#and i think it's a great underlying aspect of what makes them work

[raayllum]

was thinking about why the fandom focuses on callum's devotion to rayla more so than the other way around - even if they're equally nuts in a lot of ways and i do think the focus is 60/40 - and i think a lot if is really comes down to callum just being 'easier' to love than rayla like, objectively, especially in arc 1.

he's sweet and goofy and emotionally open, he can be insecure and get stuck in his head but that's very internal, he makes mistakes but never anything too major, at most interpersonal relationship wise he can be a bit pushy or momentarily cruel, he's a prince and wanted peace with the elves from the start, he never really causes massive disasters and when he does there was a 50-50 chance it was going to work out anyway or if he is taking a massive risk, thus far it's really only involved risking himself.

he's cute and caring and has never really broken her heart (as she maintains hope even throughout his bouts of cold shoulder in s4). of course she loves him. of course she'd risk everything and anything for him. and even in arc 2 when he's being cold, he's still caring and still knows when to step in and support her

rayla is like... a much more 'difficult' character and person from the start. she lies repeatedly, especially to cover up her failures, she can swagger without actual substance, she's snarky and stand offish and can be snappish. she breaks at the worst of times and often leads to other people being put at risk. she abandons him and breaks his heart. she showed up threatening to kill him. she blew up their lives together and repeats the same mistakes over and over again.

on a surface level and on an interpersonal level, she's far more of an overt piece of work, whereas callum's nastiness comes out more sparingly and is more hidden under the surface; it's not always so apparent. but rayla's typically is, she is a moonshadow elf who fundamentally cannot hide her flaws even when she's trying to so hard

and callum loves her anyway.

he's endeared by the snark, he persists past the standoffish, she pushes him away and he keeps coming back to try and help her, he gets angry but he ultimately (and always rather quickly) forgives her, he's had multiple people telling him that she's bad and cannot/should not be trusted and just flat out doesn't listen to them, because he believes so fundamentally in her goodness, even or especially when she doesn't believe in it because of all the reasons above. he knows she can be difficult and he either doesn't care or loves her not in spite of those things but because of those things. and that's what's so appealing about that aspect of their dynamic.

callum is a wonderful walk in the park when it comes to catching feelings with only a few hiccups, and so often rayla is a ditch with spikes, and callum just goes "challenge accepted" every time (and succeeds) because he knows/believes that she's worth it (and he's right)

[black-lake]

astro observations 10

Hey -- I miss doing these astro notes, it’s been- years? where have I been? forced into a rat race. I’ve lately been watching a lot of stand up comedies, timeless comedy movies, rush hour, the hangover, you name it, they don’t make shit like this anymore. I’ve also been dealing with saturn transit my 10th house and conjunct my sun fucking up my life. so I got stuff to share.

 ——

⛄︎ Happy capricorn season! I find it ironic that capricorns are hard workers but people don’t work hard in capricorn season, it’s when everybody slows down, enjoys the holidays, reflects and attempts to make new year’s plans. 

Aspects that indicate humor 

☃︎ I said it before and I will say it again, strong mercury-jupiter aspects are the most common in comedians charts, every existing comedian seems to have them conjunct, oppose or square. e.g. Jim Carrey, Kate McKinnon, Kevin Hart (mercury conj jupiter). Chris Tucker, Amy Schumer (mercury square jupiter). Rowan Atkinson, Steve Carell (mercury opp Jupiter).

☃︎ Moon in scorpio or capricorn, top notch dark humor. Chris Tucker, Pete Davidson, Louis C.K. (capricorn moon). Ricky Gervais, Ryan Reynolds, Matthew Perry (scorpio moon). 

☃︎ Moon in gemini or sagittarius, making you laugh at random things, making the small details in life events remarkable and ironic. Sag got that joyful light hearted spirit no matter how sarcastic they get. Bill Burr, John Mulaney (sag moon). Gemini got that chaotic animated twisted humor, can go on endless tangents but you’ll never get bored. Aubrey Plaza, Jim Carrey, and Rowan Atkinson (gemini moon).

☃︎ North node in gemini or sagittarius being a naturally funny storyteller their whole life. I also notice north node in virgo, leo and capricorn in those that pursue public speaking or stand up. 

☃︎ Many comedians or just straight up funny people got MC in gemini, virgo, sagittarius, or leo. 

☃︎ Mercury in aries, leo, gemini, sagittarius, scorpio, capricorn the type of people that tell a basic story but the tone of their voice, choice of words, and the underlying emotion mixed with their perspective and delivery makes it hilarious.

☃︎ Mercury in a fire sign, can be loud, the underlying anger and passion in their voice tone is what makes them funny. Chris Tucker, Kevin Hart and Dave Chappelle all got a leo mercury. Joe List got an aries mercury.

☃︎ Mercury in an air sign, they keep you engaged, animated expressions, great at impressions and mimicking when they tell stories. Trevor Noah is a good example and Jim Carrey (aquarius mercury).

☃︎ Mercury in earth and water, the way they so calmly tell an intense life event story with a straight face and calm demeanor, almost seeming high, a lot of irony and nonchalance. Pete Davidson (scorpio mercury), Ricky Gervais (cancer mercury) and Kate McKinnon (capricorn mercury). 

☃︎ I have mercury conj jupiter in aries and I’m ruled by mercury (gemini rising). I’m super sarcastic and cutthroat when angry, it makes people upset, shocked, amused, wanting to laugh but also butt heads with me. My mind can find irony in literally anything. I also can change my voice and facial expressions easily when I’m mimicking someone. 

☃︎ Those with strong mercury-pluto aspects, the type that could actually give you contractions from laughter. They think intensely, experience life intensely, are cutthroat and skeptical, are super intellectual and deep which is enough to make them ironic in the way they communicate. Their communication style comes across as bold, raw and shocking, saying it how it is, not afraid of joking about taboo or embarrassing stuff. It feels like my life is fucked up my mind is fucked up and I don't give a fuck typa attitude. Matthew Perry, Pete Davidson, Louis C.K, Adam Sandler, Ryan Reynolds, Steve Carell (mercury conj pluto).

☃︎ Heavy pluto and saturn placements can make someone insanely funny especially if they’ve got aspects indicating public speaking. The absolute best at self deprecating humor. They aren’t afraid to share their traumatic experiences, because not only they make people laugh but they give hope to those who can relate. They got where they are by accumulating that much knowledge and wisdom and it came through many wounds usually relating to rejection, abandonment and feeling inadequate. They use humor to heal themselves and others. 

☃︎ Pete Davidson, Ryan Reynolds and Ricky Gervais got heavy scorpio and pluto conjunctions, examples of plutonian humor. Dave Chappelle and Chris Tucker got heavy saturn aspects, examples of saturnian humor.

☃︎ Now Chris Tucker got all the basic comedian placements. He’s easily one of the best and most successful comedians to ever exist. The type to open his mouth and everyone starts laughing. It’s the attitude not even the context. He was the popular kid too, friends with Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, Jackie Chan, Prince and literally every iconic celebrity in the US. 

☃︎ Chris has a mercury square Jupiter at 0°, leo mercury 28°, capricorn moon, scorpio jupiter, saturn in gemini, jupiter conj neptune (can expand the imagination in storytelling), north node in aquarius (he was a trailblazer in rush hour and many comedians mimic him).

----

☃︎ I noticed so many times that people with saturn in gemini can be socially responsible, meaning that they refuse to cuss in some occasions and refuse to talk shit or go against their morals. Partially due to the lessons they learned on gossip and the consequences of misinformation or twisted narratives. Chris Tucker rejected an offer because he refused to cuss and smoke weed on camera, he also avoids vulgarity and profanity in his stand ups. 

☃︎ Those with gemini north node are either so good at communicating clearly, storytelling and entertaining or will learn that in this lifetime. Same goes for gemini risings. One of their missions is to accumulate knowledge from everywhere they go without the need for distant travel and sharing it with others rather than keeping it confined for abstract contemplations (sag south node). They develop a communication style that is so personal to them that allows them to be a messenger, a bridge between people and a powerful speaker. 

☃︎ I have a leo north node and the more I grow older the more I realize I'm never meant to act so old. This inner child in me screams to come out after every tough cycle esp when I'm mentally trapped in societal conformity. Those with a leo nn exude childlike innocence and purity, at their best spreading love and joy wherever they go. Though to get there they go through challenging experiences alone to build so much strength and confidence so they can pursue what they love and share love so freely since they are so used to being cold and detached (aqua south node). 

☃︎ Those with a cancer north node are naturally so good at business matters like building a company or climbing the success ladder (capricorn south node). They learn quickly that material success alone does not bring them fulfillment. Every time they reach somewhere that feeling of achievement is fleeting and they just want to share those moments with others. They have this urge to connect emotionally to their loved ones and create memories. They might desire having a family of their own, a secure home, and a sense of safety and stability.

I somehow always unintentionally post in december and my posts be considered old next month, so I quit my toxic draining job last week, kinda feels like a life crisis, but I’m feeling so safe and cozy in my bed having my hot mocha eating all the christmas sweets and watching funny shit. so share your fav stand ups, funny movies or documentaries, anything you watch during the holidays. stay warm and cozy 🧣🎅🏼

[punksocks]

Astrology observations No.15

*just my opinions, take them with a grain of salt

-Neptune hard aspects to Mercury/ Neptune in 3rd/Pisces Mercury- people may constantly underestimate your intelligence and they’re genuinely surprised if you’re observant/smart

-The only Virgo risings I’ve known that are not skinny/petite have mars conjunct asc (even then they had a period of time when they were really skinny and either got out of that on purpose or on accident)

-Did you notice that a lot of Cancer Asc men get cast as like “traditional” manly men. I saw Ben Affleck was a Cancer Asc and Kurt Russel! They’re both known for their action movies (I like Kurt Russel more lol) and I was looking at Jon Hamm’s birth chart and he’s a cancer Asc too. He prefers to be a comedy guy, but looks like he walked out of the 50s so he had his breakthrough in mad men. (There’s also a lot going on there with that whole hazing scandal that I note everytime I see him so that’s a lot)

-Libra mars Asc try not to get frustrated but often their mars energy leaks out in other ways and they end up expressing their anger somehow despite the passive aggressive placement for a mars sign

-Fire Mercuries (especially Leo and Sagittarius) copy speech patterns/catch phrases a lot imo, almost as much as water Mercuries but less exact mimicry. Earth Mercuries tend to have very specific speech patterns that don’t change too much throughout their life, they can be very direct and to the point but will have a great deal of detail to share depending on the subject. Air Mercuries tend to have very distinct speech patterns and usually are the most likely to talk and write in their own sort of prose, I’ve known a few (specifically Gemini Mercuries) that have overcome speech impediments and become great, captivating speakers.

-Pluto touching Saturn can amplify its lessons and effects to a higher degree. (Trine, Sextile) will make the experiences more intense but conjunction, opposition, and square could make these effects explosive and intense. With both positive and negative aspects the native will be forced to transform and change their ways- with the negative aspects (conjunct, opposition, square) the native will feel the trials they go through in these transformations

-12th house placements can give you psychic dreams, I’ve also frequently dreamed being people other than myself. Mars will have action oriented dreams. Sun may have more dreams about experiences they’ve had echoing in their dreams. Moon will have deep emotional experiences. Venus may dream about love and friendships.

-Moon opposition sun synastry can create a lot of tension in a romantic relationship. There seems to be some underlying competitiveness going on. Especially if the moon and the sun are Cardinal signs.

-Moon conjunct Sun synastry can be intense. I think it shows how conjunct can be a negative aspect. The energies can understand each other sure, but they can also become an echo chamber of feeding into each other’s egos. I feel similarly about Sun conjunct Asc synastry. (My parents had this and oof, if that relationship isn’t karmic anyway it’s even more so now..)

-The only conjunct synastry I think I had intensely play out was Scorpio moon conjunct my Asc (I didn’t even realize it at the time) it was a lot! Fun and passionate but also he would get so overwhelmed he would be just shaking in normal conversation. Felt like with that and the 8th house synastry and my venus conjunct his pluto there was no was to turn the heat down and be normal with each other. Like we knew it would be short term but he was like talking about the future then I was overthinking the future and then it was over and idk that’s too much imo lol, lil dramatic just to be over in a snap. (Local Capricorn moon doesn’t get what all the fuss is about lol)

-Plus you can have all the positive synastry in the world, it really depends on timing and effort and individual choices and joint communication to work on your relationship, it’s an effort game

[catboybiologist]

Question: as someone that's only very recently experimenting with presenting fem and is on the taller side, do you have any recommendations on types of clothes or tutorials or anything like that? I understand this is a broad question, I'm just new to this is all.

My standard response is to drop this: https://www.reddit.com/user/CatboyBiologist/comments/ynxt62/the_biologists_guide_to_catboying_version_20_what/

But there's a bit more I've learned since then, a bit more I've seen from advice that is usually batted around, and a bit of a style shift now that I've gotten more casual with things and also started transitioning. I have a bit of a rant brewing about how I think a lot of transfemme fashion advice is kinda just bad, but the essentials of what I recommend are basically this:

Greater height = more legs. If you make sure all your... stuff... is under control and SFW, try to show legs/thighs- its a nice, femme thing to express that being tall works into. Especially with a nice skirt or dress.

Directly contrary to most advice on the topic (and a huge subject of my brewing rant), make things tight or exposed around your shoulders. Narrow straps, tank tops, strapless dresses, etc. I have very broad shoulders and a medium to high shoulder to height ratio, even for an AMAB. I've experimented with this a LOT. If you use something that's loose or poofy around the shoulders, it will sit on your shoulders in a way that still "reveals" the width (not to mention that the underlying mentality that the goal of transfemme fashion is to "hide" features and what that does to ego but agh I'm going into that rant unprompted), and honestly, makes it way more visible. If you do something that shows the shoulder, yeah someone will view you as masc if they crack out a ruler, but the "tightness" of the area will make the overall profile you give off look nice and more put together with the rest of the look.

If you do want to shape yourself at all (you really don't have to imo), a little bit of narrowness at the waist goes a long way. I don't even mean shapewear like corsets, just wearing clothes that helps emphasize a slightly narrower waist. Women's clothes are intended to be worn WAY more high waisted than men's clothes, and being tall actually helps with this for a lot of dresses. This is the way they're intended to be worn, and puts a minor cinch around your waist that helps emphasize the hips. This is de emphasized or absent in lots of advice I've seen online.

If you're wearing pants, and you're wearing them high waisted enough to have that cinch at the waist, tightness on the hips will help show their shape as well. This is highly dependent on your body shape though.

Just fucking go for it. I mean, this is thrown around in a "omg just put yourself out there you'll be great" way a lot. It can get annoying and toxically positive imo... but annoyingly, its right. Many people will love to see you putting yourself out there, and you'll look great.

Experiment!!! There's so many tiny details that are dependent on tiny aspects of your build overall that can't really be addressed without like, professional experience and hours of time for consultation, neither of which I have. But try on a lot of different things, find a friend willing to help, and try some stuff out!!

Hope this all helps! As said, I might type up something more if I have the time. But point number 6 is def the most important.

[anthurak]

Rambling about Perma-Death in Videogame Stories

So is anyone else just completely and utterly done with the trope of ‘If you die in the game, you DIE FOR REAL!1!1’ that we see in untold numbers of stories about characters getting trapped in video games?

Like I was just watching some clips from the Jumanji reboot and now I just can’t stop thinking about the same thing I thought when I saw it back in 2017: WHY does perma-death HAVE to be a thing here?

If you haven’t seen it, the premise of the reboot is that the magic board game of doom from the original 1995 film realized that board games are getting less popular and thus upgraded itself into a videogame cartridge/console to be more appealing to would-be players. And has now sucked in four unsuspecting teens for an adventure now parodying videogame tropes instead of a board game.

Now the big ‘threat’ posed to our protagonists is that they each start with multiple ‘Lives’ which allow them to immediately respawn when they die. But they only have three lives each, which of course leads to the implicit idea that if they can’t lose ALL their lives or it’s GAME OVER, ie; they’re dead for good.

But the thing is, nothing in the movie actually DEMONSTRATES to our protagonists that this is actually the case. They just… assume that if they die three times they’re dead for really realsies.

And while watching/rewatching the movie, I just kept thinking WHY did the threat of perma-death have to be a thing? And also the fact that it didn’t even make SENSE in this context.

Like the Jumanji game is clearly sentient to a degree and seems driven first and foremost to get people to play it. So I have to ask; WHAT sense does it make for Jumanji to outright, permanently KILL its players? After all, if the players are permanently dead, they can’t exactly PLAY now can they?

Furthermore, just look at the old-style sidescroller games that Jumanji clearly based its new form on. What happens in those games when you lose all your lives? It doesn’t permanently lock you out and keep you from playing ever again. Instead you lose your progress and are sent back to the start of a level. Or in those particularly hard games, you are sent back to the very START of the game.

So don’t you think that makes WAY more sense for how Jumanji would work?

Imagine in the film when the heroes’ fifth party member Alex, the kid who got trapped in the game twenty years earlier, starts to lose his last life, the rest aren’t able to save him. He seemingly dies… and then there is this bright flash.

Then all five of the players are suddenly back in the jeep with Rhys Darby hamming out exposition at them, right back at the start of the game.

I don’t know if that would make for a better paced film, but I definitely think it would make for a more interesting story that could explore some of the real underlying aspects and nuances of how playing a videogame actually goes. Because now this is no longer a challenge of luck or split-second intuition, but of trial and error. You know, like most ACTUAL videogames!

Now that our heroes know there ISN’T actually a threat of permanent death (because this is, you know, a GAME!), they can engage in one of the most FUN parts of playing a big, open-world sandbox game: trying any number of crazy, nonsensical ideas to see if one of them actually sticks!

And I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a great way to ratchet up the dark-comedy as the characters start trying all kinds of crazy ideas that get them killed more often than not. And if you think that wouldn’t make for a very entertaining movie, let me point you to a little-known flick called Groundhog Day! Not to mention the fact that story would still have stakes. The characters still have the goal of completing the game and there’s always the threat of them losing their progress and having to start over. Plus it makes for a great method of character development and bonding as the five are forced to learn how to work together until they’re functioning as a seamless unit.

This is really my overall point about how the threat of perma-death in these kinds of stories feels like such a crutch to needlessly generate generic drama and stakes. Not to mention kind of going against the very thing that makes something a GAME in the first place.

It’s why my actual favorite ‘people getting sucked into a videogame’ story is actually the anime Log Horizon. Because in that series the respawn mechanic of the MMO the characters are sucked into still works, and the story instead revolves around its characters learning to adjust, adapt and live in this new reality. Not to mention it still finds an interesting way of maintaining stakes and consequences to characters dying even if they can respawn: Namely that because the game’s respawning mechanic involved taking away a certain among of Experience Points from a player as a ‘cost’ for reviving, this means that players now lose pieces of their memory every time they respawn.

All in all, while I understand its appeal to writers as an easy way to generating stakes and danger for characters, this whole trope of ‘die in the game you die for realsies’ feels SUPER old and super cheap at this point. And I have serious respect for any story that subverts or averts it.

[wardenofthecoast]

Skyrim and Civil War

You know, there are ways to make good morally grey conflicts, but Skyrim's Civil War is not one of them. However instead of talking about how undercooked it was (it was), I want to talk about the underlying concept of it. Sometimes just saying "add more content" isn't a reasonable critique when it comes to a product that needs to come out (there are graveyards of games that never stopped developing).

The issue with Skyrim's civil war -

It puts a lot of emphasis on Talos, a god that tbh I don't think needed it and wasn't referenced until the third game. IDK this is more personal but I'd prefer Talos just be a hero-god of Cyrodiil/Skyrim you know? (Oh that guy who conquered you all and forced you into his empire, which some of you are old enough to remember? worship him pls)

It's morally grey, but in the "I hate both of these options way". There historical precedents for a nationalist movement opposing imperialism, and there are precedents for rebellions occurring from princes or nobles who want take power. However the conflict feels more like neoliberal democrat versus libertarian republican, aka I hate em both and the difference is minimal. It's like if someone wanted to do the US civil war but they really thought it was about states' rights. It's like Braveheart but worst.

It's both the impetus for the plot (the dragonborn prophecy) and shows up in the main quest, but ONLY if you don't interact with it (too much). And there's incentive not to, as it provides a cool quest that is optional and you can remove a jarl or two you don't like depending on how it goes. Otherwise you can really ignore it, and you're standing with any guild or city isn't really referenced except when the new Jarl takes over.

It's an excuse for chuds to make stormcloak memes after they're done making Morrowind slavery memes.

OK i know what I said about content but yeah the gameplay aspect isn't great with one or two exceptions (the siege of Whiterun and Solitude/Windhelm). The lack of say and options as a nation's folk hero truly shines here. It's like if during the US civil war Jesus showed up, killed the devil and then everyone said "thank you but we need you to blackmail a secretary".

You could make it work. There's a phrase the comes up in the game, Season Unending, which the nords used to mean war. You could put an anti-war theme or something regarding the cyclical nature of violence, even if people didn't agree it would be saying something. Personally, I'd use the 30 years war as inspiration - a religious and political conflict about an empire with multiple actors, all of which causing mayhem to the countryside.

Here are my solutions which don't involve any additional content, but instead changes/removal.

The Civil War ended at the beginning of the game. You see Ulfric die, his forces are scattered and the jarls with him are left picking up the pieces, but the Empire doesn't have the funds to restore control nor pay its soldiers. This helps explains why forts are ruined and the high number of bandits - they are soldiers/deserters looking for a payday. It also creates a narrative of trying to see who Ulfric Stormcloak was using unreliable narrators and maybe a bit of tragedy for a guy who thought he was The Guy (but in fact You're The Guy).

The Civil War ended years ago. Same as above, but make it more tamed. This would be the closest to just removing it entirely.

Make it a rebellion and have the player be a part of it. It would be so interesting a contrast to be against the empire after four games directly or indirectly aiding it. Now you could either try to do something thoughtful about revolutions and violence and the character of that rebel army, or you could just do Braveheart, but either way people would probably be more invested in it.

Don't let us join either side. The Empire's rulers claim the title dragonborn, and having some shmuck say he is would not be in their interest. Ulfric claims tradition and his power of the voice, not saying but implying a connection to Talos, and so he would not want you as a threat to his power. Have both groups be awful, and hammer home how these nobles might all claim to be different, but they slaughter the peasants all the same.

These aren't perfect solutions, and tbh the quality and quantity of the writers on board a project are going to impact any idea. But still, I think I'd prefer these options than what we got in game.

[power-chords]

It just fucking hit me that Shklovsky is also at the very root of William Gibson's Pattern Recognition. The excerpted text below from Literature and Cinematography, which HE WROTE IN 1923, reads like getting a bucket of water dumped over your head right now, at this very moment, 100 years later:

To do a proper study on the theory of cinematography, you would have to collect all films, or at least several thousand of them. When classified, these films might yield the mass of material from which you could formulate several absolutely precise laws. We witnessed the arrival of cinematography; its life is the life of our generation; we can trace it step by step. Soon the material will become boundless. It is depressing to think that we already know everything about the need to study contemporary phenomena in the history of art but never do anything about it.

This is not something I can do by myself. This matter is beyond the capabilities of one individual; it requires trained assistants, means and, possibly, experiments.

What makes people cry? What is comical? Under what conditions does the comic become tragic?

It’s hard to understand literature fully; it’s impossible, or nearly impossible, to give it direction. The cinema is still visible; we could create a film science, which could be completely mechanised. In 1917 someone published a carefully researched article which reported that screenwriters, exhausted by work, had concocted a machine that produced plots. Imagine a row of films wound on special spools. One of the reels contains people’s professions, the second one – countries of the world, the third one – various ages, the fourth one – human acts (for example, kissing, climbing a pipe, knocking someone down, jumping into the water, shooting). A person takes hold of the cranks leading to these reels and spins them. Then he peers through a special slot and reads the resulting gibberish.

The machine is rather strange, but apparently it gives American brains the jolt they require. I’m going to write more about this amazing aspect of cinematography: about the tendency not to motivate the connection between the component parts, its scenes.

But in order to do this, we have to go back to the subject of plot in literature. There are several types of literary plot. Almost always, as it seems to me, these types of structure are based on an underlying sensation of disparity, an irony of sorts that is resolved at the end. In its simplest cases, a plot may be defined as an elaborated parallel. And there is an affinity that exists between parallelism in itself and the so-called obraznost [note: the Russian is not quite equivalent to the English ‘imagery’].

For example, if we say of a great man that he is a ‘tower’, that is an image. As a parallelism, the construct would be as follows: just as a tower rises amidst the city, so rises this man amongst the people. That is, an image is like a parallelism with its first part suppressed. This may be elaborated into a plot.

Thus, in the simple types of plot, we encounter a phenomenon similar in its structure to the ‘image’ and the ‘pun.’ There is such a moment in the plot of Macbeth. The witches have predicted that “none of woman born” will kill him. But Macbeth’s adversary was not born, he was “from his mother’s womb / Untimely ripp’d.” Thus the fact of unnatural childbirth – by means of Caesarian section – had so astonished the anonymous creator that he appropriated it and elaborated it into a plot. The word “born” lies at the base of the plot construct. For Macbeth, it means “of woman born”; for the witch, it means “born naturally,” with the emphasis on the very process of childbirth. Thus we find ourselves in a sphere where disparities are created on linguistic grounds.

Parallel intrigues in a film are possible only on one condition: that they be connected by common characters. Actually, film uses both “mystery” and “parallel” extensively, but it uses them in its own way. Mystery is used in the cinema mainly for plot transpositions, the phenomenon whereby a work’s events are rendered not in sequence, but in some other order. Usually what motivates the transposition is a story. In film, plot displacement triumphs. First, we usually get several somewhat incomprehensible scenes, which are explained only later in the form of a story narrated by one of the characters. Note, however, that in the case of motivation by a story, it is not the story of an event, as in a novel, but a plot transposition in its purest form (i.e., it’s as if you snipped a piece of film off the beginning and put it at the end).

In that regard film is undoubtedly much stronger. It is much weaker, however, in the area of allusion, which in literature sustains one’s interest in the resolution of mystery. Film does not allow ambivalence.

…One curious trait of cinematography is its complete disregard of motivations. By ‘motivations’ I mean the common, ‘quotidian’ explanation of a plot structure. Film has almost no use for motivations. Maybe this is simplistic, but it seems to me that in film nothing is told; everything is shown. We don’t require detailed explanations of the exceptionally fortuitous turn of events that made possible someone’s rescue. The facts speak for themselves. We see a film and hardly ever ask ourselves, “how, in what way?" An ordinary contemporary stunt film consists of a number of engaging scenes which are connected with each other solely by the unity of the characters.

Nor is any psychological motivation supplied. One part of a film is indispensable, because in it the cameraman shows a view of a city from above; in the next part, a trained monkey performs; the third part of the same film contains a ballet performance, and so on. And we watch all of it with interest.

What is a film plot? An artful selection of scenes, a successful chronological transposition and good juxtapositions. The film script has turned both toward popular comedy, with its stock characters, and toward the adventure novel, with its highly developed use of ‘delaying elements’, with its wide range of casualties, drownings, desert islands and other tricks… Since ‘delaying elements’, with slight variations, can go on forever, the only way to end the screenplay is to have a wedding.

[waitingforsecretsouls]

Thinking about them again, and Jaehaerys & Barth truly are criminally underrated as a duo when they've got one of the most fleshed-out dynamics and friendships in the entirety of Fire & Blood.

The fact that any and all moments of emtional honesty and vulnerability we have on Jaehaerys are relayed through Jaehaerys and Barth exchanges (even as far back as his feelings on the Alyssa & Rogar marriage!), that all of Alysanne's proposed reforms to make life better for the common people only get pushed through with Barth's support, that it's Barth who has the most nuanced and sympathethic views on Jaehaerys and Alysannes neglected younger children (primarily Saera, by far the most "controversial" of said children. He clearly sees her as starved of love and attention, whereas Jaehaerys only sees the "acting out" aspect of it without even trying to get at potential underlying causes); Alysanne literally brings in Barth as support in trying to mollify Jaehaerys' stance on Saera similar to how his support of her planned reforms previously made Jaehaerys accept them; the juicy tibid that (alledgedly) he esteemed Alysanne higher than Jaehaerys, yet was and remained primarily categorized as the latters friend, Barth as the foremost researcher of dragons and other aspects of the "higher mysteries" meaning he likely got permission to study some Targ dragons from up close and maybe even in their more natural habitat on Dragonstone, publishing multiple books later decried as heresy by the faithful Baelor yet Barth himself was a Septon as well, and Jaehaerys was read to from one of said books on his literal deathbed suffice to say approved of Barth's studies to say the least...Also the episode where he has to dissuade Jaehaerys from trying to get him (Barth) elected as High Septon is just cute. Yes, certainly power-grabby motivations but also supporting his bestie in his career. Shrugging of the classism for a moment in making him hand of the king is another goodie. I'm not exaggerating when I say that at times Barth unironically reads as third in their marriage, of sorts (his keener insight into their younger children, the way his opinion is the tie-breaker in anything except the Saera-issue (not for lack of trying though), the way we never get anything similar to how he confides in Barth between Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly logistically implied but getting an explicit example or two would have been nice nonetheless. The one instance I can recall is Alysanne writing to Jaehaerys regarding Silverwing's unwillingness to cross the Wall but that's the wrong order and more a "WTF" than confiding deep emotions)...

And that's not even going into potential shipping aspects of it, regarding the divide in class and culture and faith (Jaehaerys and Alysanne did grow up in that early period where Targaryen adherence to the faith was more lip-service), Jaehaerys and Alysanne's likely co-dependency developed by how Targaryens see innocent childhood affection as signs of romantic interest and warp these relationships (as we are shown with Baelon and Alyssa as well), how they were child-hostages together cut off from all other siblings which certainly contributed to their resolution to only marry each other, and how you can play with the eventual break-down of these perceptions and the Targ exceptionalism and theirs as a great love story as their children and marriage fall apart, Jaehaerys arguably lashing out against Alysanne and trying to re-establish their ideal Targaryen family unit with the later, forced, pregnancies but it's NOT working...The tragedy of Jaehaerys as some flavour of repressed, partly by how Westerosi society rolls, partly by how Targaryen family traditions and cycles cycle, how it would add another bitter twist to his and Rhaena's estranged relationship (both looking at the other and being jealous of what they're squandering (what they themselves rejected; Rhaena the crown and Jaehaerys relinquishing said crown))...

To which we also have the criminally underexplored Alysanne & Jonquil Darke relationship. Her sworn sword, sticking so close to her it gave her the nickname "Scarlet Shadow" (explicitly due to how seriously she took her duties). Alysanne forbidding her and another "favourite" from taking part in the tourney to celebrate the opening of the Dragonpit because the fighting resulted in so many injuries, the dramatic irony of Jonquil being employed due to the attempted assassination of Alysanne which she blamed for the death of her son Aegon only to have to witness Alysanne eventually forced into late pregnancies resulting in the early deaths of the resulting children...Can't tell me she didn't hate Jaehaerys. Jonquil being instrumentalized in Saera's punishment and through her Alysanne as well (imo) despite her pleading with Jaehaerys to be gentle on Saera, potential eventual conflict arising from that with Saera's later estrangement and Alysanne's desire to re-connect with her...Also just had the realization while typing this, regarding the in-universe-myth of Jonquil and Florian the Fool, a knight who falls in love with Jonquil upon seeing Jonquil bathing in the afterward named Jonquil's Pool...A myth that get's canonically used to describe/flatter the Jaehaerys & Alysanne match...Well, Alysanne hired Jonquil after being attacked in said pool, Jonquil is literally named after one half of said legendary duo and a (mystery) knight! Connecting some dots, maybe not intended but certainly connectable and a few too many common ingredients to be entirely a coincident.

[seventeenlovesthree]

Has the new zero two movie changed your mind or added anything in a positive light to any of the zero two ships?

Oh, that is an interesting question, thank you for asking!

Though I think I have already kinda hinted at it during my last analysis posts regarding the movie and recent dramas: There wasn't (a lot of) actual "romantic" ship portrayal in my opinion. Which is actually a good thing in my book, but let's see what we got there. Putting my thoughts under a cut, because there are still a lot of people who haven't watched the movie!

First of all, let's name the few significant - or at least implied - interactions that are displayed in the movie:

Daisuke & Ken. Daisuke & Miyako. Ken & Miyako. Daisuke & Ken & Miyako. Daisuke & Rui (& Ken). Takeru & Hikari.

And that's basically it. As mentioned before, the movie itself only has roughly 90 minutes, due to pacing and plot, there isn't a lot of interpersonal interaction that goes beyond the general display of "friendship". The dramas are WAY better at showing off the dynamics between the characters, but we're not talking about that right now. But yeah, the Jogress combinations besides Daiken don't have significant interactions, Iori gets the shortest end of the stick ever, they don't have a single moment of Daisuke fawning over Hikari. So let's focus on the few relationships I mentioned above:

Daisuke & Ken: They're already one of the aspects that save 02 for me personally, which sounds more grim than it actually is, but I've always loved their dynamics a lot. You can feel the fondness (and admiration) they have for each other, their characters contrast and complement each other still beautifully. And even if the display of their bond could have been even deeper - Miyako calling them out for "flirting" will always be my favourite part of the movie. Someone recently pointed out to me how there might even be an underlying codependency between these two, which is an interesting angle to focus on as well, but I'd say the movie hasn't made me love them more or less than I did before. They're just great, I've shipped them before and I will keep shipping them!

Daisuke & Miyako: They're more of a comic relief combination than anything else, which hasn't changed much since they had been children after all. Personally, I've always seen them more as siblings than romantically compatible and the movie kiiiiinda proved my point in that? It depends on how you want to interpret certain framings. Especially because Miyako is particularly framed with someone else...

Ken & Miyako: ... And that is Ken. I already mentioned in my big post-watch analysis that, while you can definitely read every interaction between the characters as platonic, they were REALLY keen to put emphasis on Miyako focusing on Ken. There were several moments where she approached Ken on her own account, encouraged him, exchanged glances... And yes, her words can be taken as flirting (especially by the end of it!) and the snowball fight may have made a lot of Kenyako fans ecstatic! Understandably so! It's interesting, because they definitely have NOT put that much emphasis on a blooming relationship on a certain other future-canon ship, but I digress... Long story short, they definitely showed Miyako being interested in Ken, directing speeches towards him that you would usually expect from Daisuke. Ken on the other hand still seemed rather baffled at her behaviour, but it was a start. An interesting start! They have not really been a ship for me so far, and the one-sidedness is still something they need to work on, but I would say the movie did a decent job with them.

Daisuke & Ken & Miyako: Take everything I have outlined above and just make them a poly ship, THAT would be interesting. It may actually be the most satisfying conclusion in a timeline where Kenyako will turn out to be endgame anyway, even though the chemistry between Daiken is undeniably there! All jokes aside, it was amusing to witness the bickering between them, there was quite the chemistry (and jealousy?) between them.

Daisuke & Rui (& Ken): What can I say? Daisuke has a thing for "boys who suffer (tm)" and thanks to his irresistible positivity, he will ALWAYS pull them. Always. While Rui is still a different brand from Ken and Wallace, it really is not surprising that the lone wolf is visibly impressed by Daisuke (with Ken watching over them carefully, as the voice of reason). Considering the fact that I still prefer Daiken, I can still appreciate the dynamic, even though it wasn't the first time they pulled that trope.

Takeru & Hikari: Long story short - they held BACK with these two. They did in the movie, they did in the dramas. Which, again, is not a bad thing, since I personally enjoy how casual and comfortable they are with each other. Them being in each other's spheres is just natural - and I was DELIGHTED to listen to them writing fanfiction about their brothers and friends while being out for drinks in their drama. But if you were looking for romantic implications, you may get disappointed. While they DID get their own snowball fight scene (breadcrumbs!) and had a few softer interactions, there could have been more. While I did prefer them platonic myself for the majority of my life, I have generally grown more fond of them romantically in the past few months - so I am fine with either of their readings. But the movie hasn't had an effect on my perception of them.

Long story short - in sum, the movie didn't provide enough interpersonal interaction to change my perception of the ships in the grand scheme of things. Daisuke/Rui was a new addition, so it doesn't really count, but I WAS surprised to see them put emphasis on Miyako subtly woo-ing Ken, which was an interesting idea that was decently executed - even if it was still one-sided and didn't disrupt the true love-line (no, not a triangle!) of the movie:

Miyako loves: Ken. Ken loves: Daisuke. Daisuke loves: Ramen

[preordered-gf]

.49 Suletta Mercury

To be honest, It's a bit hard to pick.

Maybe her overall optimism about life and people.

It feels like the crux of her character, and her arc throughout the show, from her first appearance in Craddle Planet novel, to the last we see of her in the grass fields, it's something that is underlying to her actions and understanding of the world.

I like how it is presented as one of her personal faults, it doesn't always bring fortune to her, she's constantly having to constantly play catch-up to understand the underhanded and pessimistic politicking of Asticassia, and at times it makes her seem rather dim because she doesn't know about the social rituals of rich kids. On a more constantly shown example, there is the stuff with the Elans; from No.4 manipulating her in order to get inside the Aerial, of course, eventually things work out and he builds a genuine sense of friendship with her, which sadly leads to the original Elan and No. 5 abusing that trust and putting her directly in harm's way, or in some cases directly assaulting her in an increasingly desperate bid to obtain Aerial.

But it is also presented as one of her virtues, it's one of the reasons she can make such social impact on a school full of snot-nosed brats who are being groomed into inheriting the position of heartless military and soulless corporate, simply being a genuine person who expects other to reflect that genuineness back changes the dynamics of the school, and eventually makes characters turn around their opinion of her ie. Guel, Shaddiq (one turns around much, much sooner than the other but still)

And of course, that sincerity and good-will is a big part of what makes Mio eventually fall for her, so, pretty big aspect overall.

And I love how, as she grows more mature throughout the show, she doesn't lose that sense of optimism, it just grows alongside her, after the second terrorist attacks, she doesn't pretend not to be aware of how much destruction and death she witnessed, how many people have succumbed to it, but she knows she can still save some of the victims from it, and so she works tirelessly from presumably an early morning class until presumably late night, when Earth House eventually finds her.

Hell, I would say a lot of the entire end arc relies heavily on her optimism, being willing to see the goodness of Earth House after the revolving door of betrayals she received recently, helping thorugh the aftermath of the second attack, putting together the situation regarding Mio/Eri/Prospera and becoming set on talking to all of them, in order to set things straight, despite how badly she had been affected by their recent actions, as the show puts it, it's unrelenting kindness

If I had to put a second option, maybe her self-worth quirk of tying it to how useful she can be to others, a weird option to pick maybe, but it felt really relatable to see, and I guess I projected a little from it, so it felt extra great to see her slowly overcoming that, until eventually we see her as a confident, joyful woman in the epilogue.

Of course, her situation is much more complex, raised in a colony that disliked her until she proved to be an useful asset as a rescue pilot, she eventually ties her sense of worth with her usefulness to others, but I can relate to the idea of overworking yourself and throwing away your wishes in order to do well for others a bit.

Idk, i just think she's neat :3, she's a girly girl and her femininity is a major aspect of how she's able to eventually succeed in her goals, and that just warms my heart

[writefightandflightclub]

"ride or die is so special to me" ch.6 edition!!!

(Sorry this is so late work was just way busier than normal this past week!!)

Okay so right off the bat, "Santiago watches you go. Feels the violence of you being snatched from his side like a wound" why would you do that to us??? Probably bc it's beautifully written and a perfect start to this chapter but STILL. I felt personally ATTACKED by this opening. Also the callback to ch.3 which says "Santiago is a wound you could never close" 😭 babe you know I am rooting for these two but they keep hurting me AND EACH OTHER.

Is all the boys except Tom showing up foreshadowing Tom's fate in the movie?? 👀 also I like the detail that Benny is the one to follow her while Will is sort of the guard/the wall keeping the two of them apart while Frankie goes with Santi. Without having to talk about it, the squad falls into roles, you can feel their history as a team in the way they moved into, and through, this conflict. Hoping our girl and Benny don't do anything stupid (I can't remember which chapter it is so maybe I hallucinated it or something, but wasn't there a comment at some point about Benny having a soft spot for her or along those lines? I'd like to believe neither of them would be so stupid and short-sighted though).

The IRONY of Santi's fear of hurting her being the exact thing that ends up hurting her? BIG OUCH. Another ginormous ouch was this "Until Santiago feels only jitters through his weak legs. Until he feels a pit open up inside and swallow him. Until he can carry himself no further away from you. Until he realises that no matter how far he walks he cannot run from himself" LIKE THAT LAST LINE IS SO HAUNTINGLY POIGNANT!!!

Now for what might just be my favourite aspect of this chapter: Frankie being an absolute KING. "Don't talk just walk" is something I have to tell myself when I'm upset, and Frankie telling Santi that was so great!! "Don’t patronise her by thinking you know better" THANK YOU THIS IS KING SHIT FRANKIE KEEP IT UP BABY. Kudos to you balancing how messed up their military history and trauma has made each of them from Santi's perspective and how moving on is worth it from Frankie's - it makes the conflict believable and layered and interesting. The way Frankie is uniquely equipped to get through to Santiago and get him to admit what he is afraid of, what underlies all these tensions, was GORGEOUSLY explored.

However that ending??? NOOOO SANTIAGO NOOOOOO YOU LITERALLY JUST WENT THROUGH THIS WITH FRANKIE DO NOT FALL INTO THAT MENTAL TRAP AGAIN!!! I want him to do copious amounts of therapy!!!!

Can't believe how you just come up with all this stuff and write it so well? This chapter really went straight to my heart like this is the kind of shit I want injected directly into my veins it is so good!!!

Special to me anon!!! 😀🧡 Heyyyy!

Ooh thank you for this delicious commentary. And PLEASE never apologise for bestowing such a wonderful gift upon me. I would wait years. 😁

Btw, I hope that work isn’t being too unkind to you. You got this! 🧡

Okay. So. First of all I love it that you noticed that callback, with the wound imagery etc. ☺️🧡

And ooh, well we’ll have to wait and see if Tom’s absence is foreshadowing anything in this tale 👀 … but that’s such a stellar observation! Oh and I’m so pleased the way they all reacted gave hints at how they work as a unit. That it’s well-trodden. I wanted all of the relationships to feel plausible and unique but also that sense of them as a team to be present. The fact they can *mobilise*. I feel they would have roles and patterns without needing to speak about it and I did feel this is how it would go down. Oh my gosh, thank you for remembering that detail about Benny too! I did indeed suggest he has a soft spot for reader, and so I think it’s apt he’s the one to follow 🥹

And the ouches? Oof. I know, I know. Santiago really doesn’t want to hurt her. He honestly would rather suffer himself than do that. And yet… somehow they are BOTH hurting. But, he’s an expert at creating / worsening problems for himself (no shade, he’s got a lot to work through in that pretty head of his and breaking cycles is not easy). I feel like this whole scene with Frankie was so vital actually.

Also. Yes. Frankie = king. 👑👑👑👑👑👑👑👑 No notes. 😁 I’m so pleased the conflict there was believable, and that their different perspectives / beliefs came through. I think one reason why it’s so hard for Santi is that when he tugs on the reader thread to try and unravel it, it’s tied on to this big ball of all his other traumas: military, grief, and more, and so it feels far too big. I do feel like Frankie is “uniquely equipped” it get through to him - love that phrasing. Sometimes when people are in it or too close to it they just need someone else to help them shift their angle of view. Even a small nudge. Frankie knows them BOTH so well and loves them, and I feel like even with everything he has going on himself he’s just slightly less jaded. He’s looking ahead to his new baby, wanting to get back on track, you know? Also, importantly, he’s TIRED. Like. Just sort it out, man.

And ahhhh the ending!!!!!!! 😱😱😱😱 I think this goes back to patterns being hard to break. I think it’s clear this one isn’t going to be solved by any one *single* moment or epiphany. That, *if* they can make it work, it’s gonna take some work. Let’s see! 🤭

Once again thank you for indulging me and letting me ramble about this story! I’m so grateful! 🧡🧡🧡

[utilitycaster]

Tagging along the previous ask about One D&D Playtest material, what are your thoughts about the changes to critical hits and failures, specifically that critical damage is only for weapons and unarmed strikes, and not for casters (and maybe not DMs, since it specifically says "players)? Because I feel like...I kind of hate it. But I would love to hear what other people think, and I tend to like your insight into mechanics.

So here's the thing. I mostly ignored that section because I was like "well, you see, I know how to play D&D already". I will be saying "fuck that" in the feedback, because yeah, critting on an attack spell is great and I fail to see how that's any different than an attack with a weapon. I do not plan on implementing this in the slightest in my games whereas I'm very open to the One D&D race/origins stuff.

I'm...ehhhh on not including DMs for crits (it's going to require a rewrite of, say, the Grave Cleric given that the crit canceling is a crucial ability) but like, here's the thing. Most takes in the TTRPG world on what the DM can or cannot do are stupid, because one of the things the DM can do is homebrew the monster. If you REALLY want to kill the party, you throw an ancient dragon or a tarrasque at them well before they're ready. It's the same underlying principle behind DMs whining about counterspell or crit-canceling or racial flight abilities at low level; your job as the DM is, basically, to make it a narratively appropriately difficult fight, and maybe this requires doing a little extra work, and guess what buddy, that's what you signed up for by being the DM. I can just look at the monster in the manual and say "hmm, actually, here's my homebrew: they deal twice the damage it says they do EVERY ROUND. How's about THAT."

So personally: I will be ignoring all of this and playing crits as I always have, and I will provide my feedback of "NOPE" on the survey (and you should too!) but also...it's pretty easy to get around the DM aspect of it.

(sidebar: people who get all :( about actual play DMs going "god DAMN IT" about crit canceling or bane or what have you...are so bizarre. Like, that is part of DM-ing, and I assure you, Matt or Brennan or Aabria or Murph or Griffin or whoever know it, and it makes for a great story and the players LOVE it. It's the same way how, when someone says 'king me' in checkers, the correct response is to hand them the extra checker and also say 'well, fuck you'. Do you not have siblings or something? Is this what's going on?)

[mythandral]

What memory would your OC rather just forget? (for Outis)

What is your OC's weapon of choice? Have they ever actually used it? (for Hasa)

Do you have a specific lyric or quote which you associate with your OC? (for Robin)

What's one way your OC has changed since you first came up with them? (for Alorus)

What is your OC's fatal flaw? Are they aware of this flaw? (for Wyn)

Outis - there's a lot of people Outis has been cruel to via inaction (most of their 'friendships' are very one-sided - not entirely their fault, but it can end up with feelings hurt) and I do think they regret much of it once they actually start to figure out how relationships work and how to be present in them.

There's lots of situations that they think back on and wish they had handled differently, and that includes tiny little things that the other person has almost certainly forgotten (Outis is, after all, highly forgettable) and would cause no harm for them to forget as well - it'd be those that they'd choose.

Of course the person that really helped them figure out all of this in the first place is the person who has the ability to remove those memories, but Outis isn't going to use it - they know that they'd still exist in crystal, and would rather keep them in their own head.

Hasa - Hasa uses his knives quite regularly. It's not just for combat, he's been living out in the wilderness for upwards of a century and they see a lot of use for hunting, cutting away vegetation, rudimentary cooking and what have you. He's amassing a collection - he's never been close enough to civilisation to purchase them so they're mostly stolen, or lifted from what's left of unfortunate explorers, in payment for the small rites he performs for them. I think he has a favourite, old set that he keeps sharp but barely uses - they're very ornate, with gems set in the handle and he likes just looking at them.

Robin - the rest of the song doesn't especially fit, but I like these lyrics from Schism by Tool for them:

I know the pieces fit

'Cause I watched them tumble down

No fault, none to blame

It doesn't mean I don't desire

To point the finger, blame the other

Watch the temple topple over

To bring the pieces back together

Rediscover communication

They're a conspiracy theorist at the time of the fall of the Allagan empire, managing to make contact with a survivor in the now-buried Crystal Tower, so I think they fit really well!

Alorus - Alorus went from being a bastard deserving of no sympathy to a bastard deserving of all of it as his motivations and themes came together. The underlying question of his character has remained constant - what happens if a shard of Outis was given great attention and influence from birth - and the answer remains much the same (it ends badly - their soul is never supposed to be in the forefront), but the journey has become far less pointing and laughing at the hubris and bad decisions made, and more crying about them. And way more butterflies (and crying about them, too).

Wyn - Wyn's (and the other shards', really) fatal flaw is failure to take action or connect. The world goes on around him, and doesn't change for his presence or lack thereof. He was at the Waking Sands during the massacre and hid. He flits around and does small, helpful things but if he's paid attention to he's prone to disengage. It takes concious effort for him to be involved with things, and for the most part the effort isn't going to be his. Like any fatal flaw it's addressed as time goes on, but aspects of that are always going to be present.

[canmom]

continuing to read Worth the Candle, circa ch43.

this continues to clear the bar of being an actually interesting litrpg isekai and also (sigh) ratfic, which I didn't realise at first, but i saw an article on the author's blog which named it as such - which mostly seemed to mean 'fiction which spends a lot of words on thought processes' - but now a little of that bayesian stank is getting in there. but nevertheless, well first it's About Grief in a way that's written in a way that feels raw and genuine enough that it resonates; chapter 42 in which are shown how the protagonist went to pieces has some particular insights on what it's like, thinking particularly of

Looking back, I have to wonder how much of Reimer being a dick to me was just him trying to process the grief in his own way, in the same way that I started to lash out at pretty much everyone around me for every little slight, or anything that could possibly be interpreted as disrespect to Arthur. I was his best friend, and he was mine, that was how I saw myself after his death, and I applied as much paint to our relationship as possible, until it was sometimes hard to remember that I’d been anything but a perfect friend.

and it makes me think like. i wasn't one of Fall's closest friends by any means, indeed for most of this year she wasn't speaking to me for complicated psychosis reasons, and although we'd started to rebuild things at the end and i was really looking forward to spending more time with her, the huge public show of grief I made - it was genuine, but i was certainly partly grieving that i hadn't done a better job of being "Fall's friend" when she was alive.

and second is the author has clearly spent many years reading the same sorts of D&D board I grew up on, so the metafiction aspect builds on a familiar suite of concepts and is thus quite compelling. the author's game design digressions are on point.

and third, or I guess continuation of second, I'm in a very well run D&D game at the moment which is like, highlight of every week no question, so it's on the brain. this is unapologetically a self insert story, but that results in the author/MC's D&D games and the thought and passion he puts into them ringing very true.

it's way longer than it needs to be, I think, and puts little attention on prose styling - it's perfectly serviceable, and does have a recognisable voice, but mostly just 'gets the job done'. the ratfic angle means a great deal of time is spent analysing, planning and deliberating in enormous detail, which doesn't stop people whining in the comments.

but the virtue its prose does have is that it's frictionless. I'm like a little under a fifth of the way in, which means I've read about a sizable novel already, but it really doesn't feel like it.

speaking of which, I've never seen a more condescending set of AO3 commentators. it seems like litrpg attracts a certain kind of reader who isn't shy about saying they think the MC is unbearably stupid, and then backseating the writing in general and the character's build decisions, which seems an absurd thing to get hung up on.

the way this kind of thing works, you've got the small scale series of arcs - 'how will the character solve this problem' - and the longer mystery arc - 'what is revealed about the System underlying it all' - but all of that is just kind of arbitrary really, because what it's really about is the gradual unfolding of theme and character.

why does Juniper have to fight a unicorn? because his reasons for designing 'unicorn as possessive, controlling man with timeline alteration' gives insight into his relationship with Tiff, and more generally serves as an illustrative example of the reasons we play D&D and write fiction. because that's one of the things the story is quite overtly talking about. oh, but you'd better write another post about how the protagonist is unsympathetic because he didn't put a point in luck lmao

anyway i think this is kind of what Baru Cormorant might look like if Seth was less ambitious and of course a less ruthlessly demanding editor. this might seem like an odd comparison because Seth's prose is punchy, poetic and rich with information and Baru is a grand epic about imperialism etc. with a highly driven protagonist, while the characters in WtC spend most of their time trying to solve the problems their last adventure caused and it's a more personal story. but the reason I draw it is that both wear their themes on their sleeves, both seem to be written by caring and passionate people with 'approximate knowledge of many things', both are shaped by desires to write fiction which approaches character in a certain way, both prefer to communicate directly rather than dissemble through subtext and implication... maybe it's just that the image of each author i receive through the text is someone i think i can understand.

anyway no more tonight i must sleep.

[fuckandfable]

housewife psychosis

I enjoy doing things that don’t force me to think. 💭 this is probably why I hate doing household chores. They force me to think. Sometimes I come up with my greatest philosophical ideas, sometimes I go into rabid darkness.

I always like to picture myself spiraling upwards, on the most beautiful staircase. No matter the intent, I always plan to learn something from this movement.

I thank god for the invention of music. Music helps me through everything. Putting together thoughts I cannot solve. It’s like feeling your feelings and it being sung in poetry all at the same time. How incredibly fascinating that we can relate to many other humans through the movement of music.

I don’t like doing house wife shit. I hate cooking, especially dinner. I get no satisfaction out of doing laundry other than my creative wardrobe is reset and ready for use once again. I do love the presentation of a clean and organized home so that keeps me motivated.

I do have underlying symptoms of ADHD. It drives me wild when things are out of place and I cannot control it. I keep reminding myself that a day will come where I will be intentionally fucking this process up because my nest will be empty. Our home is absolutely lived in that’s for sure.

I miss being called by my actual name. I get called “mom” more than anything and I take that as a great badge of honor, yet still I find myself trying to remember my name. Identity is odd when you are a parent. Almost has a multiple personality aspect to it. I long to always merge me and mother together. I don’t like following the standard “mothering” rules. They tend to be outdated and not worth much. I can only be what I wanted in a mother and that seems to be the most advantageous way to move about my home.

I work to uphold a high standard in my house without it becoming some dictatorship. I had a good childhood, but I want to be more consistent and open in my emotional and mental abilities as a parent. I teach them and they teach me. I do not wish to be a disservice to my children, but I also do not wish to constantly service my children. Balance is exhausting and sometimes gets the best of me. I always take accountability for my actions when I happen to blow like a stick of dynamite. Teaching my children accountability by showing them that adults fuck up too.

I could work on my patience. It is a slim, short fuse. But this all stems from not properly vocalizing my needs as an adult woman, as a human being, as a parent. There are many ways to get a child to understand the hardships of something that they find almost incomprehensible. The key is connection.

I try to make everyone happy. Sometimes I will extend that to far and most of me will be gone before I know it. The starting and restarting of this constant battle is where I struggle the most. Wanting to conserve my energy for production, all while making sure my children are learning self sufficiency.

Teenagers are an odd species. They cannot grasp the concept of becoming responsible for their own reality. They may feel left out of forgotten many times because we as parents aren’t “caring” for them as much as we did as a child. The key is to keep searching for that connection. Teenagers want validation and if this is not taught it will severely affect their self-esteem. My mind is very manual and I have to shift it into gear constantly. The transmission of information that I do on a daily basis runs me dry. I struggle with replenishment.

Kids are indeed selfish and expect the world. But if we can teach them how to be independent, compassionate and supportive than there is a good chance they will bloom beautifully into adulthood.

-x

[nicnacsnonsense]

I think in the end confrontation between Crowley and Nina & Maggie should have, instead of Crowley defending his & Aziraphale’s attempts to set up Nina & Maggie with the excuse that Nina was sad and Maggie was pining only to be told that they are real human people and not dolls Azcrow can mess about with, Crowley should have defended their actions with the whole thing about the miracle and the lie to Heaven only for that to be called out as bullshit and the real truth that Azcrow were a little too invested in Nina & Maggie because they were projecting.

This would accomplish three things:

1. Least important, but it would remove the whole “Azcrow treat humans like dolls” aspect of it. Heaven and Hell were the bad guys last season specifically because their relentless pursuit of making Armageddon happen made it clear that they only saw humanity as pawns to further their Great War with each other. Now, I’m not opposed to the idea that while Azcrow consciously know this is wrong, they’ve subconsciously picked up on a lot of that attitude in their 6000 years of working with their former employers and it’s still something they need to unpack. I just feel like the season does not devote the time and attention to that point if that’s something they genuinely wanted to unpack, in which case best just not mention it at all.

2. It makes the conversation flow smoother. At present it goes rather jarringly from Nina & Maggie to stop interfering with their love lives directly to them telling him what to do in his love life. In the new version it goes from “stop interfering with our love lives” to the realization that the reason Azcrow were interfering in the first place is because they were projecting their inability to sort out their own love lives to “well then sort out your own shit and leave the rest of us out of it.”

3. It makes Azcrow’s motives here a lot clearer. Currently the show starts with the motive of tricking Heaven then sometime around the ball just seems to forget that aspect of it entirely and instead treats it as though their motives are just a straightforward desire to get Nina & Maggie together. But even then we’re getting mixed messages as the really blatant parallels between Maggie/Nina and Azcrow imply that the reason they’re invested is there is some projecting going on, but Nina asserts that Azcrow just feel entitled to mash them about like Barbie dolls with the narrative framing her as right. The new version simplifies it down to a case of the stated conscious reason is A (tricking Heaven) but there is also an underlying secret subconscious reason B (hardcore projection).