#and it makes COMPLETE AND TOTAL SENSE

[eyrieofsynapses]

Hey, Leverage peeps. Y’know how Sophie is introduced playing Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare’s Macbeth? I (re)read the play recently for a class (yes, I'm a literature nerd who voluntarily takes classes involving Shakespeare, sue me), and it got me thinking.

Because, guys… there's definitely meaning behind that choice. Lady Macbeth's character is an ambitious and manipulative woman who pulls her husband's strings to gain power, only to be consumed be guilt. Sound familiar? Yeah. There’s a lot of parallels.

I'm guessing many of you haven't read the play, so I'll explain the bare bones of what you need to know for the meta. Macbeth is a play about a general/nobleman named, of course, Macbeth. At the beginning, he encounters three witches—they're the origin of the "double, double toil and trouble / fire burn and cauldron bubble" phrase—who prophesize that Macbeth will become king. Macbeth describes his encounter to his wife, Lady Macbeth, who coerces him into murdering the current King Duncan. They work together to kill Duncan, and Macbeth ascends to the throne. He has numerous other people killed to keep his throne safe.

(Trigger warning for suicide mention! Skip to the next paragraph if you don't want to read.) Both he and Lady Macbeth are consumed by guilt as the play goes on, though, and she goes more or less insane and eventually commits suicide. (Trigger warning over.)

If you've ever heard of "out, out, damned spot," that's Lady Macbeth agonizing over the metaphorical blood she can't get off her hands.

So, how does this work with Sophie? Here's the thing. Lady Macbeth is known as one of the characters, if not the character, that coined the "dangerously ambitious woman" trope. She's determined to secure Macbeth's position on the throne, mostly for the power it'll gain her as Queen, and she pulls his strings over and over to get him to murder his way there.

Sophie is, of course, a grifter. Her entire skillset is designed to manipulate people—oftentimes rich and powerful men—to get what she wants. She isn't necessarily ambitious so much as obsessed with stealing artwork and other valuables, but she enjoys the downfall of most of her marks. She luxuriates in the power of making people do what she wants them to.

And yet Lady Macbeth does eventually succumb to the guilt of everything she's done… just as Sophie comes to recognize and regret the pain she's wrought. Remember The King George Job?

"Nate: I know what you're thinking, but it's not the same thing.

Sophie: Oh, no. Of course it's not. I stole from one rich man to sell to another rich man.

Nate: No one got hurt.

Sophie: That I know of. How do I know that innocent children were never used to shift my merchandise?"

(transcript)

In the same scene, she also says this:

"Listen, I know I grifted from filthy-rich wankers who hardly ever missed the money, of being taken for a ride. But this, this whole Moreau business has got me thinking. Keller steals from the rich, too, and a little girl ends up in detainment for it."

She comes to recognize her past wrongdoings via the work she does with the crew, and at the same time begins to redeem herself for it. That prevents her from becoming consumed by guilt as Lady Macbeth does. The theme, however, remains consistent.

It's also fascinating that Sophie refers to Nate as a "white knight, black king" in the very same episode as her initial (awful) performance as Lady Macbeth. White is often associated with purity and innocence, thus implying a “pure knight.” Macbeth himself is a noble and well-respected "knight" (technically general and nobleman, but it follows the same concept) before Lady Macbeth coerces him into murdering King Duncan. This parallels neatly with Nate as a “pure knight,” or an “honest man” (as Macbeth was before the play began).

Then, of course, we have "black king." Black is a color frequently associated with sin, darkness, etc., and thus Macbeth could be seen as a "black king" himself: someone who has done great wrongs to reach his position of power. He’s turned into that “black king” by Lady Macbeth. Nate, meanwhile, is called the "black" chess king. He is metaphorically “corrupted”—arguably, by Sophie and the crew. (Of course, in Nate’s case, the “corruption” is a good thing and leads him to become a better person. But the parallel itself still stands.)

Chess is about strategy, manipulation, and cleverness. Sophie and Lady Macbeth are both very good at manipulating people into doing what they want them to for power's sake. Nate is often referred to as the master chess player, where "chess" is the metaphor for cons. Yet realistically, Sophie is the best at playing "chess" with people. Not to mention that the king is, in many ways, not a powerful piece. It can only move one square at a time, and if it's captured, its side loses. The queen is the most powerful piece on the chessboard. And here's Sophie, referring to Nate as a chess piece.

(There's something to be said here about how Sophie manipulates Nate both for his own good but also to her advantage, specifically in The First David Job and The Second David Job. But for the sake of keeping this meta at a reasonable length, I’ll leave it for now.)

"But Synapse!" I hear you cry. "Sophie's really bad at the Lady Macbeth speech in the first episode, but she's fantastic in the last one! If she became a better person, wouldn't it be the other way around?"

Fair point, friend, and it's something I've been trying to figure out myself. Here's my proposal:

I'm not an actor, but from what I understand, acting requires you to deeply empathize with your character. Conning isn't dissimilar, but in a way, Sophie knows that when she cons, it is not her. She's hiding everything she is for the sake of deception.

Regular acting, on the other hand, requires you to be exposed about yourself and who you are. You have to be willing to be vulnerable for your audience. And Sophie truly does not know how to be vulnerable, or indeed who she is at all. Of all the characters on Leverage, she's always been the most mysterious about her past and her true depths.

In The Nigerian Job, Sophie claims she's gone to a civilian life and dropped her grifting. She's questioning the very thing that she loves to do, uncertain of herself and where she's going with her life. Her ambition and drive have been, if not lost, undermined. We know that Sophie is a paradoxically compassionate and maternal person just as much as she is a master of the con. When she joins up with the crew, she near-immediately falls into a momfriend role to Parker, Hardison, and Eliot, and she’s an exceptional teacher.

Perhaps she struggles to find kinship in Lady Macbeth's motivation in that first episode. She can't act what she doesn't understand. Plus, she has no outlet for the side of her that desperately wants to do good, and maybe that’s showing through in her inability to embrace being bad.

But in The Long Goodbye Job, Sophie aces her performance when she's doing it for a con. Yet at that time she is arguably far less like Lady Macbeth than she is in the first episode. So what changes? What about the con makes it so much easier?

I'd say it's a few things. Firstly, Sophie's newfound stability. She knows who she is, and she knows that she is not Lady Macbeth. Her desire to teach and support others has a) been discovered and b) is being fulfilled. She's found that her love for manipulation is most satisfying when directed at people who are maliciously uncaring and contradictory to her own morals. Thus, the ways her personality overlaps with Lady Macbeth's can't be destabilized by Sophie's internal war over how much she really is like Lady Macbeth. She knows who she is, and she knows what parts of Lady Macbeth she can relate to and what parts she has to truly act out.

Moreover, she's acting for a con: she knows the character she's playing does not truly represent herself. Her mask is complete, rather than requiring pieces of herself to be exposed.

Compare Sophie's performance in The Nigerian Job to the part of Lady Macbeth's soliloquy she's attempting to recite (yes, I'll explain the bits of the soliloquy that I reference, don't worry):

"Sophie: Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst! Make thick my blood;

Sophie: Stop up the access and passage to remorse, that no… (she hesitates and restarts her line) That no compunctious visitings of nature"

(transcript)

Versus the original soliloquy:

"Come, you spirits That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, And fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood, Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse, That no compunctious visitings of nature Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between Th’ effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts, And take my milk for gall, your murd’ring ministers, Wherever in your sightless substances You wait on nature’s mischief!"

(Macbeth, Act I, Scene V, lines 45-55; I’ve bolded the lines Sophie recites)

Note where Sophie trips up: she loses the word "cruelty" from "of direst cruelty" first, and then she hesitates on the lines "stop up the access and passage to remorse / that no compunctious visitings of nature / shake my fell purpose". If the latter line is gobbledygook to you, it basically means "stop me from feeling guilty so my guilt can't get in the way of my awful plans."

So where is Sophie hesitating? On the maliciousness of Lady Macbeth, and on her desire to feel no remorse. And what do we know about Sophie? That she is a) still inherently kind, and b) that she does feel remorse for the pain she's caused—or at least that she learns to feel it over the course of the show.

By the way, it's interesting that Lady Macbeth's bit about "take my milk for gall" is excluded too, because it's sort of like her saying "turn any motherly feelings/kindness I feel into cruelty." Compare that against Sophie's maternal attitude. It's probably not massively significant, given that there wasn’t a need for more than a couple lines for the writing of the show, but I find it interesting.

Now, compare this to Sophie's performance in The Long Goodbye Job:

"Sophie (wonderfully): Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, fill me from the crown to the toe, top-full of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood. Stop up the access and passage to remorse."

(transcript)

She's completely on-point. I'd say this is both because she's doing it for a con and doesn't feel internal conflict over it, but also because the marks deserve no mercy. The Black Book is full of people who have done awful things in the name of greed. Why should she feel guilt over dethroning them?

TL;DR: Sophie plays a character who simultaneously parallels and contradicts her. Lady Macbeth is manipulative and ambitious, much like Sophie, but also cruel and malicious, which is not very Sophie-like. Yet Lady Macbeth does eventually go crazy from guilt and remorse—and Sophie also has to learn how to deal with her guilt.

This is why Sophie struggles so much in her first performance: she’s questioning her identity in relationship to her similarities with Lady Macbeth. At the end, however, she’s become confident in who she is. She’s also learned to use her skills to destroy those who take advantage of their power to hurt others, rather than good men like King Duncan.

In fact, she’s dethroning people who are greedy for power… people who are not so dissimilar to Macbeth and Lady Macbeth themselves. Sophie has become their antithesis.

Damn, but this show is good.

[tangramkey]

i love my Basketbot Portal AU

[puppyeared]

The garment, worn by those in good standing with Hyrule royalty, has been reworked with the latest improvements, such as a new shoulder guard.

[wickmitz]

— THE ELECTRIC-FEVER REMEDY.

[yuttikkele]

the constant of nines and gavin dating in the dbh fanon is so funny to me because despite these two never even learning of each others’ existence, of COURSE they’re madly in love

[real-total-drama-takes]

All the 2023 contestants were born in 2007 and grew up with the show being off the air, so they were all 100% in the trenches of ship drama in the td fandom defending their ships. Here's my 100% correct do not @ me headcanons for each characters favourite ship.

Priya: Zoke, she was put on some block lists because she said she shipped all of Mike's alters with Zoey and no one else. Her parent's grounded her and made her watch Vito x Anne Marie edits as a punishment.

Bowie: If Gwourtney has a million fans, he's one of them. If Gwourtney has five fans, he's one of them. If Gwourtney has one fan, he's that fan. If the world is against Gwourtney he is against the world.

Millie: Thinks it's incredibly problematic and childish to ship real people. But Bawn.

Julia: Got her first taste of internet fame by claiming Blainely and Chris were in a secret relationship. When this comes out this will cancel her worse than the dinosaur thing and she will be forced to go into hiding for her own protection.

Emma: Wrote poly drama brother buys you from your parents fics. Chase read these out on a live stream and they stayed together.

Chase: Not a shipper but was defending Duncan with his last breath over the love triangle stuff.

Zee: Zee hasn't actually seen the show he thought he was auditioning for 6teen, in which he ships Judesy.

Ripper: I don't know whats telling me this but Leonard and Beardo. I think he saw a photoshopped image of them together with red arrows and he's currently convinced they're in a relationship.

Wayne & Raj: Lyler is unironically relationship goals for them, they celebrate their anniversary every year

MK: Commented under Noco posts "Uhm, what about Nemma?" and then watched the world light on fire. Ships Nowen.

Scary Girl: She unironically thinks Sierra is really normal but doesn't ship her with Cody because she just doesn't like him, thinks he fumbled her. Ships Heatherra, Bowie sent her death threats over this and she sent them back

Nichelle: Runs in the same circles as Chris, saw Chris and Chef together all the time despite Total Drama not being on, just assumed they were partners.

Axel: Shasmine anti, thinks Jasmine is gaslighting Shawn about the zombie stuff, wrote a long angry reddit post about it and got banned from the total drama subreddit.

Caleb: Gwent, also got death threats from Bowie and tried to @ Gwen and Trent to come to his defense.

I take no criticism. 🪅Jester ass looking piñata

.

[another-clive-blog]

HOW HAVE I NEVER NOTICED THIS

LAYTON USES TU FOR FUTURE LUKE BUT SWITCHES TO VOUS THE SECOND CLIVE'S IDENTITY IS REVEALED.

Tu and vous both mean you but Tu implies closeness : in the entirety of Unwound Future, Layton only ever uses Tu with Flora, the Lukes and Claire

[galedekarios]

larian truly revealing bit by bit how they actively chose to make their game worse

[itmightrain]

it's so brennan to make the villain of the season a dead rage god but also make sure to include themes about how rage is not always bad

[total-drama-brainrot]

psycho!noah au, what do the aftermath cast think? conversely if they dont know/dont see the show (isnt it implied to be canon in wt that they watch the show or atleast can?), how do they react to newly eliminated cast members telling them?

and then, at whatever point he gets eliminated or just whenever the cast sees him again, how do they react with that new info?

The justification I have for Noah remaining stealthed under his "stoic cynic" persona pre-reveal in this AU is a little convoluted, but I do have one. Vaguely. Which I'll try to outline here for continuities' sake.

So, to clarify; Noah only competes in Island and World Tour, just like in canon. Most things happen just like canon, with the exception of Noah lasting a little longer in Island so he and Izzy have more time to be menaces (I have no idea how I'll shift the elimination order to justify keeping him around, though). Noah's still eliminated fairly early and ends up on the Playa, where the other elimination fodder welcome him with open arms, because in Island they're only given access to the raw camera footage instead of the final cut!

I imagine it'd be pretty hard for a Brand New Show to have the manpower of a full professional editing team that can plan and prosecute the final cut of a whole ~20 minute episode in only three days (in-universe), so to keep the losers as in the know as possible in real time, they're given access to the same live camera footage Chris and Chef have, just without the confessionals.

Since the confessionals are, uh. Toilets. And no one wants to have 24/7 access to toilet stall footage.

Noah only ever really drops his ruse in the confessional, or around Izzy, so none of the losers have gotten the opportunity to see the real him in action; even when he is visible on camera, it's only during the stolen moments he shares with Izzy outside of challenges, wherein the two plot and scheme together like Pinky and the Brain. Given that the majority of them don't even bother to watch the live footage unless there's a challenge actively happening (or something else otherwise noteworthy), his true nature goes undetected amongst them as well.

And then, in Action, the show's budget and workforce increases. Suddenly, the editing team is thrice the size of Island's, and they are capable of providing a final cut of each episode within the span of 24~72 hours, allowing the show to air quicker. Which has the added bonus of allowing everyone in the peanut gallery access to the yet-to-be-aired episodes (instead of the live footage), keeping them up to date with the competition whilst also giving them the same perspective as the audience itself. Including people's confessions.

It's a good thing Noah didn't compete in Action, then. His mask of indifference lives on.

Then there's a year-long break between seasons, wherein Noah works under Chris as his personal assistant. Yada yada yada, World Tour happens. He knows that the losers are going to see his confessions. So now Noah has to choose between maintaining his persona at the sake of losing out on toying with the greater audience, or carrying on as he did in Island at the cost of revealing his 'true colours' (which, in this case, still isn't the real Noah so much as an exaggeration of his more deranged tendencies, since Noah's still essentially performing for the cameras; just with a different role).

Of course he goes with option two. He's primarily motivated by his own amusement- that was the reason for his whole charade in the first place.

(Alright, clarification over, time to actually answer the question.)

So the peanut gallery and steadily increasing number of World Tour Rejects are horrified when, in Noah's scattering of confessions- as he doesn't confess very often, so when he does it's a treat to himself and the audience- he mostly waxes poetic about how exciting each near-death experience the cast go through is, and all of the different ways he so wanted to cause the others harm (either in general, or themed around the challenges), being so much more expressive than anyone's ever seen him (concerningly so, to the point of it breaching the uncanny valley) and giddy over the prospect of performing Acts Of Incredible Violence against his castmates.

They're living in that same fearful anticipation the wider audience experienced through his tenure in Island; waiting for Noah to Drop The Act and fulfil his promises of brutal sabotage, if only to finally put an end to the constant looming threat of his self control snapping. They're horrified bystanders of a car crash waiting to happen (at least, they think they are. Noah's not actually gonna do any of the things he's suggesting, probably, but keeping the audience on their toes is one of his favourite games!) and each episode he features in is a test of both their patience and their own sanity.

Because, could you imagine watching your friends interact and be friendly with someone who (you think) is out for their blood, entirely unaware of the danger? that's literally what they're experiencing.

And Noah, because he's a little shit who thinks he's funny (he is), sometimes goes so far as to fake-out the audience by rearing up attacks against his castmates during challenges, only to shoot the nearest camera a wry wink and a sly smile as he carries on with the actual task at hand, the others none-the-wiser.

It becomes so concerning, in fact, that every new arrival is immediately checked over for any signs of injuries or Noah's Influence and hastily given the rundown on The Situation. Which is, more often than not, met with the same incredulity as Sierra's claims- until they're shown various clips of Noah's confessions, or the fake-outs and otherwise unhinged looks he teases the cameras with.

-

For the second question; I have no idea. I'm still workshopping how people will react to Noah, and how Noah in turn will react to them. Post-reveal p!Noah will, eventually, disclose the fact that he's not as bloodthirsty as he portrays himself as, but until then it's anyone's guess as to how far he'll take the bit- and who could/will get hurt in the process.

[dangerliesbeforeyou]

ok so we're all in agreement that the way the show is handling trixie and matthew's storyline is complete shite right?

[raddestrose]

Bro Imma be for real, it didn’t click that Huaisang was the like THE guy, it took me like a few minutes

But forgive me for saying, he’s like totally innocent in my book

[the-crooked-library]

IWTV characters are so real to me. my personality disorder has also caused me more angst and problems than my queerness ever did. the queerness is still a major theme though

[hauntingjasper]

Sometimes I imagine little Fionna meeting Prince Gumball and mistaking him for a human.

I mean, he looks a lot like a human (if he wasn't completely pink).

For you, what makes him different from a human, apart from the fact that he is a pink guy?

Well, first of all, the fact that he's made of candy and is alive and thriving despite not having bones or human internal organs. He can heal(?) his own wounds just by molding some gum around, and he has a really long lifespan, which makes him technically immortal, unless you throw him in acid or something. The way he was born and how he ages is different too. I think he would go through some changes like growing taller and losing baby teeth during childhood, but then his body stops changing at some point and his appearance remains the same from then on, so he has to make changes himself if he wants to.

He's always smelling like sugar too. Always. No amount of perfume can do that.

That's all I can think of for now :P Thank you for the ask! It inspired me to make fanart of them as kiddies so there you go 🫶

[hertwood]

the senior driver getting the upgrades a week prior is incredibly normal and not some conspiracy against logan, btw

[fredoesque]

ok so yesterday i saw this post about the wedding imagery in hickey's trial scene and left a tag about iphigenia at aulis. and in the time since that comparison has spiraled entirely out of control

i was initially just referring to the way the play draws parallels between the rituals of a wedding and those of sacrifice/death and the way the two start to overlap throughout

but then i started thinking about how iphigenia's sacrifice serves both as an illustration of the violence of war turned inwards and simultaneously as the catalyst for said violence turned outwards. killing iphigenia highlights the actual human cost of war by exacting it on a familiar insider, not just a nameless enemy. but her death is also the only reason the war can take place at all--the chorus even calls her the destroyer of troy near the end

and that reminded me of hickey and his unique relationship with the violence of the british navy; of the british characters he is undeniably the one that suffers most at its hands, yet he is also a driving force in perpetuating violence--in general, but also specifically towards the inuit

and i know i'm not the first person to point out that hickey is both a victim and a perpetrator of the violence of the empire, but i find it fascinating to approach that dichotomy through the lens of (ritual) sacrifice. it adds a new dimension to not just the trial, but basically all his scenes that are concerned with said violence. his own death (during a botched ritual no less) is actually a great example; it doubles as the final nail in tuunbaq's coffin. he dies not just for or because of the empire's interests; it's the very act of him dying that causes said interests to be furthered

anyway all that to say hickey thinks he's christ and he's wrong but that doesn't mean he's not a lamb on the altar