#and i need to figure out if i can take complex analysis without real analysis before registration

[invisiblyvisiblejay]

i got three new math books out of the library so now im like kind of actively trying to learn abstract algebra, real analysis, and complex analysis and reviewing calc ii and calc iii and i have books on stats and probability at home (but not planning to take those classes next semester)

[crucipuzzled]

About Loid Forger's therapy in SxF manga chapter 77 (Spoilers ahead)

There's a Freudian text for everything. Today's all about The Question of Lay Analysis (1926), also known as Wild Analysis.

Endo did what I have been planning to do for a comic of my own: depict Loid actually working as a Psychiatrist. While I'm glad he took this path, sadly I can't say he did a good job on it.

As some of you know, I'm a therapist grounded in Psychoanalitic Theory. Yes, I like Freud and Lacan, and no, Oedipus Complex is not what you heard it is. I did a brief analysis of Psychiatry stuff in SxF in the past, and today I feel compelled to repeat that exercise.

Let's go in order.

1. The importance of being a third party

What's the reason for which people ask a therapist for help, and not their families or friends? What do we have that they don't?

The answer is pretty simple: neutrality. We don't have a side other than rationality and ethics. A good therapist should be able to listen to his patient without losing objectivity.

When you and your patient have a shared, unique shared experience, it's preferable, even ethical, to refer him to another therapist, in order to preserve the higher interest of the patient. The more neutrality you can muster, the better for the curing process. Otherwise, it's really hard to listen to someone else without being constantly reminded of yourself. It turns into a blind spot.

Now, there are exceptions to this rule, but you must handle them carefully, and always putting the patient at the center. Loid openly talking here about how close he is to the hijacking incident doesn't help much.

In short, you have to ensure that your position in the therapeutic process remains an impartial, neutral Other, and avoid becoming a fellow. It's good to create trust, but not too much, just enough to work.

2. Chronic condition (?)

The biggest difference between a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist is that the first went to Med School. Hence, chronicity is a term that applies mostly for organic conditions, but it's rare in the field of subjectivity.

In my short experience, I've met cases labeled as "chronic depression" being cured. I, myself, cured a case of "compulsive suicide attempts since 15 years old, chronic depression, started hearing evil voices 2 weeks ago". You might think that I'm a great therapist, but it's not the case; it's just that, in order to tackle subjective problems, you ought to go to the root of the symptoms and deal with the subjectivity you find there. Psychoanalitic therapy has proven to be wonderful to treat many conditions that didn't get a cure in other types of psychotherapy.

Of course, it's not a panacea. There are things that we can't figure out yet. But bear in mind that chronicity, in the field of the mind, is more complex than just the passage of time and only a bunch of mental conditions truly admit it.

Jacques Lacan, the most important psychoanalist after Freud, said that the unconscious's track of time is not chronological, but logical. You don't just jump out of adolescence because you turned 18; other things need to happen for you to finally feel like an adult. It's a logical progression. The same can be said about some "chronic" conditions.

3. Explicit Reason of Consultation vs Latent Reason of Consultation

A.K.A Everybody lies.

Psychotherapy is a really weird thing to learn and master. In Psychology School they teach you that you must trust what your patient tells you, but at the same time, distrust him enough. How to conceal both things?

Well, everything is easier when you take Dr. House's words to heart.

Everyone states a reason for consultation, but that first reason is never the real reason, no matter how reasonable it might sound. The trick to discern what the latent, real reason for consultation is, is to determine what the subjective conflict hiding in plain sight is. Sometimes there isn't any and therefore, a full psychotherapy is not necessary (maybe just assisting someone with some things, being there just in case, etc), but most cases are built upon a conflict.

I'm glad that Loid here decided to act like a good Psychiatrist and took a mental note on the oddities.

WELL SAID MY BOY, I'M PROUD OF YOU

I want to remark this, because it's discouraging how many therapists oversee this to simplify their job to an extreme. Believe it or not, there are therapists out there that act upon what their patients tell them first. "Hi doc. I came here today because I got an accident and I think I have PTSD". "Ok, I'll have you practice these mindfulness excercises and you should be ok within a month, see ya". DUDE.

4. The place of truth in the context of Psychotherapy

Ah, the classic temptation of knowing the 'real' truth. Is this patient in front of me bullshitting his way out? Is he in a delirium? Is she telling the truth, or just embellishing her story to make it more believable?

You don't have this struggle once you are certain of your role as a psychotherapist. And your role is to help your patients to deal with their subjective struggles.

In short: Psychoterapy deals with the patient's truth, not with the 'real' truth.

You know who deals with 'real' truth in the field of Mental Health? Social Workers.

We psychotherapists don't need to ascertain our patient's claims. Confronting them with reality usually proves to be fruitless, just like Loid did here ("But you're a respected educator!"). It's way more useful to open the topic by asking more questions such as "How did you reach that conclussion?" "What made you think that way?", or giving a specular answer ("You speak like someone else said that about you", "You're too hard with yourself. Where does that come from?", "It sounds like you're belittling your fear for what your wife could say", etc etc etc).

Whenever you're with a neurotic patient, their own personal truth is the only truth you need to work with. Leave the 'real' truth for people who actually needs it, like Social Workers, Doctors or Judges. Your role with a patient is to make sure that his personal truth can turn into something less painful. No need to talk with their friends and family for info, unless your patient is a child or a teenager; just ask him and stick to what he says word by word.

There's a huge topic about the place of reality in therapy, specially in the field of Psychoanalysis, but if I start this train of thought I'm afraid I'll go down to Hell. If you're interested, I've reblogged some Lacanian pills on this Tumblr, check them out by searching the tag #lacan.

PS: NO LOID, DON'T DO THAT. DON'T BREAK THE TRUST YOU ACHIEVED WITH MR AUSTIN! CONFIDENTIALITY IS A MUST!!

5. Counceling = Psychotherapy?

Loid is a (fake) Psychiatrist, not a psychotherapist, so I can't be too hard on him. Also I stan this man. I'm painfully well aware that councelling and coaching is an alternative to psychotherapy in other parts of the world, mostly in the US. But let's not forget one thing:

Psychotherapists DON'T GIVE ADVICES.

At least, not the ones that take this job seriously.

Everyone can give advices. Do you want an advice? Ask your family or friends, or post something in social media, or ask a complete stranger in the street what to do. You'll get plenty of answers and advices. Maybe a bunch of them will be really useful. Good!

The thing with advices is that: -They act like a universal recipe for a problem -There's no universal recipe to sort a problem -They don't tackle the subjective root of a problem -They assume that the problem can be solved by something you can do upon your surroundings, when the real struggle stems from subjective problems Some advices do help with real struggles, but when you have a subjective conflict, they barely help; hell, sometimes they make everything worse.

Like Loid here.

Remember when I mentioned that the unconscious mind's track of time is not chronological, but logical? This is a great example. Mr Austin won't be able to properly talk with his wife just because Loid adviced him to; he must solve other issues before that.

I'm glad we're on the same page on this one

6. Your therapist is not your friend

Sad but true.

If your therapist is good enough, you won't know many things about his private life. You won't know about his lover, his hobbies, where does he live, what does he fear.

Why the secretism? Because it's useless for the patient. Also because disclosing personal information has the effect of becoming a model for the patient, who would start to imitate you. And finally, because you need to mantain a semblance of neutrality and not getting emotionally close with the patient more than necessary.

PS: It's kinda cute how aware Loid is about Yor's every movement. Kinda. KISS HER ALREADY, GODDAMNIT

7. Talking cure and (how not to use) the divan

I talked a bit about divans here.

There, I mentioned that you should NEVER PUT A PSYCHOTIC PATIENT IN A DIVAN. NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE. Well, we can amplify this rule a bit and say that you should avoid the divan with any patient that has a risk of getting seriously upset, like in severe trauma.

The divan is not the only thing that could play against you if badly used. There are cases in Psychiatric Hospitals of patients getting upset because their therapists used the same clothes and hairstyle every single day for months. The point here is that, with psychotic patients and fragile psychic structures (like what happens in traumatized people), you can't use methods that require too much projection.

Also, Lottie here is not performing a Talking Cure.

The divan has been used since Freud to facilitate transference through the Free Association Method. You lay down on it and your therapist ask for whatever crosses your mind first. You don't put a content there beforehand.

(On the same line, if you're a therapist, please refrain from decorating your consultation room with motivational phrases. You're putting words in your patient's mouth before he even starts to speak)

So, it's useless to make Mr Austin lay down on a divan, only to ask him to remember a specific memory. I'd advice (Ha! The irony!) against using the divan here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To finish my Two Cents, I'd like to point some positive aspects of this chapter. It's nice that a troubled person decides to seek for help. There's still a huge stigma about men requiring mental health help, and it's a nice example to settle to portray one actually going to a Psychiatrist. Men usually struggle with their problems alone and they have it rough.

It's also nice that, in the end, Loid could help his patient. I wonder how (How?!), but it probably means that, at some point of the process, he changed his methods for the better.

And yes. Sometimes, helping one single person can change many lives. I'm honored to be able to attest to that :D

As everyone, I'd expect the logical sucession of events that could follow this chapter: Loid realizing he's got a heck of a wife compared to other marriages, appreciating Yor more, and giving us heavy smut cute TwiYor moments. But Endo has proven to be an author that doesn't like to follow logic. So, let's brace for whatever will come in two weeks.

Thank you for reading!

[yuymayd]

I know, probably, nobody will read this, but I NEED to say this somewhere. I just despise how people treat both Yang and Ruby and their development throughout the show. It almost looks like people are not watching the same cartoon as I am. Also, the fact Ruby and I have a very alike household and story of life makes everything hit stronger to me. So, I will make a small analysis of some aspects of Ruby and Yang throughout the series based on my pov and on the information we were given by the series.

After Summer left and ended up dying during her mission, everyone was crushed in pieces. As we saw in Red Like Roses part II, Ruby always had the feeling her mom would not come back home someday. To a little kid, waking up and getting to know that your worst fear turned up to be real is devastating, especially when it comes to losing someone that it's the glue of the house and is your mom. After that, Tai was so broken that he couldn't even be a functional father and Yang, who was also a kid, had to pick the responsibility of taking care of Ruby. In my vision, both Yang and Ruby blamed themselves from all of this bad situation, one thinking that because of her Summer left them and the other trying to compensate all the time for being a "burden" to others. In their household, it looks like everyone didn't use to talk about their feelings or about everything that has happened (as we saw Yang and Tai arguing in the volume 4). With all of this, it's crystal clear why Ruby and Yang have so many difficulties in talking about their struggles and their difficulties.

Ruby always felt like she was a burden to other people (and I think it's because she feels guilty that Yang had to kinda put her need before her own and she blames herself for Summer's d3ath), so she tried so hard to be the best leader and to make the best choices, but EVERYTHING was crumbling and, with more and more choices to make and with all of the weight of the world on you shoulders because everyone is counting on you, she started to lose herself and feel like she's incompetent. She truly felt like she had no value and that she was completely alone. Since the beginning, she wasn't the kind of person that would ask for help when she was struggling (she tried to figure it out by herself) and, with the situation getting more complex, she had the feeling she needed to do everything on her own. When they were in Ever After, all of her trauma hit her like a truck: the absence of her mom; Penny having one moment of living like a human and, just after that, her life ended because she needed to pass the powers; the weight of her choices, including the people who died in the middle and all of the destruction it caused; and all of her mistakes. Everything was too much for her to handle and she felt like she failed to everyone. Thinking about all of this, it makes sense why she was so broken and why she didn't have hope for things to get better. To everyone saying she was being selfish, she was not. She was really having her first real mental breakdown in her life. In this kind of moment, everything is extremely intense and it's sooo hard to see that there are people who you can rely on by your side. She's just a girl who has to fight in a very unfair battle she didn't ask for.

Now, about Yang. I've seen people from the fandom saying she is not really intelligent or even calling her stupid, but she's everything but those things (of course she can act silly and be goofy, but she's not dumb). Yang grew so freaking much when it comes to fighting and she thinks a lot before making some decision, even on battle or in her private life. This girl tends to bottle up her feelings and she puts all of her teammates and other people before her. She would sacrifice herself without even thinking twice because she cares more about other people's well being than her own (and this is something I would love to see being discussed in the next volumes). I think she does this because, to her, it's better to lose herself than losing people she loves (almost thinking she's replaceable). And, I mean, she had to sacrifice a lot of stuff for other people's sakes, especially for Ruby. Being a young kid and having to parent your younger sibling can change the way you see everything and even you own self worth. To everyone who said she doesn't care about her sister, please, watch the last three volumes again. She asks Ruby a couple of times if she was okay and, when Ruby made the theory about what happened to their mom, Yang pulled herself together after sobbing a little and pulled Ruby into a hug, trying to comfort her little sister instead of letting all of her emotions out. If Ruby doesn't talk to Yang what's wrong, she cannot do anything about it, she doesn't have a crystal ball to tell her what's happening with other people. Yang always showed to be someone reliable and tried her best to tough for everyone else's sake. Don't say she's a bad sister when she isn't.

Well, this was just my small rant about these two sister I love so much! I have more things to say about this but I think the rest is more projection :') and I'm too tired to write more hehe

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

Saw you were going through Tillie Walden books in preparation for Book Three, got to commend you for putting in more legwork than most fans. Your review of Book One was actually what got me into reading her stuff and opening my perspective!

Idk if you've read Spinning yet so I don't want to spoil it, but there's a experience Tillie recounts from her life in it that really makes all of the accusations of Tillie being a groomer more disgusting. I'm not looking forward to fan discussion when Book Three starts to get marketed and releases, but I'm looking forward to whatever you'll have to say on it ^^

I've read Spinning and I think I know what part you're talking about. There are a handful of moments in Spinning that made me raise my brows and go, "....Oh. Oh no." And yeah, that scene is one I'm going to talk about a lot in my analysis.

Like... without giving too much away, my thought process in this is I believe that when a creator creates, whatever the medium, a piece of their soul is weaved in. Think about every artist you follow, writers and authors you read, video essayists you watch, etc. and you'll find connections and themes throughout their work that helps you piece together a small part of who they are, what they're passionate about, what bothers them, the pains they've suffered, etc. Sure, you'll never know the whole person, but you'll learn a little.

When I look at the Clementine comics, I always ask, "Why are you like this? Why are you the way that you are?? Why did Tillie write it like this??" and I believe a lot of questions are answered when looking at her previous works.

For example, everyone gets pissy about the reasons why Clementine left Ericson, and for good reason. But when you read more of Tillie's work, "I'm not happy"/"They thought I was a liability but I think the real issue was that I couldn't talk to any of them about it" actually starts to make some sense. It's still not good, but I can see why specifically Tillie Walden took that road... this isn't the first time she's written something like this.

The thing about Spinning is it's autobiographical, so we get to actually know a lot more about Tillie and her time as a competitive figure skater... because did y'all know that? She was a competitive figure and synchronized skater for twelve years, and she hated it. She dealt with bullying and all the pressures that come with being a skater. She was scared of being gay and living in Texas. One scene that I still think about [aside from that scene] is when she came out to her brother and his response was, "Oh. I mean, it's just sorta... wrong, I think."

I've read Spinning, On a Sunbeam, and a few stories from the Alone in Space collection, and I still have more to get to... though to be real honest, I'm totally procrastinating Are You Listening? because @pi-creates has read that one, so we've talked about it and I know the trigger warnings behind it and I'm just... I need to be in the right headspace, I'll get to it eventually.

But y'know what really sucks? I honestly believe that a lot of people in the twdg fandom would love Tillie's other works. Y'all are always going off about wanting more female characters who are complex, interesting, flawed and gay and like.... Tillie Walden! That's Tillie Walden's works! But opinions of her are soured by the Clementine comics! So they're not going to give her another chance! And that sucks!

Ugh, anyway... I guess you could say that my motivations behind this are my own frustrations with the fandom being so shitty with their bad faith takes, like listen.... I've discovered that bad faith takes really get under my skin- reddit makes me want to walk into the ocean.

I know that my one essay isn't going to change anything, and I'm not going to post it on reddit, but I'm doing it anyway in hopes that some people will read it and develop a more nuanced opinion of all this. Or give Tillie's other works a chance. But mostly, this is for me and if other people get something out of it, then even better.

Boat God help us all when Book Three drops, though... people were fucking shitty about Book Two, like people went out of their way to be intentionally deceptive with lying about what happens, blowing things out of proportion, and making fake wiki screenshots and shit. DomTheBomb's review on youtube was half-assed, furthered the harmful self-insert narrative, AND got basic facts about the story wrong. People attacked Tillie's insta with grooming accusations, and there were people telling her they hoped her newborn baby was taken away from her.

When I say I've never been more disappointed in this fandom, I fucking mean it. My only hope is that people won't be as pissy since it's the final book in the trilogy but y'know.

I don't know when my post on it will be out, but I'm shooting for before Book Three releases. I'm mostly working on my clouis and violentine essay while I read through Tillie's books. Thanks for the message💚

[sapphire-weapon]

Okay so I love reading your opinions on all things RE. Your take and the way you write it is so refreshing, I really love it. Your observations and analysis is great and often makes me rethink a lot of things.

So here's what I've been trying to figure out. Since you said nobody but Chris looks past Leon being likable and respected. And that man needs some loving for real. Someone actually committed to the mess he is.

Would you say he is too unstable to be in an actual deeper and meaningful relationship? Is he to broken/ otherwise concencerned/ distrusting or is he just the kind of guy to not wanting to pursue deeper connections other than flings and friendships at arm's length?

Like this guy is lonely. This guy needs a hug and smack on the back of his head sometimes fr.

thank u anon. my goal here is to get ppl to think about the actual text/scripting of the story without the noise of the fandom coloring their perceptions, because this is an old fandom with a lot of pre-conceived notions and biases that poison the #Discourse almost to a cultish degree, which causes the actual story itself to get lost.

but

there are a lot of words I'd use to describe Leon. "unstable" isn't one of them. he's just... Busy. and has a hero complex that honestly makes him a little selfish.

Leon has a really abnormal life, and he knows it. he also knows just how much of a fucking nightmare it is, and he doesn't want to drag anyone else into the world of bioterrorism who otherwise would have no reason to be there or even know about it. he doesn't have the time to dedicate to a relationship, and even if he did, he wouldn't.

this is why we see him hitting on other operatives and not the civilians involved on any given mission (for reference, see: hitting on Hunnigan in OG while turning down Ashley's explicit offer of sex). there are still ways in which his lifestyle can make a civilian's life worse, even if they've already been exposed to bioterrorism. but an operative is pretty much just as fucked as he is, so they're fair game.

because, like. there's never any point where he rejects Chris's love for him. he might push back on the method with which Chris chooses to express it sometimes, and he might have other moments where he'd rather just be self-indulgent with his misery (Vendetta), but there's never a moment where it's like... "don't waste your time caring about me/I'm not worth it."

even with Ada, like... I'm not going to rehash my whole "guide to OG Aeon" post, but Leon never expresses that he feels unworthy of her help/affection/attention. he accepts it with as much grace as he can muster, in fact.

a romantic relationship just isn't his priority. relationships are work, and there are other things that he feels that he needs to give his emotional energy to -- and, because of his depression, the amount of energy he has emotionally is just much lower than that of other people. so he uses what little he has to focus on his job, because that's what's most important to him.

and I know that this probably sounds like it's running counter to my thesis statement re: Leon's character of "Leon is lonely and he fucking hates himself" but like. deprioritizing human interaction and relationships and the opportunity to be truly loved is, in and of itself, a form of self-harm. he'd rather cut himself off than put in the effort required to be vulnerable -- and that's the part that goes back to the idea of "I'm not worth it."

Leon sees what he's doing as being infinitely more important than who he is. he doesn't see who he is as a person as being worth giving up his work and/or exposing someone else to The Horrors.

and this is true for both OG and Remake Leon -- especially after the conclusion of Remake Leon's positive change arc in RE4make. prior to RE4make, you could maybe make the case that he was too broken and distrusting to pursue a deeper relationship with someone, but post-RE4make, that's not the case. post-RE4make Leon would love nothing more than to pursue a HEA with Ashley, but he knows that he has to prioritize Sherry, and his depression prevents his brain from considering the very simple question of: "Why not both?"

[ashlingiswriting]

For the recent passage questions: “for me, it’s pineapple condoms or nothing.” All the way up to Richie saying “are you really gonna punish me for a joke”

Idk why but I love that little bit so much and would love to hear your thoughts on it!!

thank you so much! i'm excited to get into this chunk of writing.

warning: i really get into the analysis here, possible to an insufferable extent. can't help it! i just love them so much & i have so much to say about it!

for me, it’s pineapple condoms or nothing. you’re a real high-maintenance fuck. you laugh. michael used to like that about you, just how easy you were, or how easy you made yourself. buddy, you got no idea. 

on the surface, they're bantering. haha! we're not going to have sex, for a silly reason! because the idea of us having sex itself is a joke, and we're both in on the joke, right? right?

it's them reassuring each other that it's fine, even though for both of them, deep down, It's Not Exactly Fine.

also, a few lines ago, julie has literally realized that she loves him, specifically because he takes it easy on her, because he's figured out a way to be with her without making her feel like she needs to run, and without making her feel like she needs to act like someone else. he fucks up a lot, but he's trying, and does it all with his own humor and heart and she sees that and she loves him.

which is in strong contrast with mikey, cause she started off very much herself with mikey, but when they starting having sex she promptly fell into weird, somewhat unhealthy patterns of behavior where she was like 'it's casual! that means you can fuck me whenever, never text unless you feel like it, disappear for an entire week with no explanation, it's all fine. i pretend that watching you fall apart doesn't kill me, you pretend that neither of us have intense emotional involvement in this, and, you know, it's functional!' and then he dies.

it's so obviously fucked in retrospect, but she 100% did it to herself. mikey didn't even ask her to be like that. she just...wanted to be wanted and got scared about demanding anything more.

in many ways, do i know you? is a love triangle story where one corner of the love triangle is already dead. but mikey's ghost is often just around the corner.

so even though again it's all jokes on the surface, julie's memory of how she shrank herself down and didn't demand what she wanted/needed from mikey, the last man she loved, is obviously gonna have an impact on how she views her—very recent!—realization that she loves richie.

it’s been such a long day for both of you, apart and together. of course you’re getting messy, of course it’s time to go. you zip up your coat, run your hand through your hair. 

you can see her here already trying to diminish and dismiss and repress that realization. her feelings can be blamed on the long day she's had. and she doesn't even call them feelings, she calls them "getting messy". she zips up her coat, runs her hand through her hair; prepares to go outside and leave; tries to put herself together/look normal.

let me drive you, he says again. you wave him off. no, i need to walk. clear my head. it’s december in chicago, fuckin pitch black—  i’ll be fine. it’s christmas eve, are you really gonna punish me for a fucking joke?

the story's very much from julie's pov, and julie can be a pretty self-absorbed character. (honestly, when i was writing this, i didn't know if i'd get any readers making it several chapters in, because she's not always a particularly sympathetic, nice, good, or attractive character. so again, i'm THRILLED that literally anyone is reading!)

anyways yeah julie can be very self-absorbed. this is partly due to the hermitlike existence she's been leading—she hasn't had to engage with other people on a particularly complex, intense, or deep emotional level, and even her relationship with mikey was noticeably stunted in several ways—but it's also partly due to just being a personal flaw of hers. she's so self-absorbed, in fact, that she actually misses what's going on with richie because she's busy thinking about richie, paying more attention to the man in her head than the man standing right in front of her.

a parallel thing occurs in chapter three, when she's fantasizing about how she'd heat up leftovers for richie if she took him up to her apartment; how she'd take care of him, in another world where she was willing to be that vulnerable. but like, he's right there! she could take care of him by paying attention to him right then and there, especially because he's venting and literally all he needs in that moment is a listening ear.

do i know you? isn't just a line from chapter one or the title of the story, it's also me drawing little hearts around one of the main themes of the story. how do you truly know a person and how do you learn to love them right?

julie thinks she knows richie because she knows so much about him from mikey's stories, but in chapter three she's surprised to find out that richie deals cocaine. of course mikey wouldn't have told her that, since it was mikey's idea for richie to do that, and in the end this is all because the beef was failing financially. that wasn't something mikey was proud of, so he didn't tell her about it. (shame & its sources & how to deal with it is another huge theme in the fic!) so in that moment julie has a rare moment of clarity and tries to look at richie physically to really fix him in her mind, to observe him for herself. to be in that moment with him. which is a lesson that she...could perhaps have learned more quickly & thoroughly lmao. but isn't that life? it's rare that people learn important lessons once and follow them perfectly ever after.

ANYWAYS. in this passage, julie's just preoccupied with being as emotionally opaque as possible and getting the hell out of there, so she's focused on herself, not at all on richie.

richie, in the meantime, is picking up on her weird vibes & doesn't know what caused this. he knows that she let him drive her before and that was fine—delightful, even—so something has to have changed. he chalks it up to the sleepover + condoms jokes, the fact that he's brought up, even jokingly, the mere idea of them having sex. and he also wants to take care of her, he does actually want to drive her home, so her rejecting that doesn't feel great! just feels like her being stubborn (which she is). so that's why he's like, it’s christmas eve, are you really gonna punish me for a fucking joke? like, we had such an amazing night together, we're closer tonight than we've ever been before, i cooked for you, you came willingly to my apartment, we talked about our families, and now you're going to reject my care and leave in a weird tension filled way that i'm like 80% sure is happening just cause i made some off color jokes???

also, as one might expect from a guy whose father was never around, whose best friend committed suicide, and whose wife left him...richie's kind of sensitive about being left. see: season 2, when he explicitly says he fears that carmy & co are gonna "drop this ass" & leave him in the dust. so! yeah!

what i do love, though, is that they've learned from last time, in a way. in chapter 3, when there was that disconnect between them and he senses it and is offended by it, she responds angrily and defensively, says something hurtful, and basically the only reason they don't get into a much bigger fight is because he showed a bit of mercy (probably spurred by the fact that she didn't show up the night before and he was truly concerned about her absence).

THIS time, even though there's a disconnect between them, when he bursts out in frustration, she understands what's going on and de-escalates the situation, reassures him, tries to be gentle. and even though he's not completely satisfied with her walking home in the dark, he lets it go, recognizing that she has her own reasons but she's not angry with him and she doesn't mean it as a rejection of him.

they're learning!!! i love it when they learn! it took us 34,000+ words, but they're figuring it out!

...

the extent to which all this analysis is post facto? YOU'LL NEVER KNOW, I'LL NEVER TELL 😂😂😂

anyways! thank you so much again for the excuse to scream abuot them, i've been drafting chapters nine and ten, and this thought exercise was deeply satisfying.

feel free to send me another of these my askbox:

[quetzalpapalotl]

☕ (I don't really know what topic to give you XD I just want to hear your thoughts)

Well, okay, them I'm just gonna ramble about my Proteus and Nominus fics Your carefully laid plans and In Name Only, which may not be a good idea since they're so short spilling everything about them can ruin the point of letting them say what they want to say, but honestly, I think everyone who would read them and would say something about them has already done so.

(well this ended a longer-than-intended analysis)

I should put them in a series or something because I think they work so nice as companion fics and both are made under the same logic. I wanted to give depth to Proteus and Nominus, but not in the sense of giving them redeemable traits or complex motivations. They are bad people, but they're still people, so they have people-like reasonings and feelings, not just evil brain impulses (no disrespect to Sunbow Megs, we stan). And honestly, I'm proud of how they came out.

Originally, Proteus fic was going to be about how fun it would be if he had actually romantic feelings for Sentinel "romance is for the mentally deranged" Prime. That's still there in the fic, but you have to squint really really hard. It felt like Proteus derailed what this was about and I couldn't convey it properly because Proteus would never admit to something like that in his own head, not that it matters how Sentinel feels because either way he belongs to him. It's a pitty Proteus died without discovering Sentinel's true alligances dtasjgdh

Instead this became about how Proteus is so fucking full of himself dfsaghdsa. Well, I think he's interesting (pre-war politics, my beloved), he's not quite an hypocrite like the Functionist Council are because he doesn't really have an alliegance, he changes his public stance on the Decepticons and Functionism and whatever depending on what's useful to him, very realistic politician. But in my experience, these kind of people still feel entitled to what they have for one reason or another. Proteus deserves his place because he can get it.

And you know, canon makes it clear the Council was the one really calling the shots for most of Nominus reign, it wasn't until the trail end of it that the Senate started gaining more power. And given that Proteus is always scheming and pulling strings and Sentinel is explicitly called his puppet Prime, I really do think it was thanks to Proteus that the shift in power happened. But you know, you have to run as hard as you can to stay in the same place. Proteus must always be scheming, must always be sure that he's hanging onto that power.

It's implied in canon that Proteus used the anti-functionism sentiment to gain power over the Council, but allowing that to grow is going to be his downfall and he does not yet realize that. He's not dumb enough to think he doesn't have to keep an eye on it, but he still thinks he can control it. I like the sense of irony on the whole fic.

And with all that in mind, we get to Nominus who is... well, okay, he's lame. He has no speaking lines and everything we know about him in canon points to a lack of agency you wouldn't expect from the Prime. He's caught in the middle of the Council and the Senate's power struggle, he's just a figurehead. The Council has been the real power all this time, either Proteus and co. take over and kill him to put a Prime that better suits their needs, or the Council destroys the Senate and also kills him while they're at it. He has no power, no allies and not even a real matrix.

He has to be aware of his own impotence and it must get to him. Especially when he's succeding a figure as shining as Nova, the hero of the Civil War, he who united Cybertron. How can he compare to that? He's just a phony. But is because of that that I think he's able to accept his death with grace. After so long, he's used to his own powerlesness, unlike Proteus, and at least now he can stop pretending and struggling to hold to an empty title.

But he has been holding onto it, so he must have learned something. He knows how these power games work, so he's able to figure out Proteus.

The fic makes reference to a person Nominus used to be close to. This is as off-shoot of me figuring the backstory for The One Most Worthy, because to be able to add a Lord Protector to IDW1 while the rest stays the same Nominus must have had a LP, he's not really important to TOMW's plot, but he must have existed and his choosing sets the precedent for how Optimus' candidates are selected, since Nova just made the title to placate Galvatron and Sentinel didn't have one because he's gay an homophobic.

So I gave Nominus a Lord Protector with whom he shared a vision (bigoted beliefs) and genuine affection. And it would tie nicely if the reason Nominus had so little power at the end was because was little he had, he lost while he was busy mourning his conjux while the schemers kept scheming, and now without his main ally, there's nothing for him.

Of course, Your Name Only is meant to be canon compliant, so Nominus didn't have a Lord Protector, but I liked the idea of Nominus still having a similar figure in his life. Again this is about the bad people looking like people. And fiction sometimes makes it seem like bad people can't genuinely love other people or is used as a tool to make them seems redeemable or have them do something heroic. But no, bad people still have loved ones, bad people still mourn.

I honestly really like how Nominus came across, he's actually pretty relatable to me and I love that, I love that people in the comments also found him relatable.

So there's a beautiful symmetry to these two fics. Proteus who is highly active losing it because he struggles to hold to his power, while Nominus who is quite passive accepts his end with dignity. Proteus disliking Nominus came as natural result of how I write him, someone who takes pride in all his hard work has no respect for Nominus who from his perspective, does nothing and doesn't deserve his title.

Anyway, I'm really happy with these fics, if nothing else because they do feel like something no one else but me would have done.

[stickytimemachinefestival]

The Next Big Thing in replica bags designer

The duplicate bag craze is almost nothing new.​ I recall Once i was a young teen planning to search her finest, I assumed possessing a reproduction bag was the final word trend statement.​ I bought my very to start with designer replica bag from a neighborhood store.​ It was a basic Gucci tote that I believed was so chic and complex.​ I try to remember clutching tightly on the handles and strutting down the road.​ I felt similar to the belle from the ball!

I've considering that understood the Idea of owning a duplicate bag is a bit controversial.​ In fact, the first designer normally places their blood, sweat and tears into each style, and knocks-off organizations just take the credit as their particular.​ Though I bought my replica bag a few years back, I nevertheless replicate fondly on all the great times I had with that bag.​

Simultaneously, I know how vital it is actually to safeguard the exertions and commitment of designers, so for that rationale I do not buy reproduction baggage any more.​ Continue to, it's tricky to ignore the price tag of an primary style and design, and over and over its just further than our monetary arrive at.​

For that reason, I do think reproduction baggage have their spot in The style field.​ It is really true there are disadvantages to proudly owning a reproduction like very poor excellent and material, but when worn respectfully they can be equipment that help us produce special and amazing appears to be.​ What's more, I feel It can be achievable to find a Center floor - 1 could continue to recognize the first models with no getting knock-offs.​

Although I don't Individually have replica luggage anymore, I am aware Lots of individuals who do, also to use an idiom, ‘it all depends upon the person’.​ For many, the only real distinction between an authentic and duplicate bag is the value tag.​ They do not treatment about recognition or quality, they just want to avoid wasting a couple of bucks what ever way they might.​

I'm able to fully empathize using this type of standpoint.​ In fact, I have been there myself, wishing to feel gorgeous and stylish in my duplicate Gucci bag.​ But I also understand the vital role of a designer and the necessity of protecting their rights as well as their labor.​

I recall The very first time I saw a phony bag.​ I was purchasing in my area shopping mall and stumbled throughout this amazing designer handbag.​ I was so mesmerised by its beauty that I promptly assumed it was legitimate.​ Little did I are aware that it was really a counterfeit! I can however recall the depth with the disappointment Once i identified the reality.​

Initially, I thought to myself, how can someone get away with building copies of reliable designer bags? Then I realised that the desire for designer items has developed exponentially, and counterfeiters are Making the most of this.​ Pretend luggage are everywhere now, and It truly is really unhappy to think about.​

I'm absolutely sure many of us have acquired a phony designer bag without the need of realising it.​ In spite of everything, the counterfeiters have their professional touch.​ It's challenging to tell the distinction between a real along with a faux bag.​ Even expert customers is usually fooled.​

Then again, there are a few notify-tale signs like the price tag, and the caliber of the leather-based applied, which can help determine a faux.​ For anyone who is scared of getting duped, do your analysis and Ensure that the bag you might be shopping for is the real offer.​

I truly feel guilty figuring out that there's an field that will take benefit of individuals.​ But the truth is, quite a bit of customers have their very own explanations for buying phony luggage.​ Some people are unable to afford originals, while others are searching for a good deal.​

Plenty of individuals have been ripped off and duped by obtaining fake bags.​ It is best to steer clear of counterfeits completely.​ Correct, They could seem seemingly reliable and truly feel lavish, but that's only about to very last for thus lengthy.​ Lower-high-quality supplies and weak craftsmanship indicate your phony bag will not likely stand the take a look at of time.​

What is actually worse is, buying a phony bag would not only benefit the vendor but supports a much bigger, felony underworld.​ In addition to that, selling bogus products can stop you up in jail if you can get caught, so It is really often greatest to remain away from fakes.​

So, in case you are ever considering buying a designer bag, I might urge you to acquire only from authorised sellers.​ That way, it is possible to make sure It can be authentic and safe.​ Plus, with all the money you preserve from obtaining fakes, you'll have more than enough to get a quality first.​ So It is generally ideal being cautious in generating purchases.​

I suppose I’m trapped in the middle, owning found both sides of your coin.​ I may not carry a designer tote anymore, but I'm able to appreciate the value, craft and top quality that went into it.​ And when I do see a person carrying a gorgeous authentic fake bags piece, I'm able to’t help but admire the effort and creativeness powering it.​

So, With regards to duplicate bags, what genuinely defines them? Can it be the craftsmanship, the originality, or the bit of thoughts that goes coupled with it? Or could it be merely about the cost tag?

In the long run, I think reproduction luggage should be thought of as manner statements that ought to be revered and appreciated, much like the initial pieces.​ All things considered, they assist us spend less with no compromising our design in any way, and for that they should be regarded as a valuable addition to any individual’s selection of baggage.​

Getting a further look at the make a difference of duplicate luggage, there’s considerably more to them than simply knock-offs of originals.​ Some knock-off brands are getting to be really Inventive, Operating difficult to produce handbags with spectacular craftsmanship and cocktails of resources that wouldn't Ordinarily be located on a conventional designer piece.​ They draw inspiration from the first and come up with styles which are really stylish - showcasing their very own unique magnificence rather than just copying a style from somewhere else.​

Increasingly more, The style marketplace is observing a development of replicated patterns gaining traction, as more and more shoppers glance to add a novel touch to their wardrobe without the need of breaking the bank.​ Of course, the knock-off market place carries its share of very low top quality luggage, but even reproduction baggage occur in different grades now.​

It really is true that designer originals will normally continue to be originals, but the marketplace for knock-offs has grown substantially over the years, featuring the consumer bit of head though nonetheless having the ability to Specific their own personal design and style at a fraction of the fee.​ Individually, I feel there’s a specific appeal to the knock-off industry which can’t be denied.​ Every person would like to shave several hundred of the fee of buying a designer bag, so it’s Protected to claim that reproduction baggage are going to be all around for quite some time.​

As well as, There are tons of different opinions on the issue.​ A lot of people may well argue that buying knock-offs supports the unethical practices of price reduction shops, while others may possibly propose that it encourages creativeness and helps to deliver up the normal of vogue items.​ Some may very well be entirely indifferent for the issue, but No matter, it’s one thing well worth discussing and mulling over.​

At the end of the working day, All people has their unique impression on reproduction baggage, And that i’m no exception.​ Just as much as I’d want to avoid the knock-off industry, I’ll admit that there are occasions when I uncover myself waving for any taxi which has a duplicate bag by my side.​ Little question it’s a personal determination that every of us should make for ourselves, and I’m sure it’s a subject that will carry on to become the source of numerous debates.​

[anicapedscin]

Tips for Beginners

PLAN YOUR AGENDA

It is important to know the agenda of your meeting before you conduct it so you'll be in track. The list of your agenda will serve as your guide or table of contents. Remember that you are the "moderator" in the meeting and as the lead, you do not want your attendees to get lost. As someone new in the career, take note that you have to be sensitive along the way, you have to observe and listen carefully to discussions, you will most likely to hear your boss or client ask you questions like "So what's next?" or "Kidding aside, let's get back to our agenda, where are we now again?" Record and document important details ALL THE TIME. Have a consistent standard format and compile it in a folder with organized label. This will help you go back easily to discussions whenever someone asks you about something.

ASK EVERYTHING 

Do not be afraid to ask everything you need. Make the most out of your chance to ask something. Back when we were studying, we were trained to ask if we have clarifications about the discussion. Same in the real world. Questions is not a sign of ignorance, but actually a sign of intelligence and thirst for knowledge.

DO NOT STOP READING

For beginners, in order to adjust, get similar projects, get resources, read and research. Remember one quote from Napoleon Hill's best selling book "Think and Grow Rich: Rid all things that adds no value." Spend more time reading smart things than surfing non-added value stuffs online. It is okay to have rest from time to time but have this discipline to give time based on its importance. If you find yourself lost scrolling down through Facebook memes, try following motivational personalities or any page related to your career. In time you will notice that you have been reading value-added knowledge to your brain without realizing it.

BE PREPARED

Always be prepared. Especially when talking to a third party service or client. They will certainly ask a lot about your product, your services, your business and or project. First phone call or conversation usually begin with questions like "What do you need?" or "What is the nature of your business?"

YOU CAN SAY NO

Do you recall the saying "Learn to say no?" This should be observed in project management. Do not always agree to what stakeholder wants. Divide their demands into phases and analyze how to include them in your timeline. Be very careful in giving dates, because people rely on your promises. If you are not sure about anything it would be better to honestly say "The complexity of the deliverable needs further studies. I will give you feedback as soon I finished my research about it.. Give me one day to figure it out how long will it really take...." something like that. In learning how to say no, you should also put in mind that Satisfaction in project management is more on subjective rather than objective. Try to take a look at the figure below. Satisfaction differs in perspective. Satisfying wants, and Satisfying needs. As someone in charge for process improvement, you must prioritize the NEEDS of your client. Sometimes the client misjudge their wants and needs. Re-align them from their confusion by politely explaining pro's and con's. You can use SWOT analysis for more detailed data presentation. There are other several tools that you can use. This is where the next tip comes in..

SUPPORT YOUR CASE

Make sure your stakeholder believe in your stand by showing some tools that prove your case/reasons. This is one of my favorite tips which I learned back from college. I could never forget what our professor in Quality Control told us during our class, she said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it very well enough. - Albert Einstein. "

LEAD AND BE DOMINANT

Remember that you are the "moderator" in the team. As much as you can, be tough and do not let your team feel you are stressed and pressured. Your team are getting their strength from you. In your workplace, you are their number one source of inspiration. You are not just their manager, you are their leader, they absorb the same energy level that you give.

Authors note: The tips I've mentioned are also the things I learned as newbie in the industry. Every time I learn something new I jot it down immediately in my digital note. I would like to share it to other beginners out there who would like to pursue their career in project management, because I know how hard it is to begin empty handed. I've been in a really difficult situation as I was starting my career as Project Manager. The stress is there, the workload is overwhelming, the people you get to interact with is intimidating, knowing that they've been in the industry longer than you but then you are given the responsibility to help them. Work is just tough at the beginning, you need to be brave, you'll get used to it. Remember, "Choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life. " Wait for part 2 for more tips.

[nextnahas]

Blackberry curve twitter download

#Blackberry curve twitter download how to

#Blackberry curve twitter download install

#Blackberry curve twitter download software

Blender is basically “if it looks right, it is right”, even if some surfaces are clipping and objects are not perfectly solid. Everything is a mesh, so curved objects don’t have well defined features because they’re made out of flat sections. The consensus seems to be that Blender is pretty limited in terms of parametric design and constraints, which makes it fast and easy to build up and object but then difficult to change anything about it.

#Blackberry curve twitter download how to

For example, figuring out how to go from blender to model ready for CNC router to cut a 4’x 8′ sheet of MDF took some effort but saves so much time since I use the same program (blender) to create many different projects. And I do not have the time to get caught up unless it’s absolutely critical. But while I enjoy 3d modelling, it it a relatively small part of my overall projects.

#Blackberry curve twitter download software

I understand if you want to be *professional* then you must buy commercial software especially if that is what you do every day for a living. Solidworks/AutoCAD you deal with licensing and all kinds of non-sense.

#Blackberry curve twitter download install

This is anecdotal and hard to compare the skills of me v them, I really don’t have the time to do a large study on that sometimes you just go with personal experience.Īnd when I get a new desktop/laptop or want to show someone my design, I just do a `sudo apt install blender -y`. From personally experience, I am able to knock out a part much faster in blender vs solidworks or autocad even with people more experienced than me. “Some of us just want the part made” Exactly my point. But most are not making or pushing those decisions – they are plugged into a company with those already in place. But even there I see from academic papers algorithms and methods in Blender doing high level analysis. I don’t mean to take away from Engineers with a high level of understanding and who use expensive CAD software to do stress analysis. Considering I still have a job, I’d say they’re holding up well enough.Ĭraig, I apologize for coming through that way. My design ability and repair work is on the line every day. 3D printers see their best use when used in conjunction with other manufacturing technologies, parts, and materials, not when trying to replace them.Īlso, for the record, I do something along the lines of commercial/industrial maintenance for a living. I just feel like I see too many trying to make the printer be the end-all, be-all thing maker, when that’s a sub-par use of the technology. I’ve seen assemblies with the friggin’ WASHERS 3D printed. There IS something of an actual issue with a lot of these channels trying to print every single piece of something, and it’s obvious that, a lot of the time, it’s not for the challenge of doing so. It was a jab at the OP implying that 3D printing is somehow comparable in expense and difficulty to machine work because you “need” to know CAD, as if modern machining and design work in general doesn’t benefit heavily from the same.Īnd, no, I’m not ego stroking by criticizing something. That part wasn’t a jab at the guy making the pump. Posted in 3d Printer hacks Tagged PLA, pump, water pump Post navigation We’ve seen 3D printed pumps put to real work before, too, like this fertilizer dispenser. Instead, all the hard work is done on the CAD side of things. It’s a great example of how 3D printing can allow the creation of machines with complex geometry without the need for advanced machining skills. The design is on Onshape, for the curious. Turned with a drill at 1800 rpm, the pump is able to achieve a flow rate of 13 litres per minute, or a maximum head of 1.2 meters. Notably, no shaft seal is included, so the pump does leak a bit, but it’s not a major concern assuming you’re just pumping water and don’t mind spilling a bit of excess. There are a few ball bearings inside to allow the impeller to spin nicely, too, with hex head fasteners used to hold everything together and a long bolt used as the main impeller shaft. Gaskets are printed in pliable TPU to help seal the housings. The pump’s housings and impeller are all 3D printed in PLA, as well as the inlet which is designed for a 2L soda bottle to screw into. A great example is this centrifugal water pump that can really deliver the juice, courtesy of. Once upon a time, 3D printing was about churning out tiny Yodas and Pikachus, but these days, useful things are regularly 3D printed too.

[oh-my-moomin]

NGE: You Deserve Love

This is an analysis based solely on the og NGE anime series and not the movie or rebirth series so I won’t be mentioning those.

NGE is a psychological horror/apocalypse story dressed up as a mecha. This farce is only totally dropped in the last 2, even 3 episodes. This can make the ending jarring and seem in cohesive, but ultimately my understanding is that none of the ‘plot’ really matters. Seele doesn’t matter, where the angels come from doesn’t really matter, and the final battle doesn’t matter. This is a story exploring loss, the need for connection, loneliness, and humanity. We see this through not only the interactions of the human characters but also through the angels.

THE HUMANS

The Children

A defining trait of all the characters is that they are lonely. The isolation from human connection is brought on both by the high stress apocalypse they all live in, as well as the personal demons they face. The characters all attempt to create bonds with other people, but are held back by their insecurities, fear of vulnerability, and past traumas.

Let’s start with Shinji, as the main character. Having lost his mother at a young age, and being abandoned by this father, he was never able to feel secure. Therefore he takes on a people pleaser attitude, constantly apologizing. His want for validation (particularly from adults in his life) causes him to continue to take action that he doesn't want to, including piloting the EVA. His self hate and insecurity makes it hard for him to make and trust his own choices. So he relies on others to guide him. When this fails, when he doesn't get the love and validation he craves he tries to quite entirely. But this often leads to the people he cares about being hurt. He's trapped between a rock and hard place.

Asuka was also abandoned, however rather than craving support like Shinji, she chooses to live for herself. She craves independence. She needs to know that she is no longer a child that can be hurt and vulnerable. This is largely shown through both her overt sexuality, and her piloting the EVA. She must be in control of the EVA, she must have power, she must be able to prove herself as the best, the strongest. Because inside she still feels like that hurt desperate child, and that is what she hates most about herself. Unlike Shinji, Asuka is brash and rude, and she expects others to give her the same. She barks and expects you to bark back, but can’t always handle it. 

Both of these characters are constantly looking for connection, with both their peers and adults. While Asuka often pushes herself on to people, out of a need to be seen. Shinji cannot take active moves to make meaningful connections, and will shy away from people trying to connect. Asuka hates herself and needs to prove that others love her. Shinji hates himself and cannot imagine that people love him. 

The Adults

One of the running themes in the show is motherhood. Typically it is the mother that is expected to love and care for the child, to raise them, show unconditional love, give unwavering support. None of the characters have had this, Shinji and Asuka search for validation that they lost in adults in different ways. Unfortunately for them, none of the adults present are suitable to be parents. 

The show makes a point to show that the adult characters are all more complex than the children. They have lived longer and therefore had more time to make mistakes, to get stuck in toxic ideals, to ‘be problematic’. They are not concretely good or bad people (mostly), but rather the result of people who grew up in a post apocalyptic world, trying desperately to stop the salvage it, while also trying to make their own connections. Like the child characters, their past traumas make it harder for them to be more open, vulnerable, and weak, to form that human connection. 

I am going to focus on Misato and Ritsuko, since they act as foils when it comes to human connection.

Misato being left as a lone survivor to a terrible accident has left her scared both physically and mentally. Before this she had issues with her parents, as her father seemed to abandon his family in favour of work, leaving her mother devastated. Misato doesn't want to become like her mother, abandoned by a loved one, and she also doesn't want to be her father, a slave to work. To counter this she looks for easy connections, but she never wants to get too close.

When her relationship with Kaji was beginning to feel too real, she began to find flaws. His resemblance to her father was terrifying, so she broke it off. Similarly, when in scenes with Shinji, talking about his insecurities or his want to give up, she is hidden by shadow. She cannot be seen as weak, she cannot offer comfort, she cannot be a mother figure to Shinji. Other ways her searching for easy connection is her drinking beer, or eating take out. She searches for the most basic ways to fulfill her needs, so that she can focus on her main goal of defeating the angels. 

Ritsuko is also desperate to find human connection without vulnerability. By fully closing off the whole world she can have no weakness, something which she resents in Misato. She views herself as above the need for connection in that way, and would rather follow in her mothers foot footsteps as a scientist and a woman. 

She loved and admired her mother, and hated her. She wants to follow in her footsteps but also would hate to fail in the same ways. She saw how her mother failed to actually mother her, and chose to completely reject that part of herself. Instead she cares for cats, and uses those as a surrogate to having a child. She continues her mothers work as a scientist, constantly striving to improve. And when it comes to the ‘woman’ that her mother was, she knew a stubborn woman who focused solely on one man. So Ritsuko also focused on him, to the point of giving up her cat to her grandmother. Both women tried to create an easy connection with him, both felt that they were his equal, and that they found the one connection that mattered. When it was proven to them that they were a second (third) woman this caused them both to break down. For Ritsuko this meant that even though she closed off the whole world, except for one man, she was still too vulnerable. And her only response was to completely shut down. Because she had no one else.

All of the characters are constantly searching for this connection, trying to show affection without getting hurt. Trying to make sense of the end of the world while also making sense of interpersonal relationships. Their own inner demons getting in the way of honest connection. 

Rei

As a clone Rei is a particular case. She is aware that she is not a ‘person’, she isnt meant for human connection. Her isolation is so ingrained into her, planned before she is even ‘born’ so she feels no need to care for anyone except Ikari. She latches onto him, would do anything for him, and has no value in her life because she is aware that she is not real. 

However, she still has a human source, Shinjis mother. A human person, who also needed human connection. Rei, when given the chance, does care for people. Shinji is the first person to see her as a peer, and to treat her with kindness. With this start of forming connections, she begins to feel more human, to develop a further need to connect. Even if it's hard to fully separate from the man who created her.

THE ANGELS

The angels act as a foil to the human need for connection. While all of the human characters are lonely and searching for connection with each other, the angels are also lonely and trying to learn what that even means. 

There is no scene where the angels are working together, they are solitary, all having the same goal of reaching Adam, but incapable of planning together to achieve it. They instead try to create connection to humans, trying to bond and understand them, without knowing that their methods are harmful. 

I believe this can be first seen with the 12th angel. When Shinji is absorbed into the EVA, it is safe to say that the angel was able to understand the merging of human and EVA. This connection allowed Shinji to control the EVA to break free of the angel's shadow. The following month where Shinji is trapped within his EVA, is our first insight into what the human instrumentality project will be like, as well as the goals of the angels. 

Since angels cannot connect to each other, the 15th angel attempts to create connection by forcing itself into Asukas mind. It wants to understand her, her emotions, her thoughts, her connections, her love. For her this is a painful experience, akin to rape. She feels dirtied after it. But the attack is a beam of light, with holy music playing, what should be a calming experience. I believe it is fair to say that the angel cannot understand that it is putting her through pain, as it cannot understand any human experiences. Angels are incapable of understanding their own feelings/experiences/wants, and try to use humans as a study from which they can learn. 

The following angel confronts Rei about her loneliness. Instead of breaking into her mind through light, it directly entered her body. While talking with her, it questioned what loneliness was, trying to understand its own pain and isolation through understanding hers. Its solution is to merge with Rei, as it believes this would solve both problems. 

However, when she refuses, the angel then tries to find another source of connection. Rei cares about Shinji, as both a clone of his mother, and a friend as her own person. The angel can see that this connection is something that she finds precious and tries to take it for itself, as it cannot understand why Shinji wouldn’t feel the same. It cannot understand how complex human connections are, that it cannot simply take Reis form. However, it has learned what pain is, and how to communicate its own pain. As seen when Shinji attacks it. Whether this pain is physical or emotional doesn't matter, because it is the first pain that the angel could express.

The angels discovering what loneliness is acts as a way for the human pilots to begin to explore their own isolation in more depth. For better or worse.

THE FINAL MESSENGER

Our introduction to the final angel is him singing. He takes a human form, can fully communicate to other humans, and doesn’t immediately attack them. This is such a contrast to all other angels that it isn't immediately clear that he even is an angel. Kaworu's first words are (as per the netflix english subtitles)

“Arent songs great? Songs enrich the heart. They're the crowning achievement of Lilin culture” 

He loves humans, human culture, human lives, and the human world. He is the first angel who is able to show this. His ability to understand humans allows him to form human connections, and he does so with Shinji. 

Kaworu loved Shinji. He would seek out Shinji, take time to bond and communicate with him, and help Shinji open up. He wanted to be close with Shinji, and knew how to be gentle in ways that no other human or angel could. He was patient, because he had time. And Shinji was able to open up to him more than with any other character. Shinji  was able to take the initiative to ask to stay with him, to try and form that connection.

All the human characters are struggling with their own demons, with an apocalyptic world. The whole earth is at war and Shinji is in the front lines, surrounded by adults who may want to help him but ultimately can't. Saving everyone is a higher priority to saving one kid, especially when that kid is your strongest soldier. Throughout the series Shinji is given conditional love. It is only when he pilots the EVA, defeats the angels and saves the day that people give him validation. Then comes this boy, who is gentle and kind, who listens. And it's easy, its comfort, its understanding and unconditional love, and its exactly what Shinji has needed for the whole series. 

But as a messenger he could never stay, he's temporary and by the end of the episode he understands this. He still is driven to ‘Adam’, he has a mission, but instead he is confronted with Lilith. Kaworu understands that humans and angels cannot live together in harmony, only one can survive. Both Adam and Litlith were made in god's image, but only Adam could stay in the garden of Eden. Death and Life hold equal value to Kaworu, so he doesn't mind the sacrifice, he would rather die to protect humans, to protect Shinji. He can  also understand that this is difficult, this is murder, this is killing a friend. So he says “thank you” and he waits.

In other episodes when in a battle, Shinji is constantly being yelled at, told what to do, under constant pressure. But here there is just the same patient understanding that Kaworu has always shown him. No rush for him to take action, just time to process and grieve. Because Kaworu knows Shinji will make the hard choice and he waits, and he smiles, and he continues to love Shinji. 

The final angel came down as a messenger and said

“You are important. 

I want to talk to you, to know you. 

You are in pain, you are fragile and should be protected. 

You are worthy of my affection. 

I like you. I love you. I was born just so that I could meet you. 

Our kind cannot survive together, one of us must die. And you deserve to live. 

I will take this burden of death because you deserve a future. 

I am glad I could meet you, thank you. 

I know this is hard, and I know you need time. I will wait.

Thank you.”

That was the last message to humanity.

And because Shinji is human he says back

“We are the same. I love you too. If only one of us could have lived it should have been you. You are better than me. You should have survived.”

[trickster-archangel]

Forgive the Father

I know my two cents in the 911 and Buddie fandom might be literally nothing. But in this fandom I’ve quickly found some of the most amazing minds I’ve ever read on this hell of a site. Their meta and analysis literally blow my mind every time I open a two sentences post, and I’m forced to go back more than 25 years when our pioneer teacher in high school decided we needed to understand how to tear apart tv and cinema media and understand what the authors were really trying to tell without saying.

This, and also the whole literary arc of Buck and Eddie, and specifically Eddie’s backstory, development and issues, his place in the world, his warring towards himself and his past, everything about his life experience and his soul-crashing repression, have gripped me to such a degree that every episode is a punch in the gut, and I have to stop, breathe in, breathe out, and stop to avoid hyperventilating and preventing panic attacks. Until the day after, that’s it. 

Probably I identify too much with Eddie and I try to read his experience through mine, so this is why when I started reading the wave of spec about 5x17, I have been forced to understand what kind of confrontation to expect. I owe these messy thoughts to @eddiediass post and post, and to @extasiswings post.

Post continues under the cut.

All we know is that Eddie visits Texas, where he attempts to reconcile with his father. It was the word reconcile that set my brain into whirring mode, so I tried to take a step back and understand the context, which is much more complex than some comforting, cathartic view we can read in fanfics. A reconciliation implies two people having an argument, a disagreement, some sort of dichotomy about life-turning events or facts, the kind of things that can split forever two people, if not set right. It’s not a synonym for forgiveness, nor for apology: Eddie doesn’t go to El Paso to confront his father about an obvious fault he received, some kind of hurt, or a shitty childhood made of violence and repression. It’s obviously something we could get to watch, but given the nuances and the depth of the writing, I don’t see it likely to have a violent, brutal, bigot Ramon crushing baby Eddie queerness in cruelty. 

The issue is between Eddie and his father. Helena is never mentioned. The problem, the argument was something shared only between Ramon and Eddie, which is why I don’t think Eddie was raised in an abusive environment. I think we need to dig deeper (40 feet under).

(sorry for the lack of gifs and for the lack of episodes reference, but I’m writing out of sheer memory and on a google doc, so…)

The first time we witness someone in the firefam facing the Forgive the Father Issue is Hen, in Haunted. 

Hen’s father is an absent father, but not necessarily a bad father. Simply, Hen didn’t know anything about him, so she couldn’t love nor hate him, she just had this imaginary father she could write to like a diary, deciding to build a positive image of him and trying to suppress the abandonment hurt by making up a good memory to cling to. What would have Hen done if she’d had the chance to confront her father in reality and ask him for explanations? for reasons? why had he abandoned her and her mother? if he loved her or if she was just a faraway guilt?

Truth is, she never got the chance to reconcile with her father. He was in a coma when they met, and she was there just to take a life or death decision in his place. During all of her life, Hen’d had just her mother as a parental figure, while her father had always been just a ghost, an afterimage. There was no reconciliation because there had never been a real exchange: only Hen writing to her ghost father, and her father following her from afar like a ghost.

In the end, Hen won’t get an answer because she didn’t get acknowledgement from her father. No reconciliation is possible in the absence of a real dialogue. Hen and her father were both leading their own personal soliloquy.

Then we have Chimney. Just like his best friend, he has to deal with an absent father figure, who is here absent not in a physical sense, but in an emotional one. Chimney’s father is stifling and overbearing, to the point that his mother (the only parental figure he’s always managed to deal with in a caring, constructive way, is his mother, apart from the Lee) leaves him and raises Chimney alone in LA. His father didn’t decide to leave him like Hen’s: he’s actually the one who was left, to be honest. But he never tries to win Chimney back, he considers him a lost cause like his mother, and simply decides to consider him as a ghost.

Again, we cannot have a real reconciliation because it’s not really a real argument they have: Chimney and his father talk, unlike Hen and his father, they speak, but without communicating. Chimney’s words never reach his father, and the things his father tells him never acknowledge Chimney’s existence. His only son is Albert, at least until he too runs away. There was no possible reconciliation because there had never been a real confrontation, about anything: Chimney didn’t exist to his father.

In the end, Chimney won’t get an answer, either, because he didn’t get acknowledgement from his father. Again, no reconciliation is possible in the absence of a real communication. Chimney and his father were both leading their own personal monologue, each one talking on his own even in presence of the other. 

Both Hen and Chimney had issues with their respective father figures. Not a single one with their mothers, who had been the only existing parental figures in their lives.

Then, we get Buck Begins. I won’t try to analyze Buck’s relationship with his neglecting parents in depth, but the point is: now we have two parents, both present, both existing, both kind of acknowledging Buck’s existence. And yet, again we miss real communication and dialogue, to the point that both his mother and his father chose to amputate his personal history of a pivotal part of information, both about Daniel AND the reason why Buck was born. They talked, they spoke, but hid the truth. They never hurt Buck, not directly, not physically, but they maimed his self-esteem and built a terrible abandonment issue in him by belittling his whole existence as if his mere being alive was an insult to the dead son. Their only son, Daniel.

I think, from what we saw in the bike accident, that it was probably Margaret the one deciding to erase Daniel’s memory and all that had belonged to him, with Philip simply following her orders: he sort of wanted to cling to the memory, by keeping that old bike among trash and things, a guilty permission to his grieving. It was Margaret declaring the damnatio memoriae over Daniel. Moving away, probably also disappearing from all of their extended families’ radar to avoid any kind of mention. 

When Buck finds out the truth, he asks for reasons, just like Hen did. why erasing Daniel? was Buck ever even loved? was he ever enough just by being himself? In the end, Buck won’t get an answer, nor an acknowledgment of his existence and his right to exist as an individual. His parents won’t acknowledge their mistake, won’t make amends, going to therapy with him but in the end simply disappearing once again, relegating Buck once again in the realm of ghosts. They weren’t bad people, violent people, they didn’t hurt him, but they founded their whole parenthood on the absence. Absence of truth. Absence of dialogue. Absence of love. Not something done to him, more like something never done: loving him for who he was.

Buck, though, will get a reconciliation: we have a confrontation here, even if just this one. Love me anyway. Love me for who I am. He talks to his parents, they talk, but they miss a common ground of agreement. They don’t recognize the hurt, not completely, and they simply go back to ignoring him once the afterglow of their encounter fades out. Maddie keeps in touch with them, not Buck. They cannot build back a relationship because the actors on stage will keep shouting their reasons at each other, instead of talking.

He won’t get a reconciliation from his parents, but he’ll decide to get one from himself, at least as far as his relationship with his parents is concerned. Buck 3.0. He decides to love himself more than what his parents ever did or will manage to do. He decides to start healing by acknowledging on his own the wrong he had to undergo. He’s not fine, but he has started.

So what to expect from 5x17? 

Eddie’s situation is very different from Hen’s, Chimney’s and Buck’s. Eddie doesn’t deal with absent father/mother. On the contrary, his family is seen as quite strong bonded, an extended family made of different generations. The communication is present, they talk even too much, they express their opinions very loudly and fiercely, and there are a lot of arguments. Which leads obviously to the word reconciliation. The problem here is that Eddie tries to reconcile with his father. Father, singular. Not parents, plural. All of the arguments we witness are between Eddie and his parents. Chris’s upbringing, Eddie’s juggling between jobs, the LA moving, Shannon’s death. And both of his parents are quite vehement when expressing their disagreement or chafe, just like Eddie is. Also, his mother is frequently the one mostly berating him, so she looks like the focal point of Eddie’s belittling, just like in Buck’s situation.

So, why does Eddie try to reconcile with his father?

I thought we should look to other two characters who have faced the Forgive the Father Issue, even if not directly belonging to the 118: Maddie and Taylor. Yes, Taylor too.

Maddie’s report with the Buckleys is very different from Buck’s, and I might say hers even resembles Eddie’s relationship with his own parents: there is dialogue, there is confrontation, there is rage, there are arguments. At least until the moment she runs away to be with Doug and they cut her away, like another dead child, forgetting about her existence until she gets pregnant, thus performing her function and being a good, satisfying daughter.

That’s not the hurt, though. That’s not what brought Maddie to the point of insanity, that’s not the kind of hurt that erased her self-esteem and self-awareness bit by bit. 

It was the secret. Maddie’s parents, both of them, forced her to keep a secret too big for a 10 years old. Probably, as said, it came from Margaret, but we see in Buck Begins that it’s Philip lashing at Maddie and berating her for disclosing the truth: her mother is upset and desperate, because talking about the thing, makes the thing real, present, breathing among them. But it’s the father the one actually having the argument with Maddie. It’s her father’s commandment which she broke. It’s her father the one not acknowledging her reason for telling the truth, and trying again to impose his reasons to keep the secret.

Maddie was broken and split open at the seams, day after day, because of the secret. It was one of the reason why in the end she broke down, because it forced her to put on a mask, to play pretend, to live a parallel life where she didn’t have a brother named Daniel, where she didn’t mourn him, where Buck was born because loved and wanted, where her parents didn’t give orders under the pretense of a greater good, of some sort of inevitability, of the impossibility to turn back time and undo what had happened. They gambled her future by pretending the past never existed, but her brother was part of her past, and in a way they killed that part of Maddie too, alongside Daniel.

It could’ve also been a good reason, if it hadn’t been brought to the extreme consequences: they could’ve told Buck, sometime in the future, when he would've been more mature and ready to understand and accept. The problem is that they didn’t. The secret in itself wasn’t bad, the grieving in itself wasn’t bad. It was the method, and the motivation under the decision: to erase what couldn’t be undone. Maddie didn’t get closure, didn’t get reconciliation, because even if she still apparently talks to her parents, nothing good comes from this monologue. She cannot forgive herself, nor them.

The same happened with Taylor. Even if we don’t know a lot exactly of what happened, we know that one day she had her little, happy family, just like the Buckleys before Daniel fell ill. Then one day someone, Taylor’s mother in this case, died. And that thing was what put a wedge between her and her father: because she needed to believe him, but she also loved her mother and no one had a strong explanation for a possible suicide. Taylor had to endure a life without her mother, a mother she surely loved, and pretend either her father was a liar and a killer, or that her mother was a liar and a depressed suicide. Either way, someone between the two of them had lied to her, and she had to keep going with this secret: she went away, living with her aunt, changed her name, became someone else because it was impossible to keep the secret and the person she used to be had become unbearable.

She metaphorically had to die alongside her mother and her father in order to survive and move on, but this choice killed a part of herself, the one who used to live before her mother's death, and face a world where every familiar bond was hidden or smeared. In the end, she faced a final confrontation too, directly with the father, when she had to speak to grant him his parole.

And Taylor decided not to reconcile with her father: he had done nothing wrong to her, nothing bad, and was a loving father, for all we know. Just, he probably had killed her mother and forced Taylor to pretend it had never happened. The problem wasn’t something bad her father had done to her. The problem was if Taylor wanted to keep pretending and going on with a charade, or scream her reasons and her pain, and deny him the same thing he had denied her: freedom. She let the mask fall, both hers and her father’s, because if his own daughter refuses to acknowledge his plea of innocence, then no one can believe him. He must be someone else than what he pretended to be. 

Taylor leaves and her secret, this one at least, falls behind. She doesn’t reconcile with her father, because in the end his reasons weren’t strong enough to justify her silence and the keeping of a mask.

So what about Eddie? I personally think that being a parent, and a spouse, is terribly difficult and dangerous. Nobody teaches you how, you can only try your best and hope it’s enough. The most important thing, though, is trust. And trust is built on openness and dialogue, explanations, motivations, acknowledgement. Not on secrets, not on masks, not on play pretend. 

If Eddie will follow Maddie’s (Buck’s sister) and Taylor’s (Buck’s girlfriend) pattern, I suppose that he’ll have to face a final confrontation about some thing. A secret. A secret between Eddie and his father, not a disagreement, but something much bigger, a life turning event happened when he was too young to oppose and refuse, probably a kid, or a teen at most. Something his father forced him to keep secret, hidden, forgotten. He forced Eddie to kill that part of himself. That’s why I think it won’t be something bad his father did to him, if the pattern stays and I’m not seeing things. 

It wasn’t about just Eddie and Ramon, but there was someone else involved. Someone who was there and there wasn’t anymore. I’d say someone died, but since the older brother and the mother have been already been used, I cannot say who else could’ve been. Someone belonging to the family? Surely it was something traumatic, because that’s what Frank asked him to do. Face the first trauma with someone who could’ve understood it exactly.

The Buckleys were suffering and were traumatized, but they forgot Maddie was too. They thought she would’ve been better by pretending nothing had ever happened, and in the end no one healed. Same with Taylor and her father: we will never know, we don’t have any means to know if he really killed his wife, but what if he didn’t, and he ended up innocent in prison, without the love of his life, and without his daughter too? that first trauma brought along a ton more for the two survivors.

So what have Eddie and Ramon been through, together, that they now keep as a secret? what horrible weight is burdening Eddie since when he was a kid, forcing him to erase a part of his soul, denying who he really is, putting on a mask and going on toughing up, swallowing down the blood and the screams, and keeping the march? 

While I’m sure this is Eddie’s journey toward embracing his queerness (@yramesoruniverse is my eye-opener on every tiny detail, in this specific case, so I cannot add anything more than she has already done for years), I’m also sure it’s not simply about a boy he kissed, he loved, and that his father forced to leave behind, denying that part of himself. It might be much more brutal and desperate. Something which forced a part of Eddie to die alongside this person. The episode title is Hero Complex, so I wouldn’t put past the writers to put in some terrible, tragic accident in his past, where both his father and Eddie were involved too, and which is now their shared secret.

Finally (if you’ve read until here I’ll cook for you a real, homemade Italian pizza), about what @eddiediass and @extasiswings already beautifully stated, I can only offer my own experience as a proof. I won’t enter in details about my life because it’s a sad, messy, bloody story. But I am real, living proof that even when parents want the best, when they have the best intentions and want to protect their children from what they’ve been through, it’s not given that it’ll be 1. successful, and 2. the right thing to do. Because we are not our parents, and there’s not only one path, and also because I’ve learnt the hard way that when you’re so focused on not doing your parents’ mistakes, you’ll probably do something equally, spectacularly wrong, or even the same thing under another disguise.

I was 9 years old and my grandfather, my mom’s father, had just died. Terrible accident, brutal thing, traumatic, investigations dragging on for months and discovering secrets and lies. My life had already been quite horrible and traumatic, but that even made it spiral into real hell, for a series of fallouts. I remember my mother taking me apart and giving me The Speech, the first one of a series of Three Speeches which brutally destroyed my every hope in a future, in happiness and in normalcy (as a human being at least, because I had already had quite a sharp notion of the fact that even if I had been born with a female body, I wasn’t certainly female, but not even male, that I didn’t want to identify with any gender, that I liked boys and girls alike but didn’t want to kiss them, and my mother had simply shrugged and told me I was what I was, but I had to put on a dress for Sunday Mass, and shut the fuck up).

She told me: “Listen to me. Things have been horrible until now, but now they’ll grow worse, because your father won’t have any kind of restraint now. He’s totally unreliable, and a liability, which is worse. I’ll have to take this house and this family in my hands and man up, and be strong even if I am not. But I cannot do this alone. I need you to grow up. Now. I need you to be an adult, responsible, functioning, not as a mature kid but as a functional adult. I need you to step up at my side and be strong, be the other pillar of this family. I must lean on you, and you must be strong to support me when I break down. So you cannot have problems, and cannot be a whiny girlie. You shut up, tough up, grit your teeth, man up, and go forward. No cries, no whines. We don’t do that. We are strong, and strong people don’t cry. We don’t do that, only when people die. If no one dies, we don’t cry. You must put aside silly dreams, hopes, fantasies, wishes, take away your head from the clouds and be a responsible adult. The world is a cruel place, and soft people like you cannot survive out there. My father made me become strong, and now you have to become too, because I won’t be strong for long without him. So you must step in. The world is cruel, people are cruel. We die alone, we are always alone. Don’t trust anyone but your strength, and be strong for me, for us, for your sister, because we can count only on the two of us. Wash away all of these kid silliness because in the end it’ll only weaken you, and you must be strong.”

She wasn’t mean, she intended to protect me from the pain. She is weak, she still is. I’m still the strongest, always have been. I’ve scooped up from the ground my mom’s pieces more often than I can count. But this sacrificed forever that 9 years old kid. I am not strong, but I have my mask. I am not the person I am, and I’ll never be anymore because time is running out and I have more burdens now than ever before. I am not strong but I can pretend and keep this a secret, because that’s what someone I trusted and loved taught me…and when you are a kid, you look up to your only role model, even if broken and hurt. And you’ll keep going this way, unless you find someone on your path that shows you you have other options.

Being a parent is a complicated job. I don’t think Ramon wanted to hurt Eddie, nor that he was forcibly homophobic. I think he meant good, and ended up messing Eddie forever, cutting deep into his soul, and probably not even noticing it. If he’ll ever acknowledge the wrong he did, that will be revealed in two weeks.

My mother’s answer, when I confronted her some years ago, when we were already so much older and tired, was that she had no other choice, that it was her only option to protect me and herself. A tiny sacrifice to avoid a bigger hurt. I think she still doesn’t realize why I’m so messed up.

I wish Ramon will.

[samwisethewitch]

Cults? In my life? It’s more likely than you think.

In my last post, I talked about how the Law of Attraction and Christian prosperity gospel both use the same thought control techniques as cults. I’ve received several public and private replies to that post: some expressing contempt for “sheeple” who can be lead astray by cults, and others who say my post made them scared that they might be part of a cult without knowing it.

I want to address both of those types of replies in this post. I want to talk about what a cult really looks like, and how you can know if you’re dealing with one.

If you type the word “cult” into Google Images, it will bring up lots of photos of people with long hair, wearing all white, with their hands raised in an expression of ecstasy.

Most modern cults do not look anything like this.

Modern cultists look a lot like everyone else. One of the primary goals of most cults is recruitment, and it’s hard to get people to join your cause if they think you and your group are all Kool-Aid-drinking weirdos. The cults that last are the ones that manage to convince people that they’re just like everyone else — a little weird maybe, but certainly not dangerous.

In the book The Road to Jonestown: Jim Jones and Peoples Temple, author Jeff Guinn says, “In years to come, Jim Jones would frequently be compared to murderous demagogues such as Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson. These comparisons completely misinterpret, and historically misrepresent, the initial appeal of Jim Jones to members of Peoples Temple. Jones attracted followers by appealing to their better instincts.”

You might not know Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple by name, but you’ve probably heard their story. They’re the Kool-Aid drinkers I mentioned earlier. Jones and over 900 of his followers, including children, committed mass suicide by drinking Flavor Aid mixed with cyanide.

In a way, the cartoonish image of cults in popular media has helped real-life cults to stay under the radar and slip through people’s defenses.

In her book Recovering Agency: Lifting the Veil of Mormon Mind Control, Luna Lindsey says: “These groups use a legion of persuasive techniques in unison, techniques that strip away the personality to build up a new group pseudopersonality. New members know very little about the group’s purpose, and most expectations remain unrevealed. People become deeply involved, sacrificing vast amounts of time and money, and investing emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, and socially.”

Let’s address some more common myths about cults:

Myth #1: All cults are Satanic or occult in nature. This mostly comes from conservative Christians, who may believe that all non-Christian religions are inherently cultish in nature and are in league with the Devil. This is not the case — most non-Christians don’t even believe in the Devil, much less want to sign away their souls to him. Many cults use Christian theology to recruit members, and some of these groups (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) have become popular enough to be recognized as legitimate religions. Most cults have nothing to do with magic or the occult.

Myth #2: All cults are religious. This is also false. While some cults do use religion to recruit members or push an agenda, many cults have no religious or spiritual element. Political cults are those founded around a specific political ideology. Author and cult researcher Janja Lalich is a former member of an American political cult founded on the principles of Marxism. There are also “cults of personality” built around political figures and celebrities, such as Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Donald Trump. In these cases, the cult is built around hero worship of the leader — it doesn’t really matter what the leader believes or does.

Myth #3: All cults are small fringe groups. Cults can be any size. Some cults have only a handful of members — it’s even possible for parents to use thought control techniques on their children, essentially creating a cult that consists of a single family.  There are some cults that have millions of members (see previous note about Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses).

Myth #4: All cults live on isolated compounds away from mainstream society. While it is true that all cults isolate their members from the outside world, very few modern cults use physical isolation. Many cults employ social isolation, which makes members feel separate from mainstream society. Some cults do this by encouraging their followers to be “In the world but not of the world,” or encouraging them to keep themselves “pure.”

Myth #5: Only stupid, gullible, and/or mentally ill people join cults. Actually, according to Luna Lindsey, the average cult member is of above-average intelligence. As cult expert Steven Hassan points out, “Cults intentionally recruit ‘valuable’ people—they go after those who are intelligent, caring, and motivated. Most cults do not want to be burdened by unintelligent people with serious emotional or physical problems.” The idea that only stupid or gullible people fall for thought control is very dangerous, because it reinforces the idea that “it could never happen to me.” This actually prevents intelligent people from thinking critically about the information they’re consuming and the groups they’re associating with, which makes them easier targets for cult recruitment.

So, now that we have a better idea of what a cult actually looks like, how do you know if you or someone you know is in one?

A good rule of thumb is to compare the group’s actions and teachings to Steven Hassan’s BITE Model. Steven Hassan is an expert on cult psychology, and most cult researchers stand by this model. From Hassan’s website, freedomofmind.com: “Based on research and theory by Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Edgar Schein, Louis Jolyon West, and others who studied brainwashing in Maoist China as well as cognitive dissonance theory by Leon Festinger, Steven Hassan developed the BITE Model to describe the specific methods that cults use to recruit and maintain control over people. ‘BITE’ stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.”

Behavior Control may include…

Telling you how to behave, and enforcing behavior with rewards and punishments. (Rewards may be nonphysical concepts like “salvation” or “enlightenment,” or social rewards like group acceptance or an elevated status within the group. Punishments may also be nonphysical, like “damnation,” or may be social punishments like judgement from peers or removal from the group.)

Dictating where and with whom you live. (This includes pressure to move closer to other group members, even if you will be living separately.)

Controlling or restricting your sexuality. (Includes enforcing chastity or abstinence and/or coercion into non-consensual sex acts.)

Controlling your clothing or hairstyle. (Even if no one explicitly tells you, you may feel subtle pressure to look like the rest of the group.)

Restricting leisure time and activities. (This includes both demanding participation in frequent group activities and telling you how you should spend your free time.)

Requiring you to seek permission for major decisions. (Again, even if you don’t “need” permission, you may feel pressure to make decisions that will be accepted by the group.)

And more.

Information Control may include…

Withholding or distorting information. (This may manifest as levels of initiation, with only the “inner circle” or upper initiates being taught certain information.)

Forbidding members from speaking with ex-members or other critics.

Discouraging members from trusting any source of information that isn’t approved by the group’s leadership.

Forbidding members from sharing certain details of the group’s beliefs or practice with outsiders.

Using propaganda. (This includes “feel good” media that exists only to enforce the group’s message.)

Using information gained in confession or private conversation against you.

Gaslighting to make members doubt their own memory. (“I never said that,” “You’re remembering that wrong,” “You’re confused,” etc.)

Requiring you to report your thoughts, feelings, and activities to group leaders or superiors.

Encouraging you to spy on other group members and report their “misconduct.”

And more.

Thought Control may include…

Black and White, Us vs. Them, or Good vs. Evil thinking.

Requiring you to change part of your identity or take on a new name. (This includes only using last names, as well as titles like “Brother,” “Sister,” and “Elder.”)

Using loaded languages and cliches to stop complex thought. (This is the difference between calling someone a “former member” and calling the same person an “apostate” or “covenant breaker.”)

Inducing hypnotic or trance states including prayer, meditation, singing hymns, etc.

Using thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thinking. (“If you ever find yourself doubting, say a prayer to distract yourself!”)

Allowing only positive thoughts or speech.

Rejecting rational analysis and criticism both from members and from those outside the group.

And more.

Emotional Control may include…

Inducing irrational fears and phobias, especially in connection with leaving the group. (This includes fear of damnation, fear of losing personal value, fear of persecution, etc.)

Labeling some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, low-vibrational, or wrong.

Teaching techniques to keep yourself from feeling certain emotions like anger or sadness.

Promoting feelings of guilt, shame, and unworthiness. (This is often done by holding group members to impossible standards, such as being spiritually “pure” or being 100% happy all the time.)

Showering members and new recruits with positive attention — this is called “love bombing.” (This can be anything from expensive gifts to sexual favors to simply being really nice to newcomers.)

Shunning members who disobey orders or disbelieve the group’s teachings.

Teaching members that there is no happiness, peace, comfort, etc. outside of the group.

And more.

If a group ticks most or all of the boxes in any one of these categories, you need to do some serious thinking about whether or not that group is good for your mental health. If a group is doing all four of these, you’re definitely dealing with a cult and need to get out as soon as possible.

These techniques can also be used by individual people in one-on-one relationships. A relationship or friendship where someone tries to control your behavior, thoughts, or emotions is not healthy and, again, you need to get out as soon as possible.

Obviously, not all of these things are inherently bad. Meditation and prayer can be helpful on their own, and being nice to new people is common courtesy. The problem is when these acts become part of a bigger pattern, which enforces someone else’s control over your life.

A group that tries to tell you how to think or who to be is bad for your mental health, your personal relationships, and your sense of self. When in doubt, do what you think is best for you — and always be suspicious of people or groups who refuse to be criticized.

[wingodex]

The Old Guard Speech Patterns Analysis

I made a post on the speech patterns of the main characters in The Old Guard, and a lot of people seemed interested in it, so I’ve cleaned up and clarified the rest of my notes. What I’ve looked at specifically here is mostly related to syntax, so grammar and sentence structure. I’ve vaguely looked at pragmatics, which has to do with how context contributes to meaning, and semantics, which deals with the meaning of words, phrases and sentences. I’ve also looked at sociolinguistics, which has to do with the effect of society on language, but I want to be upfront in saying that it’s not my personal area of interest so my knowledge is lacking there. On that same point, I have no formal linguistics training, I’m just into conlanging and everything I know about linguistics is self taught. For each of the characters I’ve talked about contraction usage, colloquialisms, phrases, verb and verb tense usage, ellipses, sentence composition, adjective and adverb frequency, discourse markers and fillers, profanity, vocabulary(ish), and questions.

You can also find all of this on ao3.

Couple of disclaimers to start: while this is obviously a great tool for fic writing, and can help you get a feel for the way that the characters speak in the movie, I’m asking non-Black writers to be very careful about the way you use some of this information when it comes to Nile. When Nile speaks, she uses a lot of colloquial/vernacular language, and while she doesn’t speak AAVE in the movie, her syntax does contain vernacular features. The history of transcribing colloquial language and vernacular dialects—African American/Black English in particular—is racist, classist and ableist. Your decision to write in colloquial language or to incorporate elements of Black English, rather than using Standard English, into Nile’s dialogue can potentially continue a tradition of racial othering if you’re not wary and conscious. Colloquial language in written form is often used to imply a lack of intelligence, a lack of education or a lower class. Be especially considerate of transcribing colloquial reductions like “wanna,” “gotta,” etc. Avoid eye-dialect at all cost, please, I am begging you. In general, the best way to transcribe dialects is through rhythm of prose, syntax, idioms/figures of speech and vocabulary. Even if you rely on those techniques for Nile, I’m still advising the utmost caution due to the complexity of syntax of AAVE and other dialects. For those unfamiliar with AAVE, I go into more detail about it here. If you do decide to use vernacular language for Nile, I’m going to insist you look into copula deletion/zero copula in AAVE outside of this post. It’s usage is very complex and specific. If you decide to use colloquial language for her to really take advantage of the intelligent way that she uses style-shifting in the movie then, at the very least, remember that the other characters (with the exception of Nicky) also use colloquial language frequently in the movie as well. If Nile is the only one in your fic using colloquial language, that’s a problem.

Most of the contextual analysis as it relates to sociolinguistics is based on my own speculation and interpretation of all the data I’ve collected. They contain my own personal biases and are influenced by my own experiences. If you have another interpretation of any of this, I’m absolutely interested in hearing it. Also, there is simply not enough data for any of my observations to be definitive, especially for Joe and Nicky. The two of them combined say around the same number of sentences as Booker, and he only says half as many sentences as Andy. There are literally verb tenses/aspects that not a single person uses in the whole movie. It’s also important to note that I am fallible, and while I do think most of this is accurate, I probably fucked up and missed something or miscounted! More than once! In some cases, I was only able to find one example of something and while I’ve included those observations, they are in no way indicative of a pattern, so don’t view them as strict rules.

I threw around a lot of jargon in this, and there wasn't really an easy way to avoid doing that while talking about most of this stuff. Descriptions are provided throughout the post. I've done my best to define all the more complex and lesser-known concepts, and to provide specific examples from the movie but feel free to reach out if you're unsure about any of it. Basic English grammar things that will be helpful to know to understand all of this post: parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, determiners, interjections), clauses (subject + predicate), tense–aspect–mood for verb conjugation (in English we have: past and non-past; perfective, imperfective, and progressive; and indicative, imperative, and subjunctive), phrase structure, auxiliary verbs, phrasal verbs, wh-movement (who, what, when, where, why, how) and sentence sequencing (in English it’s SVO, or subject-verb-object).

On ellipsis: for Andy, Nile and Booker (and Joe, a little bit), the types of ellipses I focused on were mostly the types that you only see in spoken colloquial English. For Nicky, I talked a lot more about further classification of ellipses that do sometimes apply to the other four, but aren’t as noticeable. 

For phrases, I mostly included idioms and expressions to avoid listing every single phrase in the movie. I generally avoided noun phrases (with a few exceptions), and I don't think I mention any adverb phrases. 

For my own purposes, I’ve decided to define fillers as discourse markers without lexical content that are used to indicate that the pause while speaking is only temporary. The rest of the discourse markers use standard classification.

Thank you to both @disregardandfelicity and @youknowthegirls for looking over this post for me!

Andy

Andy uses every contraction for auxiliary verbs and personal pronouns (e.g. I’m, you’ve, it’s, etc). I mean, she actually doesn't in the movie, but she comes so close that I feel confident in saying she would use all the others. The Wikipedia page for English Auxiliary Verbs has a great chart for contractions. Of the characters, she's literally the only one who does this with this level of consistency.

Her contraction usage isn't limited to personal pronouns. She uses contractions with demonstrative, interrogative, relative and indefinite pronouns. She also uses contractions with "there" and "where", and presumably with “when” and “how” although there are no examples of that in the movie. She uses contractions with negative modal verbs.

Andy uses both the simple future and the more colloquial going-to future construction at various points in the movie. She seems to have a preference for going-to future, and the only time she uses the simple future is in her dramatic opening monologue and when she’s trying to reassure Nile. Otherwise, she sticks to going-to construction.

Simple future: “Will this time be the one?”, “Me and those three men in there will keep you safe.”

Going-to future: “And you’re going to help us.”

Andy also typically uses the colloquialism “gonna” when using going-to future construction. When she uses “going to” instead, it’s during moments of sincerity. As mentioned, she also iconically uses them both in the same sentence.

"I knew this was gonna happen", "You think knowing is gonna make you sleep better at night?"

“You’re not a Marine anymore. They’re going to lock you up.”, “When we leave a footprint in the sand, in the snow, in the ether, you’re going to sweep it.”

“You’re going to protect us from those who want to put us in cages, and you’re gonna help us find those jobs that are best suited to us.”

Andy uses the verb “have” and the phrasal verb “have got” interchangeably, and with no real pattern. Important note: I am only referring to the verb “to have” in the present tense, not when "have" is used as an auxiliary. She doesn’t seem to use “have got” in the negative (i.e. “haven’t got” vs “don’t have”).

“We have to find Copley.”, “I have the new one.”

“You’ve got blood in your hair.” “He’s got Joe and Nicky.”

“We don’t have all the answers, but we do have purpose.”

Andy also uses the colloquialism “gotta” in sentences where she uses “have got” with the infinitive “to”. When she does this, she usually uses contracted have/has. Occasionally she drops the auxiliary.

"You’ve gotta feel it, Nile.”  "There's gotta be a price."

Andy drops the auxiliary when she says, "We gotta go" instead of “We’ve gotta go” and “Sometimes you gotta work with people you don’t wanna eat with” instead of “Sometimes you’ve gotta..”

Andy uses the colloquialism “wanna” in the place of “want to”.

“Well, sometimes you gotta work with people you don’t wanna eat with.” “You really wanna do this, kid?”

Andy incorrectly uses the object pronoun “me” like a true native English speaker

“Me and those three men in there will keep you safe.”

Andy seems to generally say “Yeah” but she says “Yes” when she really means it. She also says “Mm hmm.”

Andy uses several discourse markers throughout the movie. Discourse markers are words that are used to connect, organize and manage sentences while speaking. Andy uses discourse markers to start sentences, as responses, as interjections, etc. The discourse markers that Andy uses are:

Sentence openers: actually, so, come on, here, look, listen, now, oh, well, you know,

Sentence closers: I guess, maybe, right, 

Responses: yeah

Interjections: hey

Connection: to be honest

Andy doesn’t use any fillers. Instead, she pauses and repeats herself as needed.

“Remember what it... what it was like to feel unbreakable.”

Of all the characters, Andy uses the imperative mood the most (throughout the movie Andy tells someone to do something 35 times using this mood)

When Andy repeats herself for emphasis, she usually does it in pairs. The only exception is when she says “why?” three times to Booker in the scene with Copley

Andy uses ellipses, which is when words are omitted from a sentence and the sentence can still be understood. This isn’t particularly noteworthy in what it says about her speech patterns, as everyone uses elliptical construction. It’s just part of how speech works, how dialogue works and how writing works. It’s a feature of English, spoken and written, rather than an anomaly. I do feel it’s worth mentioning though, because I’m going to talk a lot about some specific kinds of ellipses (null subject, null auxiliary and zero copula) that are only found in colloquial and spoken language. For more about elliptical construction, see the Nicky section.

Andy uses noun and verb ellipses when she says, “I’ve been here before... over and over again, and each time the same question.” 

Andy uses answer ellipsis. That means that when she answers questions, she often speaks in sentence fragments rather than full sentences.

[Who’s gonna fly the plane?] “We don’t need a pilot” instead of “[Nobody is going to fly the plane.] We don’t need a pilot.”

Andy occasionally uses sentences with a truncated null subject (i.e. she doesn’t use subject pronouns), but not as frequently as the other characters. 

“Can’t wait” instead of “I can’t wait.”

Andy frequently uses null auxiliary construction and zero copula when asking questions that normally use subject-auxiliary inversion. This means that she will drop the leading auxiliary verb. For more information about zero copula, see Nile.  

Andy uses “You found Copley?” instead of “Have you found Copley?” and “Everyone still with me?” instead of “Is everyone still with me?”

When asking questions, Andy typically uses either the method described above or intonation if she can get away with it. However, she does still ask yes-no questions without dropping the auxiliary. Andy is also one of the only characters to use a disjunctive question. In contrast to the disjunctive (which is often condescending), Andy is also one of the only characters polite enough to use an indirect question.  

Intonation: “Joe and Nicky?”

Disjunctive: “You don’t speak Russian, do you?”

Indirect: “Would you like me to take one for you?”

Andy doesn’t use the subordinating conjunction “that” at any point in the movie.

“Last time I checked, you had to be American to be in the CIA” instead of “Last time that I checked...”

Andy says “What the...” when she’s confused.

Andy makes a humming sound when she’s pleased that’s transcribed as “Mmm!”. Interesting to note that every time she makes this sound, it’s in response to Nicky.

Profanity used by Andy: asshole, fuck, goddamn, motherfucker, shit, shitty

Phrases, idioms and expressions used by Andy: bend it to [your] will, broke [a promise], changes nothing, come on, do the same, enough of this, for all I care, get some sleep, go big or go home, going out for a bit, gotta go, last time I checked, let’s, next time, now and always, on board, play dead, set up, straight to [something], tie off, to be honest, welcome back, what [he] said, whatever it takes, work out

Unrelated to word count or time spent speaking, Andy says more sentences than any other character. She says more than twice as many sentences as Booker and four times as many sentences as Joe and Nicky. Nile says a little less than 2/3 as many sentences as Andy. 

Sentence composition**: 57% of Andy’s sentences are simple sentences, 31% are sentence fragments, 5% are compound sentences, 6% are complex sentences, and 1% are compound-complex sentences.

Languages spoken on-screen: English

Adjectives and adjective phrases appear in 13% of Andy’s sentences. Adverbs and adverb phrases appear in 9% of Andy’s sentences.

Andy is very consistent in her speech. She doesn’t style-shift much and almost exclusively speaks in a colloquial style of Standard American English. There are two exceptions to this: when she was talking to the tourists in Marrakesh, she was overly polite; and when she was dealing with Copley, she enunciated herself far more and was less likely to use contractions. When I say that Andy speaks Standard English, what I mean is that she speaks the dialect of English which has undergone the most regularization and standardization. It’s the one associated with public communication, the one that's used in commerce and government, and the one that has the most institutional support and sanction. Andy is very familiar and comfortable in this dialect, to the point where she even uses common grammar mistakes that native speakers do. Her speech is very casual. I would say that Andy has spent a significant amount of time recently in the United States or Canada, and I also suspect that English is the modern language that she is most comfortable in. I think that Andy has likely spent a lot of time speaking casually with other English native speakers and that her grasp of the language was formed without any kind of formal language training. Andy doesn’t use much descriptive language, and her sentences are typically short and clear. While I think Andy does read a little bit, it’s had very little impact on her speech patterns. I doubt she reads any kind of serious formal writing, or academic works. 

Nile

Nile uses every contraction for auxiliary verbs and personal pronouns (e.g. I’m, you’re, it’s, etc). She also uses them with other nouns and names. Nile is very deliberate about contraction usage. For the most part, in casual speech, she uses contractions, although she does use a lack of contractions to express disbelief or for emphasis. Nile also uses a lack of contractions to show condescension or disapproval. When she’s trying to be authoritative, she’s less likely to use contractions. When she wants to make sure she’s understood, she also doesn’t use contractions.

“I am not jumping from a plane!” “You do not listen to her, you listen to me.”

“We are looking for this man. He has killed many of our people and many of yours.”

Nile uses contractions with demonstrative, interrogative, relative and indefinite pronouns. She also uses contractions with "there", "where", “why” and “how.” She uses contractions with negative modal verbs.

Nile doesn’t use the contraction “y’all” in the movie. In fact, she specifically doesn’t use it.

“How are you all in my dreams?”

Nile uses both the simple future and the colloquial going-to future construction at various points in the movie. Like with contractions, Nile is less likely to use colloquialisms when she’s serious or trying to be authoritative. I think it’s especially poignant when she uses it to express bravery (with Booker). Nile always uses the colloquialism “gonna” when using going-to future construction. 

Simple future: “I’m the one who will walk out of there, one way or another.”

Going-to future: “People that are gonna worry.”

Nile uses the verb “have” and the phrasal verb “have got” interchangeably, however she has a very strong preference for “have got”

“You have my phone?”

“I got people that love me,” “You got a satellite link?”

Nile also uses the colloquialism “gotta” in sentences where she uses “have got” with the infinitive “to”. When she does this, she always uses null auxiliary construction (see below for more details).

“We gotta get out of here!”

Nile uses the colloquialism “wanna” in the place of “want to”.

“I just really wanna hear my mom’s voice one more time.”

Nile truncates “trying to” as “tryna”.

“I’m tryna save you, man!”

Nile truncates “out of” as “outta”

Nile uses a lot of discourse markers. She uses more discourse markers than any of the other characters, although Booker comes very close. Discourse markers are words that are used to connect, organise and manage sentences while speaking. Nile uses discourse markers to start sentences, as responses, as interjections, etc. The discourse markers that Nile uses are:

Sentence openers: so, well, wait, here, yeah, now

Sentence closers: or something, maybe, you know, okay, man

Interjections: come on, what, no way

Responses: yeah

Nile uses some fillers when speaking, however she doesn’t use them often. The fillers she uses are: uh, yeah

While Nile does occasionally use the imperative mood, she’s far more likely to give commands based on intonation alone, rather than syntax.

Intonation: “You do not listen to her, you listen to me,” “We gotta get out of here!”

Imperative: “Land this plane.”

Nile uses elliptical construction when speaking, which means that when words are omitted from a sentence, the sentence can still be understood.  Again, this in and of itself is not very noteworthy, see Nicky for more details. 

“South side of Chicago, a million different ways we could’ve went left.”

She also uses answer ellipsis, meaning that when answering questions, she speaks in sentence fragments.

Answer ellipsis: [You have someone?] “Just my family” instead of “[I have] just my family.”

Nile frequently uses null subject elliptical construction. When using null subject construction, she drops personal pronouns.

“Talked to Copley. Said he could fix it.” instead of “I talked to Copley. He said he could fix it.”

Nile’s use of ellipsis is mostly characterized by her usage of null auxiliary, which is when she drops auxiliary verbs from sentences. The way she does this is very distinct and she’s the only character who speaks like this. While the other characters who use null auxiliary construction do so in the specific context of asking questions, Nile’s usage is more complicated.

Like the others, Nile frequently uses null auxiliary construction and zero copula when asking questions that normally use subject-auxiliary inversion, but unlike the others, she also sometimes drops the auxiliary in wh- questions. For more on zero copula, see below.

"You gonna be okay?" "So, you good guys or bad guys?" 

“Where you taking me?”

Outside of asking questions, Nile also occasionally uses both null auxiliary construction and the zero copula. She is the only character who does this (Andy does this, but only with one specific word/phrase. Nile's usage is less restrictive). Zero copula is a linguistic phenomena where the subject is joined to the predicate without marking that relationship (i.e. there’s no verb). In English, the main copula is the verb “to be”, so zero copula in English describes situations where inflections of “to be” are omitted. When the characters use null auxiliary construction to omit the inflected forms of “to be” while asking questions, they are using the copula deletion. 

In the above example questions, all of them are examples of copula deletion as they are omitting inflections of the verb "to be"

When Nile says “I got people that love me”, she uses null auxiliary construction to omit the auxiliary “have”. Nile always drops the auxiliary “have” when using the “have got” form.

When Nile says “This the shit you into?” she’s actually using the zero copula twice. You’ll notice that she’s missing the leading “is” and in the dependent clause, she’s missing the “are (“Is this the shit you’re into?” in Standard English).

At one point in the movie, Nile includes a further truncated null subject, where she doesn’t use both the subject and the auxiliary verb. Joe does something similar in the present tense.

Nile says “Killed in action when I was eleven” instead of “He was killed in action when I was eleven.”

When asking questions, outside of wh- questions, Nile usually relies on intonation or dropping the auxiliary from subject-auxiliary inversion questions as described above. She does occasionally use inversion for yes/no questions without dropping the auxiliary. 

Intonation: “You have my phone?”

Indirect: “So... you’re even older than him.”

As the audience surrogate, Nile asks the most questions in the movie (she asks 69 questions LMAO)

Another way that Nile formalizes her speech is by inserting the subordinating conjunction “that” into sentences where they would normally be omitted.

“And that was a blank that you shot me with.” “But... you said that we were immortal.”

Nile says “Uh uh” to mean “no” or “don’t even think about it”

Phrases, idioms and expressions used by Nile: a little help, backed down, brains of [the] outfit, come on, follow the money, gave [them] up, honest-to-God, how the hell, what kind of [noun], killed in action, let’s go, move on, never hurts to, no way, one more time, one way or another, roger that, sit your ass down, some bullshit, son of a bitch, stay tight, steal away, went left, what’s up (greeting), 

Profanity used by Nile: ass, bitch, bullshit, damn, fuck, hell, shit

Sentence composition**: 60% of Nile’s sentences are simple sentences, 30% are sentence fragments, 3% are compound sentences, 6% are complex sentences and 1% are compound-complex sentences.

Adjectives and adjective phrases appear in 18% of Nile’s sentences. Adverbs appear in 4% of her sentences. Nile doesn’t use any adverb phrases.

Languages spoken on-screen: English, Pashto

Of all the characters, Nile’s use of English is the most deliberate. While the others are obviously fluent and capable in English, Nile’s use of style-shifting throughout the movie demonstrates a mastery of the language that the other characters simply don’t have. The way that she shifts between formal and colloquial language for emphasis, for clarity, to express disbelief or disapproval, to act authoritatively, to appear casual and friendly, and to invite others to engage with her, speaks to what she is capable of by her word and syntax choices. All of this is obviously enhanced by her tone, her cadence, her pitch, her volume and her speaking speed. 

When Nile speaks, she doesn’t speak in AAVE. That being said, her speech does contain vernacular features. The two elements of Nile’s syntax that are most noticeable are her use of the zero copula and her deletion of “have” in situations where it can be contracted (to clarify: using copula deletion is not necessarily an indicator of AAVE. When the other characters use the zero copula, they are not speaking AAVE. The subtle differences in the context of their usage of copula deletion is what makes Nile’s speech distinctly Black). Some of Nile’s word choices and noun phrases are also reflective of the typical speech of Black people, as pointed out to me by this anon. It’s very likely that Nile can speak AAVE, but doesn’t in the movie. She was raised by two Black parents in a very residentially segregated city, and while Nile didn’t specify the neighborhood she grew up in (you can make some guesses to the general area based on how she talks about it, but that’s not quite the same), Chicago’s South Side is predominantly Black, so the people she was around, the place she attended school and the church she went to were all likely predominantly Black as well. Due to the fact that Standard English is the language taught in public schools in the United States, Nile has obviously also developed a fluency in that dialect as well and can probably code switch between the two dialects. The fact that she doesn’t speak AAVE in the movie isn’t particularly unusual. Society is largely hostile towards Black people speaking AAVE, so language self-policing becomes a survival tool. Nile had also just spent an indefinite amount of time in the US military, which has its own style which has its own style of speaking as well which she would have been using. And then she basically got kidnapped by mostly white people, some of whom have noticeable accents, so having her speak AAVE would’ve been an odd character choice, but not totally implausible.

The way that Nile switches between formal and colloquial English is a type of code switching that I would honestly refer to more as style-shifting. Because she isn’t actually speaking AAVE, I can’t say how the dialect factors into her speech patterns. I think it’s possible that Nile’s ability to style-shift between formal and informal language could have been an ability that she developed as a result of needing to code switch between AAVE and Standard English in an educational environment. I do want to make it very clear however, that when I’m talking about Nile style-shifting, it has very little bearing on the vernacular features of her speech, but rather the colloquial features like contractions, verb choice, ellipsis and her use of phrasal verbs. It’s possible that she uses code switching in the same way, however we don’t have evidence of that in the movie.

Booker

Booker uses most contractions, but not all, and with much less consistency than Andy or deliberate purpose like Nile. He uses contractions for auxiliaries and their inflected forms for personal pronouns. When speaking casually, he uses contractions, but when he’s upset, he uses them far less consistently. He doesn’t use contractions with the past tense inflected form of have (i.e. “had”).

Booker uses contractions with demonstrative, interrogative, relative and indefinite pronouns. He also uses contractions with "there", "where" and “how. He uses contractions with negative modal verbs.

Booker uses both the simple future and the going-to future construction at various points in the movie. He doesn’t seem to have a preference either way.

Simple future: “They will get to learn your secret.”

Going-to future: “It’s gonna take time.”

Booker always uses the colloquialism “gonna” when using going-to future construction.

Booker doesn’t seem to use the phrasal verb “have got” but I could only find one instance of him using the verb “to have” in the present tense, so this isn’t definitive either way. If I had to take a guess, I’d say that, like Andy, he uses “to have” and “have got” interchangeably.

Even though Booker speaks less than Nile and Andy, he uses close to the same amount of discourse markers as them, meaning that they appear far more regularly in his speech. Discourse markers are words that are used to connect, organize and manage sentences while speaking. Booker uses discourse markers to start sentences, as responses, as interjections, etc. The discourse markers he uses are:

Sentence openers: come on, hey, oh, well, listen, I mean, ooh (expressing pleasure), yeah

Sentence closers: right, of course

Responses: yeah, alright

Interjections: hey, ow! (expressing victory)

Connections: by the way, tell you what

Of all the characters, Booker uses the most fillers when speaking. The fillers that he uses are: oh, uh, um, yeah 

Booker pauses and repeats himself as needed. He only does this when he’s upset. Otherwise, he seems to use fillers instead.

“Everyone you love is gonna... is gonna suffer and is gonna die."

When Booker repeats himself for emphasis, he always does it in pairs.

Booker often uses elliptical construction, and the most frequent type seems to be null auxiliary construction. He does use other types of ellipses though (For more about ellipsis, see Nicky). 

“Just because we keep living doesn’t mean we stop hurting.”

Booker uses answer ellipsis, but almost to the point of incomprehensibility. Dude just gives the bare minimum. That means that when he answers questions, he speaks in sentence fragments rather than full sentences.

Answer ellipsis: [You found Copley?] “Nothing, but dead ends” instead of “[I found] nothing but dead ends.”

Booker frequently uses sentences with a truncated null subject (i.e. he doesn’t use subject pronouns).

“Lost the plot after that” instead of “I lost the plot after that”

Booker frequently uses null auxiliary construction and zero copula when asking questions that normally use subject-auxiliary inversion. For more information about zero copula, see Nile.

Booker says “You good?” instead of “Are you good?” and “You have someone?” instead of “Do you have someone?”

When asking questions, Booker almost always uses either the method described above, or intonation. The only time Booker asks a question without dropping the auxiliary is when he says “Are you all right, boss?” to Andy in the cave. 

Intonation: “Oh, she gave it back?”

Booker doesn’t generally use the subordinating clause “that,” but he will sometimes.

“What I do know is she was alone for a long time before she found anyone like her.”

“And they will tell you... that you don’t love them.”

At two separate points in the movie, Booker references Elizabethan literature. “Misery loves company” is from Dr. Faustus by Marlowe and “That way madness lies” is from King Lear by Shakespeare

Phrases, expressions and idioms used by Booker: all in, by the way, calm down, change of clothes, come on, dead ends, give [her] time, give me your hand, how’s it going?, I’ll see you soon, in the open, leave no footprints, let’s go, lost the plot, moving out, misery loves company, reach out, stick to the plan, take time, tell you what, what’s going on, won’t hurt

Profanity used by Booker: shit, putain de merde

Sentence composition**: 59% of Booker’s sentences are simple sentences, 24% are sentence fragments, 3% are compound sentences, 9% are complex sentences, 1% are compound-complex sentences and 4% are not in English

Adjectives and adjective phrases appear in 16% of Booker’s sentences. Adverbs and adverb phrases appear in 8% of Booker’s sentences. 

Languages spoken on-screen: English, French, Italian

We know from Booker’s backstory that he’s French and he’s from Marseilles, and other people have spoken about how Booker’s native language would likely have been Occitan, although he speaks French as well. Like Andy, Joe and Nicky, English is not Booker’s native language, although he does speak it with a high degree of fluency. While there are aspects of Booker’s speech that are more related to him being a non-native English speaker, I wanted to talk about French first. It’s worth noting that French is the only Romance language that isn't a null subject language (and as far as I can tell, Occitan isn’t either). This means that when Booker uses null subject construction, that’s either something he picked up from another language or from being around people speaking colloquial English. The thing that stands out to me the most about Booker’s speech though, is actually the way he uses intonation (and to a certain extent, null auxiliary construction as well) when asking questions. While French can use subject-auxiliary inversion, for the most part, you just ask questions by intonation. In the French dub of the movie when Booker asks “You travel?” he says “T’as voyagé?” which in English directly translates to “You travelled?” or “You’ve travelled?” While I could get into semantics about verb tenses, do-support and modality, what I’m getting at here is that both “You travel?” and “T’as voyagé?” mean the same thing and are expressed in a form that feels semantically similar to me even if it’s not syntactically similar, in the same way that ending a question with the tag “right?” (which Booker uses a lot) feels the same as the tag “non?”

There are a couple of things that I think are interesting about Booker’s manner of speech. Booker primarily speaks in simple and fragmented sentences, which is pretty normal, but what’s different about him is the way that a lot of his speech is referential. What I mean is that Booker relies on a lot of common phrases, common clauses, clichés and quotations when he speaks. In a lot of ways, Booker speaks the way your typical action hero is supposed to. You get a sense of Booker engaging in a broader cultural and literary conversation. I don’t know how to explain this exactly, but when Booker speaks, you just know he reads and that he watches tv and movies. And not just that, but that he borrows and imitates aspects of what he reads. But besides the pragmatic element of Booker’s speech, all of the things that are notable about Booker’s speech are things that you also see in Andy, Joe and Nicky. Syntactically, there’s nothing about Booker’s speech that is distinctly unique to him, unlike the rest of the characters who all have their own little quirks. It’s almost like Booker is imitating the others, or borrowing someone else’s words. There is one notable exception, and that’s when Booker is talking to Nile in the cave. As the conversation goes on, you see this breakdown of Booker’s language as he attempts to tell his own story. Suddenly, a lot of the conventions established about Booker’s speech prior to this scene don’t apply. Obviously there are multiple explanations for this, ranging from English not being his first language to the fact that he was talking about something deeply personal and traumatizing to someone who was essentially a stranger. But what makes this scene stand out is the fact that in his next major scene, Booker is clearly on the verge of a full breakdown, but because he’s again relying on this established lexicon, you don’t see it reflected in his speech the same way that it is in the cave.

Joe

When Joe bothers with personal pronouns, he usually uses contractions with auxiliary verbs (e.g. I’m, she’s, it’s, etc). The exception to this is that Joe doesn’t use contractions with the past tense inflected auxiliary form of have (i.e. “had”).

Joe uses contractions with demonstrative, interrogative, relative and indefinite pronouns. He also uses contractions with "there". He uses contractions with negative modal verbs.

Joe only uses a future tense once in the entire film, and when he does, he uses going-to future construction. When he uses going-to future construction he uses the colloquialism “gonna"

“What are you gonna do?”

Joe doesn’t use the colloquial “have got” and always uses “to have”. 

“We have to find her”, “Well, now you have even more.”

This may be because Joe isn’t in the movie as much as the first three, or that he just genuinely doesn't use them often, but he uses considerably fewer discourse markers. Discourse markers are words that are used to connect, organize and manage sentences while speaking. Joe uses discourse markers to start sentences, and as interjections. The discourse markers that Joe uses are:

Sentence openers: oh, so, well, yeah

Interjections: hey, what

After Booker, Joe uses the second most amount of fillers. He uses more fillers when having a back-and-forth style conversation with someone than when he’s essentially monologuing. The fillers that Joe uses are: mmm, uh

Joe sometimes uses ellipses when speaking. Again, not super noteworthy, but I wanted to mention it nonetheless. 

“He’s the moon when I’m lost in darkness and warmth when I shiver in cold.”

Joe uses answer ellipsis in the movie, but he doesn’t actually speak in sentence fragments when he does this. While answer ellipsis is pretty standard in English, Joe’s commitment to saying more than was asked of him isn’t.

[So... you’re even older than him.] “Nicky and I met in the Crusades.” instead of “[Yes, we are.] Nicky and I met in the Crusades.”

Joe uses sentences with a null subject (i.e. he doesn’t use subject pronouns).

“Depends on the century.” “Fought thousands of battles side by side.”

Joe uses sentences which have both a null subject and uses copula deletion. See Nile for more details on zero copula.

“Very pissed off.” “Faster than the elevator.”

In the movie, Joe only really asks wh- questions. He does ask a few using intonation, although most of those questions act more like additional tags on a wh-question, rather than a question by itself. As such, it's unclear whether Joe uses null auxiliary construction or the zero copula when asking questions.

Intonation: "Bedhead?” “So we just leave her out in the open?”

When Joe repeats himself for emphasis, it’s usually in groups of three. 

Joe says “what” when he doesn’t hear something/doesn’t understand something

As previously mentioned, Joe uses some formal words like "thus" and the impersonal pronoun "one". Here are some other words to consider having Joe use unironically as well: alas, amidst, await, behest, ergo, hence, latter, much, nor, notwithstanding, promptly, quite, shall (modal), thence, thereupon, thoroughly, whereas, whom (used correctly of course), yield

Even though Joe speaks quite formally a lot of the time, he never uses the subordinating conjunction “that” when it can be omitted.

“The first immortal Andy found.”

Phrases, expressions and idioms used by Joe: all in, attention to detail, come on, I guess, out in the open, measure and reason, over a [time period], piece of shit, proved [their] case, side by side, way back

Profanity used by Joe: goddamnit, shit

Unrelated to word count or time spent speaking, Joe says the least amount of sentences out of the five main characters, although this doesn’t mean very much, considering Nicky says exactly one more sentence than him. 

Sentence composition**: 57% of Joe’s sentences are simple sentences, 21% are sentence fragments, 5% are compound sentences, 4% are complex sentences, 4% are compound complex sentences and 9% are not in English.

Adjectives and adjective phrases appear in 29% of Joe’s sentences. Adverbs and adverb phrases appear in 8% of Joe’s sentences.

Languages spoken on-screen: English, Italian

The best way to describe Joe’s manner of speaking is that it’s like he has two different styles. You get the sense that sometimes Joe just says whatever and sometimes he says something that he’s rehearsed in his head. Joe is a Maghrebi Muslim man from the Islamic Golden Age so he comes from a culture and time with a rich history of and respect for both written and spoken poetry, both impromptu and memorized. I think he carries that tradition quite well. When Joe is orating (van speech and Quynh backstory), his sentences are much more structured and he uses more formal language. He doesn't speak in sentence fragments, he doesn't use any colloquial language besides contractions and he doesn't use discourse markers or fillers like he does in the more casual back-and-forth conversations. If you look at Joe's sentence composition percentages, you'll notice that Joe has comparatively less sentence fragments than other characters and that’s purely because when he orates, it's in full sentences (minus poetic ellipsis, but that's allowed). That's why it seems to me as though Joe rehearses some of what he says in advance. I don’t know the extent to which he does that, but at the very least it seems like he’s sat down and thought “how would I explain Quynh to the new immortal?” or “What would I say to someone belittling my relationship with Nicky?” Even in the delivery of the line “Faster than the elevator” there is quite a long pause between him seeing that Nile jumped out a window and actually making the joke, as if he’s thinking about it first. The majority of the sentences Joe says are in the van speech and while telling Quynh’s backstory. In casual conversations, Nicky seems to take the lead more than Joe.

I’d also speculate that Joe is quite literate. Obviously there’s his own affinity for storytelling and oration, but his use of language hints at a larger vocabulary. You see him use a frequently neglected pronoun in English and a relatively formal adverb. He also uses adjectives like “grotesque” and “infantile”. He does end sentences while prepositions though, so he obviously does not give a fuck about John Dryden and Joshua Poole. That being said, I think the idea of rearranging Joe’s sentences so they don’t end in prepositions is funny and fits his whole vibe.

Joe uses null subject construction in English, and while that’s pretty common in everyday speech in English, it is worth noting that both Italian and Arabic are null subject languages. The way that Joe uses null construction in English is far more similar to Italian than Arabic, which requires a change in sentence sequencing but I still think it’s neat. The thing that Arabic brings to the table that I’m more intrigued by is the fact that it’s a zero copula language. It’s not a matter of copula deletion like AAVE, there straight up is not a copula in the present tense, so the lack of a verb (and specific sentence sequencing) is the copula in the present tense. When Joe drops both subject and verb in the present tense he is, in effect, simulating a similar situation due to the ambiguity of the sentences themselves where the only way you can correctly interpret the sentence is by understanding that the missing verb must be a copula. He gets rid of a subject pronoun as a shout out to Italian, I guess, but also because it would sound so silly if he didn’t. I don’t think Joe necessarily picked up this habit from Arabic, but I do think it’s a fun coincidence.

Nicky

Of all the characters, Nicky has the least consistent contraction usage for personal pronouns and auxiliaries (e.g. I’ve, you’re, it’s, etc). There are examples throughout the film of him using a contraction and then in the next scene he just doesn’t. Unlike with the other characters, who have a discernable pattern (Andy always uses contractions, Nile uses contractions for dramatic emphasis, Booker becomes more inconsistent with contractions when upset, Joe doesn’t use contractions in certain tenses), Nicky is totally random in his contraction usage.

My personal favourite example of this is: “She’s more alone than she has ever been in her entire life.”

Nicky uses contractions with demonstrative, interrogative, relative and indefinite pronouns, however this usage is just as inconsistent as with personal pronouns. He also uses contractions with "there.” He uses contractions with negative modal verbs.

Outside of contractions, Nicky doesn't seem to use colloquialisms in the movie.

Nicky doesn’t use the colloquial going-to future construction and relies on simple future construction

“You will not be able to give him what he wants”, “If it’s now Andromache’s, nothing you do will stop it.

Nicky doesn’t use the colloquial phrasal verb “have got” and instead uses “have”

“I have something for you”

Nicky only has a few discourse markers in the movie. Discourse markers are words that are used to connect, organise and manage sentences while speaking. Nicky uses discourse markers to start sentences, as interjections and as responses. The discourse markers that he uses are:

Sentence openers: so

Interjections: hey, wait, what

Responses: yeah

Nicky doesn’t use any fillers. Instead, he pauses and repeats himself as needed.

"I believe it's because we... we are meant to find each other"

In my other post, I mentioned that Nicky speaks in full sentences, and while that is mostly true, it’s a bit of an oversimplification. While that kind of a statement is fine for an overview post, I felt it would be disingenuous to leave it at that. Nicky speaks in sentence fragments just like everyone else. In fact, he speaks in sentence fragments more than Joe does. He uses ellipsis, but the way he does it is functionally different from the specific methods of null subject, null auxiliary and zero copula that I’ve talked about with the other characters. While the others are quite formulaic about their usage of ellipses, Nicky’s is far more nebulous because it’s very much dependent on context. 

Nicky uses answer ellipses, like the others.

[Bedhead?] “Nicely tousled.”

The next way that Nicky uses ellipses might better be described as anaphora. That means when he’s eliding words, the omitted words in the sentence can be found through the context of the sentence preceding it. 

The sentence “The only reason we haven’t... is that it’s not our time yet” is missing a past participle. The missing verb is found in the previous sentence: “Everything has to die, Mr. Merrick.”

In fact, almost all of Nicky’s use of sentence fragments and ellipses can most easily be characterized this way. If the sentence that Nicky says is incomplete in some way by itself, that’s usually because he’s referring to something either he, or someone else, has said. In some cases, it’s as if he’s continuing or adding additional information to the sentence preceding it.

“We killed each other.” “Many times.”

“It was a woman. A Black woman.”

Another way of characterizing some of his use of ellipses is to imagine he’s using answer ellipsis to a question nobody asked him. 

[What did you see?] “Dirt floor, clay walls.”

In one particular instance, Nicky says the noun phrase “A fine justification.” It’s already an example of anaphora, as it is referring back to Kozak’s “I believe this can change the world.” Nicky’s sentence bears some similarity to Joe’s “Faster than the elevator” as it’s also an example of a sentence which is missing both verb and subject, however when Joe uses this kind of construction, he only does so before an adjective phrase. One could extrapolate from this that Nicky uses null subject and zero copula construction with adjective phrases and Joe similarly uses it for noun phrases, but that’s just speculation.

The final way that we see Nicky use ellipsis is honestly the most baffling and I’m still not entirely sure how to best explain it. The sentence is “Spend eternity in a cage.” It is clearly not the imperative mood, it wouldn't make sense for Nicky to be telling Nile to spend eternity in a cage. Unlike the other examples of Nicky’s use of ellipsis, the preceding sentence (“That’s the reason we dread capture”) provides context but not specific form. Breaking it down from an English language perspective, the only thing that makes sense to me is that “spend” is actually the infinitive phrase “to spend” where the infinitive "to" has been elided and there is an implied “[We are afraid][to] spend eternity in a cage.” I want to be clear here: I understand this sentence. I know what Nicky is saying, I simply have no idea why I know what he's saying. I don't understand why this sentence works. For further theories, look at the section on sociolinguistics at the bottom.

Sometimes Nicky adds unnecessary pronouns to a sentence.

“But then, Andy and Quynh, they were accused of witchcraft themselves and they were trapped and caught.”

Nicky does use the subordinating conjunction “that” but there are also times when he doesn’t. The common Nicky pattern of *shrug*

“The only reason we haven’t... is that it’s not our time yet”

“As much as I like watching you sleep, I’m glad you’re awake.”

When Nicky asks questions, he doesn’t use any kind of null auxiliary construction or zero copula for subject-auxiliary inversion questions. Nicky is also the only other character (after Andy) polite enough to ask indirect questions, and he uses them when talking to people who kidnapped him, which is kind of a power move. Nicky doesn’t seem to use intonation much when asking questions either.

Subject auxiliary inversion (yes/no questions): “Are we too late?” “Are you sure?”

Indirect: “I don’t suppose it would be possible to get these chains off of us?”

Intonation: “Nile?”

Phrases, expressions and idioms used by Nicky: as much, cast off, do you know, get some rest, getting away, I suppose/don’t suppose, judge of character, love of my life, 

Sentence composition**: 47% of Nicky’s sentences are simple sentences, 24% are sentence fragments, 3% are compound sentences, 15% are complex sentences, 2% are compound complex and 9% are not in English.

Adjectives and adjective phrases appear in 23% of Nicky’s sentences. Adverbs appear in 6% of Nicky’s sentences. Nicky doesn’t use adverb phrases.

Languages: English, Italian, Nuer

Before I start this, I want to say that despite having a strong accent, I think Nicky is quite proficient in English. He knows the subtle differences between words like “unethical” and “immoral,” he’s aware of and capable of using expressions with irregular syntax and he uses sophisticated linguistic phenomena in English. He uses so many complex sentences it makes my head spin. Leaving all that aside, I think that Nicky probably translates from Italian into English while speaking. Like Nile, Nicky is very deliberate about his language but in a different way. While Nile uses style-shifting to accomplish a number of different things, Nicky is primarily concerned with clarity. I think that Nicky’s tendency towards more formal language is a kind of overcompensation to make sure that he’s being understood. Another thing worth noting is that I think Nicky has actively studied language before, in a class setting or by himself, and has at least some knowledge of linguistics (specifically syntax). At the very least, he is knowledgeable about both Italian and English syntax.

This theory is largely based around the idea of overcompensation. Nicky is primarily concerned with the clarity of speech and because of that, he doubles-down on grammar and structure. Italian is a null subject language so you actually see Nicky use null subject construction when he says “Sono qui” and “Dovremmo tonarci” but you don’t see anything similar in the way that he speaks English even though all the other characters frequently rely on truncated null subjects. He demonstrates a clear awareness of the standard language restrictions of English and how that compares to the restrictions of Italian. And not just that: there’s actually an example in the movie where Nicky adds an extra and unnecessary pronoun in English. In another sentence, Nicky could have used a contraction on two separate instances and deliberately only contracted one of them because the contractions were two different tenses. For the most part, this overcompensation makes it so Nicky’s speech—while unconventional—is still grammatically correct. That’s how you get things like Nicky saying, “The love of my life was of the people I’ve been taught to hate,” which isn’t how most native-speakers would intuitively phrase it themselves and as a result, a further layer of nuance is added by the use of the Present Perfect Continuous. Despite the fact that Nicky uses some unconventional phrasing in English, he doesn’t seem particularly bothered by it or concerned about it. He’s more than willing to experiment with his speech and seems very confident in it as well. That’s why I think he has some kind of formal language training with English, because he clearly understands the system that he’s working with but is less aware of some of the common ways of speaking. I seriously doubt that Joe and Nicky spend much time speaking to each other in English.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning: while Joe seems to thrive while orating and speaks relatively simply otherwise, Nicky is the exact opposite. Nicky’s language capabilities are on full display when he’s engaging in discourse, but when he’s telling Nile about Quynh, you see a lot more irregular syntax structure from him. It’s during this discussion that you hear the line “Spend eternity in a cage,” that I’ve struggled with above. The other possible explanation for the use of this unconventional sentence construction was actually given to me by @rhubarbdreams, who said that the sentence actually makes more sense syntactically in Italian, which has an impersonal imperative. In fact, in the Italian dub, that’s allegedly what it does (“per non passare l'eternità in una gabbia.”) Whether Nicky’s apparent tendency towards unconventional speech in this circumstance is a chronic tendency from overthinking while speaking English or a result of the specific topic they were discussing is up for personal interpretation, although I do think it’s interesting that Nicky was the one primarily leading conversation up until Joe took over specifically when they were recounting a story. I think this is especially interesting considering Nicky was apparently a priest, however this might just be a limitation to him in languages he doesn’t use as often. 

Bonus: Quynh

Quynh doesn’t have that many lines, so it’s not really possible to do any kind of meaningful analysis about her speech patterns (she says 16 sentences and 10 of those are screaming “no” or someone’s name). That being said, I do want to look at all the lines she presumably said in English (I’m ignoring Lykon’s death scene because if Lykon really did die in the 6th or 7th century, then they absolutely weren’t speaking Modern English, you know?)

So first we have the lines from the witch trials:

“I’ve never been burned alive before. What do you think it’s gonna be like?”

“Just you and me.”

Okay so obviously there’s some ambiguity over exactly when this happened, since Joe said 500 years in a box and TOGTH lists it happening around 1750. In the comics, Noriko fell overboard around 1590. I simply think the 1750 date is incorrect based on when people were being burned at the stake for witchcraft and heresy. I could talk more about that and my own headcanons about when it happened, but this is a post about linguistics, so what’s important to take from all this is that it probably took place at the earliest sometime in the late 15th century and, at the latest, the very beginning of the 17th century.

Taking all that into consideration, I can say almost certainly that all of Quynh’s lines are some kind of misremembered modern translation of what she actually said. She uses two contractions (I’ve and it’s) that were maybe in use, but likely uncommon. “It’s” was used, although you would be far more likely to see its counterpart “tis”, and contractions with “have” and “had” were only becoming common towards the end of the 16th century. There’s also the problem of the pronoun “you” and how singular “you” would not have been used in this informal context. And since “you” should be the singular “thou”, the archaic singular second-person conjugation of “do” would instead be correct. And finally: going-to future construction may have been used at the time (I can’t speak to the commonality of it), but I honestly can’t say with any certainty whether the colloquial “gonna” was in use. The first recorded use seems to be the 19th century. I’m sure there are other things that are anachronistic about the speech but I don’t know enough about Early Modern English morphology and syntax to speculate any more about it. 

So yeah, Andy and Quynh’s conversation is either Andy’s misremembering of it in Modern English, it was never in English in the first place like the other scene, or just Hollywood movie magic for the viewers (I would love to see someone attempt to translate it back into Early Modern English though, I’m just saying).

“It’s nice to finally meet you.”

The one line that I feel has legitimate value in the analysis of Quynh’s speech patterns in English is the final one that she says to Booker. She’s using ME, obviously, with its contractions and singular “you.” She’s also using a modified idiom, “Nice to meet you”, which is interesting because that absolutely wouldn’t have been used when she went under water considering the word “nice” was derogatory at the time. All of this implies to me that Quynh has definitely spent time on land before she finds Booker. Also she split the infinitive ("to meet"). I don't know what that says about her speech, but I sure am looking at it.

Fun Quynh fact: of the 6 times that Andy’s full name is used in the movie, half of them are said by Quynh

**A note on sentence composition: I intentionally didn't go into detail about sentence composition outside of brief mentions. If any of you are curious about it, you can ask. I'm more than willing to discuss sentence clause structure, but I didn't want this to become even longer and more convoluted than it already is. Part of why I’m reluctant to give it any weight here is because of how lenient I was with what was considered a sentence fragment vs. a simple sentence, as the characters are speaking colloquial English. A movie isn’t formal writing and to evaluate dialogue by that same metric is silly. Also, I considered interjections sentence fragments to start and then realized halfway through that that was a bad idea and they should have had their own separate section, but at that point I was in too deep, and didn’t want to go back and do it all again. In the same way, there are sentences that I considered compound or complex sentences, but that “technically” aren’t because a lot of characters drop pronominal subjects and like. Officially you can’t have null subject clauses in English, because that’s not how the language works on paper (imperative mood aside). Or they elided part of the sentence so that technically it's not a clause. But people don’t actually care about stuff like that when they talk. Also I may have messed up a few times, because complex sentences are hard and sometimes I get phrases and clauses confused. It can be difficult to tell when there’s a lot happening, you know? (this is about Nicky. Sir, why do you talk like that) 

If you’re a fanfic writer, I’m going to advise that you take the part about sentence composition with a grain of salt or ignore it entirely, unless you’re already familiar with sentence clause structure in English. It will not be helpful to you for writing character dialogue until you’ve actually put in the work to understand it and practice. As mentioned, I still mess it up sometimes if a sentence has too many phrases. Basically, if you think too hard about it, I guarantee it’ll stress you out.

[a-nice-and-interpretive-fanzine]

[ID: A cream-colored banner that says "A Nice and Interpretive Fanzine: essays and art about the meanings we've found in Good Omens." There is a photo of a book page with a key on it behind the banner text. The photo source is rosy_photo on Pixabay. /end ID]

A Nice and Interpretive Fanzine: Information Masterpost

Welcome!

This is a zine for those of us who love the subtle, complex work that is Good Omens, and who’ve enjoyed the thoughtfulness of the fandom as people interpret how the many moving pieces of the story come together, creating a slightly different meaning for each of us.

To put it simply, it’s a book full of the fandom’s own analysis and commentary about the Good Omens TV show, enhanced with illustrations from our brilliant artists.

This zine is analytical in the sense that all the writers are expressing their own nonfiction thoughts and feelings about the show, rather than writing fanfic, but it is not meant to be heavily academic. Anybody who likes to pick apart the series and discuss it should be able to enjoy it.

The zine will contain essays by fans who are passionate about analyzing and interpreting different parts of Good Omens - the characters, the plot, the writing techniques for the book and script, the cinematography of the TV show, the popular content of the fandom itself. Accompanying these essays will be black and white illustrations from our artists.

How are you organizing this process?

May 1-May 15: Everyone submits their application to do writing or art through a Google form. Behind the scenes, I’ll be setting up a separate email and Discord.

May 16-20: Applicants will be screened during this time.

May 20: I’ll email everyone to let them know the outcomes of their applications. The final participants will get a link to the Discord server for the zine (totally optional, of course).

May 21: If there’s any clarification or solidifying of ideas that needs to happen, I’ll contact you and discuss with you by this point. This is also when artists will be matched up with essays.

May 22 to August 14: This will be a period of just working on our essays and art. The Discord chat and Tumblr will be there for support and for exchanging ideas!

August 15: Participants need to email their full works to the zine’s email address by this date. No special formatting is needed; I’ll do that in InDesign.

August 15 to August 31: I’ll be putting the zine together in InDesign.

September 1: Preorders will open.

September 30: Preorders will close.

October 1: The zine order will be placed!

October 15: Assuming all goes well with printing and shipping, the zines will be shipped out in waves starting on this date. If the printing or shipping from the manufacturer is delayed, then shipping will just start ASAP.

Writer Application HERE Artist Application HERE Asked and Answered Questions on Tumblr The Fanzine's Page on Twitter

Read below for more detailed information about the zine in a Q and A format!

What are the specifications for the zine contributions?

For writers, I’m starting with 3k words or fewer per essay (approximately 10 pages at the size of this book). This depends heavily on how many participants we actually get, so it may change!

For artists, I’d be looking at black and white works, 300 DPI, 5.5 x 8.5 inches or smaller. If your art is supposed to fill up the entire page (i.e. no white space), please make it a total of 5.75 x 8.75 inches with nothing too important around the edges to account for bleed during the printing process.

Can I submit an essay to this zine if I’ve already posted it on Tumblr?

Not as you’ve already posted it. We don’t want to just copy/paste the exact thing that hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people have already read.

However, it IS fine and maybe even a good idea to take the same thought from your post and refine it, preserving your same thesis. For example, a lot of Tumblr posts are just us fans jotting down 5 or 6 paragraphs of random thoughts at 2 AM, but some of them are really cool thoughts! Expanding them and turning them into a bona-fide Essay would make those posts into excellent zine chapters. And you can copy small pieces of your own language as long as the whole thing isn’t just pasted word-for-word.

How long do essays have to be? Is there a limit?

With the number of writers we have, I've calculated that each person should ideally keep their essay to about 6000 words. There is wiggle room.

There’s no real minimum for your contribution; some analytical ideas are really good but can be expressed concisely, so it’s okay if your essays only come out to a few pages typed. For reference, with our book size, a page is about 300 words.

What happens if the zine sells a lot and you end up not only breaking even, but turning a profit?

It’ll go to charity. While I’ll ask the participants what they want to do for certain if we do make enough money, my suggestion will be donating it to Alzheimer’s Research UK in honor of Sir Terry Pratchett.

I’m not really comfortable calling this a “charity zine” up front since I simply don’t know if it will raise a significant amount. For the most part, I just want the thing to physically exist, which means breaking even, and don’t want to make it more expensive for buyers than it needs to be to afford the printing costs.

What kinds of essays are you talking about? What could be included?

In short, any analytical thoughts about the Good Omens TV show - and possibly even the fandom as it interacts with the show - are possible inclusions for the zine.

To expand a bit, think about the meta posts you see floating around Tumblr. Often these involve analyzing characters, or picking up on patterns in the plot. Sometimes fans use their own background knowledge to write posts about the significance of certain costume choices or the way music plays into each individual scene. Some posts examine the ways the series approaches gender, while others might discuss ways that the characters present as neurodivergent. That’s how diverse the pool of possibilities is for subjects in this zine.

How does art come into this?

Images will be black and white, to match the bookish mood of the project overall. Images can range in size from a half page to a full page.

I’m planning to talk to the artists and authors and loosely pair artists with essays that appeal to their personal interests.

I know how to illustrate a story, but how do I illustrate an essay?

There are infinite answers to this! I’ve seen some beautiful symbolic artwork in the fandom already (e.g. a number of takes on Aziraphale munching on an apple with Crowley in snake form curving around him), and there are tons of symbolic motifs to draw from, but these are not the only options. An artist illustrating an essay about cinematography, for example, could draw a well-known scene from an alternative angle. An essay about Heaven as a capitalist corporation could be illustrated with a cartoon of Gabriel giving some sort of excruciating PowerPoint presentation. A character analysis could be accompanied by a simple portrait. And on and on. I’m not interested in limiting the possibilities by trying to make a list, but just know that there are many and you don’t have to make it complicated if you don’t want to.

If the writers can reuse their essay ideas, can artists reuse their drawings?

Similarly to the writers, if you already have an interpretive drawing that you’re in love with, artists can use the same ideas and the same fundamental composition that is present in their own existing work. However, it has to be redone in some significant way. Whether it’s taking something you drew in 2019 and redrawing it using an updated style, taking a sketch and turning it into a lined and shaded piece, or redoing a full-color drawing so it presents more strikingly in black and white, it shouldn’t be identical to the thing you’ve already posted.

So how are you choosing participants here?

It’ll be based on what people are interested in writing about (or illustrating). I’ll be looking for people who are passionate about their essays, but I’ll also be looking for variety. It all depends on what people want to offer, so I won’t know for sure what it will look like put together until everyone’s application is in.

For artists, I’ll be trying to figure out whose style looks like it would adapt well to illustrations in black and white, and also who demonstrates an interest in the same subjects as the writers.

If we don’t get a lot of applicants, I’d love to simply include everyone, but I can’t commit to that without knowing for sure how many people are involved.

Do I have to use a formal writing style to participate?

No. You should use a style that makes your thoughts and ideas as clear as possible, but as long as it’s understandable, you can also get a little artistic with it. You can “write like you speak,” though perhaps in a more organized way. You definitely don’t need to worry about stylistic rules like not using the first person. This is not academia.

Is this zine going to center only on Crowley and Aziraphale?

That remains to be seen! It depends on what ideas show up in the applications. There will be a lot of the ineffable partners for sure, but whether the whole zine will center on them or whether there’s plentiful stuff about other characters will depend on what the participants suggest.

Do we have to agree with all your personal interpretations of Good Omens to be in the zine?

No! In fact, I’m assuming that a number of essays will contradict each other, too, and that’s perfectly okay. The zine is a sampler of fan interpretations meant to inspire, not instruct. It’s not “Here’s a fan-made guide on how to understand this TV show,” it’s “Look at all these moving parts and how many meanings we can find in them. What does it mean to you?”

However, there are some basic rules and assumptions by which I’m working here.

I don’t personally have the energy to include essays that are highly critical (“negative”) in this zine. It’s analytical but also meant to be fun.

I’m pretty focused on the TV adaptation. This isn’t “no book analysis allowed” but just that the essays will end up being weighted toward subjects that apply to either the TV show or both the book and the show.

Each writer should focus on making their own points over disproving other fan interpretations. If you’re writing in an expository style, it’s normal for the essay to contain rebuttals to opposing ideas, but these should be minor supporting points, not the heart and soul of your essay. For reference, I’d say the majority of meta I see floating around on tumblr would follow this rule just fine.

Essay ideas that seem to contain bigoted or exclusionary sentiments will not be accepted (no TERFy stuff, for example).

What kinds of editing will go into the zine? Are you going to argue with us about the contents of our writing?

While I might ask you to elaborate on certain points in your writing or clarify your thoughts about your subject, I’m absolutely not here to ask you to change the thesis, opinions, or headcanons on which your writing is based. If I really have a problem with your initial idea, I’ll tell you that up front and politely decline the contribution.

While formatting the zine, I’ll make minor edits if I think I see a typo or misspelling, something small and obviously unintentional. As with any other zine, your content won’t be changed without consulting you.

Is this a SFW zine?

Yes. If people want to discuss sexuality in a theoretical way, like erotic subtext, that would be allowed. There are canon references like Newt and Anathema’s moment under the bed that might come up, too. But there will be nothing explicit, and since these are essays instead of stories, there will be no “action” going on between characters. Let’s just say sex isn’t a forbidden topic, but it will be like discussing it in English class.

As for other topics that could make the zine NSFW, like gore or extreme language, I don’t think they will be an issue. Some dark topics, like abuse by Heaven and Hell, may be discussed, but they will be warned for, and these are not stories, so you aren’t going to see violent actions playing out.

Will there be any “extras” like charms or stickers?

I’m not sure yet. I’m most inclined to keep it simple, because of the nature of the zine, but would be open to including some bonus items if there’s an artist who’s really passionate about it.

With that said, I am pretty committed to making a hardcover edition of the book available, in addition to the standard softcover version.

You’re doing this with only one mod?!

Yes. I personally find it easiest. While I’ve worked on multi-mod projects in other domains and adore all of my co-mods, it’s a little bit different when it’s a project with this many moving pieces that includes real-life components like printing and shipping. Though there are a lot of individual things to be done, I am experienced with all of them, so it’s less overwhelming to just take on the whole project. That way, I know exactly what needs to be done and when, and there are no issues with assigning tasks.

What qualifies you to run this zine?

The résumé answer: in fandom, I successfully solo-modded a large not-for-profit zine in the past, the @soulmakazine2018, and while I can’t speak for the whole fandom, it definitely seemed to be well-received. <3 In real life, I’m a case manager and this involves coordinating and communicating with a lot of different people including my 100-person caseload, budgeting services, and filling out all kinds of paperwork on the fly, all skills that can be imported into zine work.

The practical answer: well, I’m the one who decided to start this project, so if you like the sound of it, you're stuck with me. I say with encouragement and enthusiasm that if you’d like to do a different take on a commentary zine, you should absolutely do it.

[hakasims]

The Most In-depth Analysis of Luca Marinelli’s Characters You’ll Ever Need

You’d think I was done with classifications, but I’m not! There’s so much more I can say about Luca Marinelli’s oeuvre and his magnificent roster of characters. And yes, I’ve made this post before where I highlighted specific tropes that show up in a lot of his movies, but that was surface-level shit. This is an actual exploration of what makes a Luca Marinelli character besides being a kinky little whore. And don’t worry, it’s still in that user-friendly question-answer format because I love you.

Here’s the thing: Luca is a chameleon but he also has a type, and this type is:

✨ a (likely) queer repressed addict with daddy issues ✨

That’s the skeleton. Let’s see how many of his major roles possess that skeleton at all and what flavors they add to the picture.

Disclaimer: I excluded characters with little screen time and Joseph from Mary of Nazareth because he doesn’t deserve rights. Also, instead of going in the boring chronological order, I’m gonna start with the least typical character for Luca and end with the crème de la crème. The results may not surprise you.

Nicky (The Old Guard)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? No.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? I know we’re all deeply affected by our shitty father figures but I would genuinely question Nicky’s sanity if he were still on that shit at the ripe age of 951. A little tip for daddy-hating immortals out there: just do what Angel did and kill your shitty dad. Problem solved.

Is he violent? Despite doling out tons of violence, he doesn’t have a violent nature and seems uninterested in hating his enemy or delivering retribution.

Does he need a good night sleep? I’m sure nothing helps one sleep better than a Joe-shaped big spoon.

Does he need a good cry? Doesn’t seem like it.

Flavors: A perfect immortal warrior bean in a healthy relationship.

Conclusion: Ironically but unsurprisingly, Nicky is the least Luca-like character.

Guido (Tutti i santi giorni)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so but who knows? If someone told me he’s demisexual, I’d believe it.

Is he repressed? The movie may disagree, but I say yes, obviously.

Does he have an addiction? Not unless you count his romantic relationship.

Does he have daddy issues? His family is so supportive and wholesome it’s almost parodic.

Is he violent? He’s the opposite of a toxic macho dude, but then he has a violent outburst out of nowhere because the movie is bad.

Does he need a good night sleep? He doesn’t like sleeping at night.

Does he need a good cry? Naturally.

Flavors: An adorkable awkward nerd with flowery speech.

Conclusion: I can forgive straightness and wholesomeness but I can’t forgive lack of complexity.

Martin (Martin Eden)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Yes.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? Not to my knowledge.

Is he violent? When he deems it necessary to be.

Does he need a good night sleep? Sure.

Does he need a good cry? Cry your little heart out, Martin!

Flavors: An arrogant, pretentious, politically confused writer.

Conclusion: A little too straight for your typical Luca, but he makes up for it with being complex and complicated.

Loris (Il mondo fino in fondo)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? So fucking repressed!

Does he have an addiction? Nothing beyond his savior complex.

Does he have daddy issues? He has a shitty dad he’s spent his whole life trying to please, and also his mommy left, so like yeah, obviously.

Is he violent? He has his straight dude moments.

Does he need a good night sleep? Definitely.

Does he need a good cry? Oh yeah, let him cry, it’s good for him.

Flavors: A casually homophobic mother hen.

Conclusion: Ruined by heterosexual agenda.

Lui (Ricordi?)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Very.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? A big sack of them.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? Oh yes. To sleep, perchance to dream about anything other than his traumatic memories.

Does he need a good cry? So much.

Flavors: Up-his-butt and pensive.

Conclusion: Leave it to Luca to take a guy who would be an absolute nightmare in real life and turn him into someone I actually want to watch for two hours and see happy by the end.

Gabriele (Waves)

Is he queer? There’s evidence he might be gay.

Is he repressed? I’d bet on it.

Does he have an addiction? Doesn’t seem like it.

Does he have daddy issues? Nobody knows.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? He probably will with how the movie ended.

Does he need a good cry? At least one.

Flavors: A sweet introverted guy who loves boats.

Conclusion: While not particularly complex, Gabriele has layers and nuances. Also give him a big muscular daddy.

Fabrizio (Fabrizio de André - Principe libero)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? He was before music became his only career.

Does he have an addiction? Alcohol, cigarettes, sex, cheating - take your pick.

Does he have daddy issues? Not as bad as some of the other guys here but he’s heard his fair share of “I’m not mad, I’m disappointed” speeches.

Is he violent? He’s soft.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Does he need a good cry? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Flavors: Fabrizio de André is the flavor.

Conclusion: Even though it’s a biopic, there are still many Luca-isms there. He’s just that kind of actor.

Milton (Una questione privata)

Is he queer? It could be argued that he is bisexual.

Is he repressed? Do you even need to ask?

Does he have an addiction? About half of the breaths he takes are filled with cigarette smoke.

Does he have daddy issues? He seems to have a good and loving relationship with both his parents.

Is he violent? Not by nature.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yep.

Does he need a good cry? He certainly does.

Flavors: A repressed bisexual feeling powerless in a horrible world.

Conclusion: This is proof that Luca can carry a whole entire movie on his sexy shoulders, alone. Also Milton needs a safe and loving triad.

Mattia (La solitudine dei numeri primi)

Is he queer? I personally read him as asexual. Though assigning asexuality to characters who are traumatized is a dangerous path so don’t quote me on this, okay?

Is he repressed? Just the most repressed.

Does he have an addiction? It’s debatable whether self-harm and eating disorders can be considered addictions, but they’re part of his character, and I thought you should know.

Does he have daddy issues? His parents played their part in messing him up which then led to the big thing that really messed him up, though other than that his dad is barely a presence.

Is he violent? Not at all.

Does he need a good night sleep? At least 17 hours.

Does he need a good cry? Oh, so much. He needs all the cry.

Flavors: A quiet genius with lots of guilt.

Conclusion: Can you believe this was his first film role? Our boy is talented af!

Fabio (Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? You could argue that he is repressed by being limited in his place in social hierarchy.

Does he have an addiction? Amazingly enough, no. He has fixations, though.

Does he have daddy issues? Thinking his father was a loser and not wanting to end up like him is textbook stuff.

Is he violent? Very.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes please.

Does he need a good cry? He needs to purge his soul from all the bottled up stuff.

Flavors: A campy psycho.

Conclusion: Luca’s most iconic character, so of course he scored high on the list.

Paolo (Il padre d’Italia)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? I can’t even start listing all the ways in which he’s repressed.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes a lot.

Does he have daddy issues? His issues are more of a mommy variety.

Is he violent? Not in the slightest.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s the poster boy for needing a good night sleep.

Does he need a good cry? A good cry, a good weep, a good sob, a good bawl, *googles more synonyms* a good wail, a good squall...

Flavors: A self-loathing gay orphan in need of some life goodness.

Conclusion: What can I say about Paolo that all of you aren’t already thinking? Decent film, great character, excellent portrayal.

Mickey (Die Pfeiler der Macht)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? It’s Victorian England, you guys.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes casually but other than that... eh. And don’t tell me he has sex addiction. He uses his body strategically.

Does he have daddy issues? If what he has isn’t daddy issues, I don’t know what is.

Is he violent? He’s got tons of bottled up aggression.

Does he need a good night sleep? It would be great if he could use the day’s darkest hours for sleeping.

Does he need a good cry? Undeniably.

Flavors: A conniving slut extraordinaire.

Conclusion: A major player in the book (says me who managed like 50 pages), Mickey Miranda was turned into such a nothing character in the miniseries that they needed a truly extraordinary actor to make him memorable. And guess what, Luca delivered.

Cesare (Non essere cattivo)

Is he queer? Not explicitly, but come on.

Is he repressed? Lethally.

Does he have an addiction? He’s an addiction textbook.

Does he have daddy issues? *Jake Peralta voice* Yeah, the guy without a daddy is the one with daddy issues. Explain that logic.

Is he violent? Oh yeah, he’s a rabid little trash goblin.

Does he need a good night sleep? So much.

Does he need a good cry? He’s had his fair share of good cries, but he could always use more.

Flavors: A aimless junkie.

Conclusion: The quintessential Luca. Beautiful.

Primo (Trust)

Is he queer? Listen, just because we don’t see him fuck a dude on screen it doesn’t mean he isn’t a motherfluffing queer icon. It’s not subtext; it’s TEXT.

Is he repressed? Where do I even fucking start?

Does he have an addiction? Oh yeah. And a coke nail to prove it.

Does he have daddy issues? I would need a whole separate post to unpack his daddy issues.

Is he violent? So very violent.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes, please. On an actual bed in an actual bedroom.

Does he need a good cry? You can just tell.

Flavors: A ruthless criminal with a strong mafia boss potential.

Conclusion: The pièce de résistance of the Luca Marinelli filmography. Not only does he tick every box, he gets bonus points for the excellent wardrobe choices that emphasize Luca’s best features. Primo Nizzuto is everything great you want from Luca, except singing. (Though in my headcanon that whole white car in a snowstorm monologue was a musical number.)