor while angling for the car keys, Crowley is half-heartedly griping in flirty response by continually referencing trains, another sexual mode of transportation-- the one that that they inspired lol. Hence Aziraphale's bemused little lololol-but-won't-give-him-the-satisfaction-of-seeing-my-amusement face here:

Sunglassed!Cary Grant is Crowley and the old movie chemistry and the semi-coded flirty banter and someone please, please write a fic where Aziraphale says "I don't particularly like the book I've started"-- I will pay you lol.

[loveandlegacy]

ngl i think there are a lot of cool/interesting things to say about the sex scene between jayce and mel, but i am not wild about justifying it by pointing to its plot relevance. its presence IS justified, i just think the furthering-the-plot argument is using the wrong framework to understand the function of sex in media at all and kind of belies a deeply conservative impulse about what sex is or does or what it's for in art. and like i don't really blame anyone for this. i think this attitude of 'well it has to be plot relevant to be present' particularly in film is born partly out of a reaction to a long history of film & tv having gross attitudes about women and very unpleasant assumptions about roles in sex.

in tv in particular, hbo comes to mind as having been the only prestige network for a really long time where nudity/semi-explicit sex was permissible. and like while it was/is permissible, a lot of hbo productions deploy sex in a way that feels deeply unimaginative and misogynistic. obviously hbo isn't the sole culprit. the whole concept of the male gaze was developed bc of film's treatment of women, and the games industry stacks on top of that by being so misogynistic in its sexualization of women that it feels like a joke. so i get why people balk at that — i do too — but these media properties and outlets shouldn't be the gold standard for sex in media anyway and the solution to them shouldn't be "well sex is only Allowed when it serves the very utilitarian and quasi-calvinist purpose of furthering the plot".

if nothing else, sex is an important part of life and connection for many people. including it in art to demonstrate or reflect that fact is ideally something normal, or could be if we in the united states could at least deconstruct our neuroses about sex. my one friend always says that sex in itself is a kind of character study, which is valuable regardless of how much it furthers the plot. you can even see this with jayce and mel! people joke a bunch about jayce being the little spoon and not to be like too annoyingly into close readings of a sex scene but the entire arc of his encounter with mel tells you a lot about both of them as people that arguably could not really be presented in any other context. mel initiates but she does so in a moment of vulnerability, right after talking about her family, a major pain point in her life (and not lol after she supposedly like...bamboozled him with Sexual Allure and alcohol or whatever people say). jayce follows her lead for a while (she kisses him first, he is happy to have her push him onto the bed) and eventually breaks from this pattern to go down on her, not to demand something for himself.

either this says something about him as a person or says something about gender and expectations for sexual courtship overall in the world of arcane. like in our world men who "submit" (lol) to women's sexual desires or who give primacy to a woman's sexual interest are still framed kind of as a joke in mainstream US culture even though 'mean mommy dommy' jokes abound on the internet. but is that also true in piltover & zaun? is jayce the exception to the rule or is he in keeping with the rule? we kind of don't know ironically bc we have no other information about in-world sex in the whole of season 1. even with the brothel, there are open-ended questions: is trading sex for money illegal? is it illegal in piltover but a weird grey-market activity in zaun? what kinds of sexual mores exist in piltover, zaun, or both, and what relationships to people have to them? vi describes the brothel as 'the one place where all the secrets are spilled' and that seems like it's in keeping with how civilian clients are about sex work irl in the united states but that's more or less all we have to work with.

i'm not saying arcane should seek to answer all these things or to deliver a complete taxonomy on in-world sex and sexuality. the story is dealing with other themes. it just seems strange to me to laud arcane for it's skill in efficient but well-textured worldbuilding and then to abjure the possibility of the presence of sex outside of plot-relevant reasons when sex would tell us as much about the world as the touch that smoking is a sign of power in the undercity.

if the concern is that somehow any non-plot-sex would be too gross in its treatment of women, i guess i would say that it was amanda overton who advocated for the sex scene in the first place, not alex yee or christian linke. so like why not trust that she may be capable of writing/directing further instances of sex without defaulting to something unpleasant?

and if the objection is "well i don't want to be made to feel horny in an otherwise non-horny experience" my answer would be that the point of sex in media can be communicative sometimes, not always titillating. going back to jayce and mel and character studies, i wasn't (and i don't think most people were?) suddenly horny during that scene. i thought the literal art direction was weird, but mostly what i took from the scene about these two characters was that their mode of relating to one another was actually very tender. it cemented that mel was falling in love with jayce, and that the we the audience were supposed to understand their sex as sweet, not particularly provocative or designed to fulfill an assumed sexual fantasy on our behalf.

but there's also no reason to assume that any two other characters in the story would have sex in that tenor, even if they were in love. there's no reason to assume that any two other characters might NOT have sweet sex outside the context of love. the only way we could know that is if it were to occur on screen, and getting a greater diversity of sex and sexual encounters on screen requires the audience to be open to sex not just as a normal part of life, but as a semiotic object in art that has value beyond driving the plot forward.

tl;dr it's nice that the sex in arcane had some greater impact on the plot mechanics, but i don't think that's the primary value of its presence and i'm glad it's there with or without it mattering to the plot. it's unlikely but i hope s2 can give us a fuller picture of how other characters relate to sex as well.