#both as characters taken at their face value and as metaphors

[genericpuff]

Hi Puff! Idk if anyone has asked you this yet but what are your thoughts on the god of war game series? Are they actually more "accurate" about the greek mythology then LO? xD

oh lord, I'm def not a good person to ask about this question because I haven't played through all the original God of War games (though it makes me laugh to think about them because watching my oldest brother play the first game when I was like 7 years old was the first time I'd ever seen video game boobies LOL) but considering it's just a hack and slash game in which you brutally murder the gods... ima give it a big noooo on that one LOL it's about as accurate as LO in that it's more about spectacle and drama than it is about actually being accurate to the myths they're based on lmaoo

As for the Norse series of games, I actually HAVE played both God of War 2018 and Ragnarok and loved them both, though I'm not as well versed in Norse mythology so I also can't say if what they take from Norse myth is accurate. Obviously I know that Atreus/Loki has zero relation to fictional character Kratos from Greece and I have basic understanding of general concepts like Yggdrasil and the nine realms among other things like that, but the finer details regarding the stories of the characters themselves I'm not as brushed up on. Hella great storytelling though and I appreciate the lengths they went to to make it feel like a Norse-myth-inspired environment, even down to the vocabulary and terms used.

Just like with LO, you shouldn't be taking any of what God of War does or says at face value. If you like the games (or LO), use it as an opening hook to get more into the actual myths if they interest you. But definitely don't use them as any sort of credible source LOL

Now that I'm typing out my thoughts on this though, I think the biggest difference between GoW and LO (one that makes GoW far superior to it) is that the creators of GoW never once led their audience to believe that they were more than what they were, a hack and slash video game inspired by specific myths. What you see is what you get with GoW, but LO - and Rachel - constantly feel like they're actually trying to be taken seriously and that's what makes it all the worse when their storytelling is godawful and the amount of actual "myth" they have in the comic amounts to as much as a Family Guy cutaway gag. Just completely directionless and uninspired to the point you wonder why it's even an Greek myth retelling to begin with. At least GoW fully immerses itself in the myths their games are based on and has a shitload of fun with it, with LO it'll just source some copy pasted Princeton document or lazily tell some mythological metaphor that has nothing to do with the overarching plot so that it can remind you "hey this is a Greek myth retelling!" before getting back to its bland Keeping Up with the Kardashians romance. The mythological "inspiration" in LO feels more like tired lip service at this point rather than actual inspiration, which is really bitterly ironic considering Rachel used to tote around calling herself a "folklorist" and claiming that everyone else's knowledge of Greek myth compared to hers was "basic af".

TL ; DR: The biggest difference between GoW and LO in their retellings is humility IMO.

[writing-for-life]

When a Story About Stories Can Be Read in More Than One Way, and Why a Story About Change Changes With Us

I often think about exploration of literary concepts and how we approach stories. How we make sense of them often mirrors how we make sense of our own lives. And how, in turn, we make sense of our lives through story (I am both a writer and a psychotherapist, and that’s probably the worst combination for spending far too much time on looking at these things).

And in The Sandman fandom, I commonly see two takes (there's much more nuance to it, and there are shades of grey in between, but for purposes of simplification, I'll just stick with two):

Taking the Ending More or Less at Face Value

We see that Morpheus essentially commits suicide, that he couldn't go on, that this facet of Dream is irrevocably gone and taken over by a different one (Daniel). And at this stage, it becomes a tale of hopelessness for many, one of missed chances and opportunities, of feeling devastated that someone couldn't find enough hope to go on. Maybe even one of glorifying suicide, of not taking depression "seriously", of not offering a way out and not sending the message that things will be okay (just as a side-note: Sometimes, they simply aren't going to be okay, no amount of support can change that things are not okay, and it’s nobody’s fault).

I think this take hinges very much on our desire to lean into Morpheus' personhood (for lack of better term), of our wish to see his humanity, because in him, we might see ourselves, or someone we know.

Leaning Into Metaphor/Allegory

We see the same thing: Morpheus still commits suicide, that facet of Dream is still gone. But there is a deeper meaning that goes far beyond Morpheus' personhood. It goes into what makes us human, what life is about, into not taking "he died" at face value, but rather to see him on a conceptual level. And I think that's harder on first try, because we *are* human, and we relate to stories through finding that which is human in characters.

But if you consider that the many facets and aspects of Dream are always, always part of a whole, it becomes easier to peel off the layers. It becomes easier to see Dream (amongst many other things) as a stand-in for going through life. To see that we have to let go of certain things to change, and that letting go always means to let something die. But we are still ourselves:

I was always me, since the day I was born. But I am also a different me from the me I was when I was 20. And for that to happen, I had to let go of a lot of things. If you hold on to hurt, you stagnate. You don't change. You need to let go of it to move on, and that's hard (hurt can feel familiar, and in familiarity lies safety).

And Dream is that: A part/facet of him is hurting, and staying Morpheus is akin to holding on to that hurt. You can choose to hold on to the part of you that is hurting, or you can choose to let go of it and move on. And sometimes, that choice is straightforward, and sometimes, it isn't (his wasn't either). Sometimes we manage, sometimes we don’t.

And that take isn’t about depressing endings. It becomes one of hope, despite being a tragedy. Because at the end of a tragedy, you experience catharsis. And that catharsis isn’t about “feeling good”, or characters getting what they “deserve”. It is about us feeling deeply, about emotional release of that which we held too tightly (or that which holds a grip too tight on us), about reflection what we would do differently. Or simply about having a good cry (yes, even that is enough).

Both of These Takes Are Valid, and We Can Even Fluctuate Between Them

The Sandman is a story about stories. We find our own meaning in them. Neither of them are the only valid take. They are but a take we prefer, but not a universal truth set in stone.

A lot of fandom discourse would be unnecessary if we just managed to step back on occasion, take other angles into consideration and understand that there is never just one truth to a story.

Are there angles that are more likely? Sure, there probably are.

Is The Sandman a story that doesn't lend itself particularly well to "one and done", as in: We read it, and we totally get everything on first (or even second/third) read? Absolutely. I read it very differently the first time round (as a teenager). I found new things on every re-read I honestly couldn't believe I hadn't seen before.

I read it differently in my 20s, 30s and now my 40s. I read it differently after I lost family members to cancer and suicide, I read it differently again after the longterm relationship to my then girlfriend/civil partner broke down, I read it differently again after meeting my now husband, and especially after having a child. I read it differently when I worked as a performer, and I read it differently again as a psychotherapist. And as a writer, I read it differently again.

It is a story about change, and it is a story that changes. It is a story with meaning that is personal to us, but that meaning is not an objective, universal truth.

Canon is a thing. But as long as we understand the difference between canon and head-canon, there’s nothing wrong with the latter either (just don’t force it on everyone else).

Media literacy is a thing. But so is finding personal meaning…

[gabster-fabster]

So I was listening to Madds Buckley’s ‘Sunset on Summerville’ Album about MHA and couldn’t help but notice that a lot of the songs could fit Umbrella Academy characters. I wrote this in like five minutes so it may be a bit jumbled but I hope you enjoyed.

One/Luther to me is Scotch Tape and Cellophane. The first verse when taken at face value is frustrated with the stickiness of the tape, forcing the singer to suffer while unwrapping the gift. I thought of this like the struggle of Luther and Reginald. Everything Reginald did stuck to Luther and even though his intentions were clear, he wanted his kids to suffer and Luther to be hidden away from the world. The rest of the song is more silly and loving, which shows the character growth Luther went through. He started as a leader type but grew into a very silly and loving character and the transition is mirrored in the song.

Two/Diego would be Little Big Boy. I originally thought that this would fit Five but listening to the song more and more made me change my opinion. Diego has this need to be seen, a need to prove himself. This is shown in his conflict with Luther and his vigilantism. He’s so determined to show everyone that he is the best, due to the fact that he feels as though he is a small fish in the metaphorical pond. The metaphor for water also fits with him since his power in the comics is breathing underwater but that’s less relevant to the comparison. He always wants something out of his reach, something bigger than him, saving JFK, being Number One in the Umbrella Academy. His desperation to prove himself makes him seem like a child vying for the approval of his father even well into adulthood, hence the ‘Little Big Boy.”

Three/Allison is Ambrosia Wine; she can give pleasure or pain, she can rumor someone to shoot themselves, but also to fall in love with her. Her power is quite literally giving people temptations and making them give into them. She is also known by many names and epithets due to her acting career. You cannot deny her, she is quite literally an urge you cannot ignore. This comparison is pretty self explanatory but it’s cool to draw it anyway.

Four/Klaus is Hawk in The Night. This one is more of a broad commentary of how Reginald wanted him to be. Hargreaves wanted Klaus to be powerful, to be obedient. The song is sung from the perspective of someone telling Hawks about how they are happy how he lost himself in his training and childhood, likely his handler. While Klaus didn’t meet the expectations set for him, he lost himself in drugs. The phrase ‘we raised you right’ comes up many times and it shows the self righteousness felt by both Hargreaves and the Commission. Reginald wanted to train Klaus so that he had the potential to be Number One and in doing so caused Klaus to lose his childhood and to shove down himself, desperately clawing at the world that wronged him. Hargreaves wanted him to be empty and emotionless, obedient like One was, and in doing so raised him ‘right,’ with days in the Mausoleum and traumatizing him so much that he had to turn to drugs and not tell anyone he was struggling because both him and Reginald had so much pride.

Five would be Child of Ashes. The warped sound of the song highlights the fact that he’s so much that his mind is a bit twisted. He is a child of ashes and without a home, raised in the apocalypse where his only company was burned buildings and the memory of his dead siblings. The song can also be seen as the manipulatings of the Handler. Telling him that his family won’t care for him now that he’s killed so many, and that he would be better off staying with them. The last line ‘We can watch the world decay,’ only reinforces this. The Handler wants him to stay and watch as his family dies again, in the same inevitable way. He has nowhere to run, his only home for so long was the ashes of the world’s end. The song is only about a minute and a half long so there isn’t much to analyze but it’s sad in its brevity.

Six/Ben is Sunset On Summerville. The sun is brought up again and again, a metaphor for life, the sunset and night being its opposite death. Ben is waiting for Klaus to realize that life is worth living, waiting with him. He is in twilight, the area between life and death, and everyday he is being called to the beyond, but he won’t give up on Klaus. The moon, or death indeed casts a cold light, we see this in the other ghosts that Klaus interacts with, it is so easy to give in to the despair but Ben finds comfort in his brother, the moons frigidity ‘only lasts the night’ but Klaus is there, a warmth or a beacon, a light like the sun of life. This reminds Ben that waiting is worth it. Waiting for Klaus to get sober, to stop being scared of his own power. While Ben longs to live again, he accepts the fact that he can’t, but seeing his siblings live and grow is enough for him to evade the cold embrace of death totally.

Seven/Viktor is Reach. This is actually what got me thinking of this whole thing. He is jealous of his siblings, she wants the spotlight they have. He wants the powers, the acknowledgment from their father. He works so hard, becoming exceptional at the violin, but it is impossible to become exceptional in the eyes of Reginald. He is constantly asking himself what he is doing wrong and when it will be his turn to be in the spotlight. He writes his book to try and lash out and get that spotlight, but instead it makes everyone shun him. He wants his life to be easy, while reaching for something he thinks is out of his grasp. He is left behind, his siblings have training, missions, but he has isolation and his violin. He is bitter, and in Season 1 this is very apparent. He harbors so much anger and frustration that it overflows into all of his actions. Also, fun little factoid, during the line ‘Why can’t I excel at something…like you’ like you is repeated six times, six times for his six other siblings who have powers.

If I had talents in creating edits or art I would make videos of these characters to these songs but alas. Hope this makes sense!

[nepnepian]

Upon rewatching some Overture cutscenes, its made me realize just how close Paradigm was to getting a Ride the Lightning directly to the face when he suggested killing Dizzy. Like that is the love of his life that Paradigm keeps calling a weapon. Anyone would get agitated with that just by itself, I can only imagine how much rage Ky was physically holding back at the doctor's idea. Its also reminded me why the "Ky Kiske hates his family" bs that people insist on spreading around pisses me off as much as it does. This isn't a matter of lore being hidden in other sources, if you look in Overture in that scene, you can clearly tell Ky is not only seeing red at the idea of Dizzy being killed, but if Paradigm persisted, there is a good chance there would be hands being thrown. The part where Sin mentions that Ky could never look him in the eye is what I've seen most people cling to about him supposedly hating his family, but I have a counter argument. Think of who Ky Kiske is as a person, he's a man who values justice and protecting others at all costs, even if it would cost him his life. Now, I want you to remember why he's a king in the first place, the position was in the end forced upon him by the conclave to be their puppet of sorts. Ky is arguably one of the strongest people in this game's Canon, even SOL FUCKING BADGUY was afraid of him for a time. If Ky didn't have anything to lose, the conclave wouldn't have anything on him. Cuz what would they do? Use force? Against the man who was running the Holy Order since age 16? Talk to the P.W.A.B. and they can tell you how well that one worked for them. Even with Ky’s battle data in Robo-Ky it still paled to the original.

What makes this situation much different compared to the Bureau is that this time, Ky DID have something to lose. His family.

The conclave knew that Ky was a threat to them. The P.W.A.B. had no chance of truly stopping him at the time because Ky Kiske is a stubborn bastard that only had himself his entire life. Ky didn't have anything to lose before Dizzy and Sin graced his life. The conclave couldn't hope to silence him directly, so they went for the next best thing and held a metaphorical gun to his wife and child's heads. It no doubt killed Ky inside that Dizzy and Sin were being used as bargaining chips to a bunch of masked assholes that wanted to make sure he played nice and stayed in line. He finally had a chance to have a family, after being on his own for so long, only for the threat of it all being taken away looming over his head. Combine that with the general population still fearing Gears as intensely as when the Crusades were taking place, Ky most likely felt like he failed both Dizzy and Sin, as they were forced to live in hiding and Ky was powerless to do anything about it.

I realize I'm just theorizing on it, but given Ky’s character, it makes sense in my mind.

[crossfalconx5]

Heyy, Im here from you FefTav post!

Would love to hear what called you to them, the dynamic, parallels and anything else you feel like talking about, just had never considered it before!

okay welcome to my video essay called feftav mean everything to me and here’s why

On a meta level: Feferi and Tavros are two characters that are both very likable and sympathetic but don’t get as much attention from the narrative or fandom as much as they should. Feferi is hardly fleshed out despite the interesting angle her character comes from, and tavros is mainly a punching bag for the narrative that gets beaten down by hussies iron boot whenever he tries to stand up (metaphorically) They both have a lot of room for exploration that I’m very disappointed didn’t get filled out, and I think these gap in their characters can be filled out with eachother.

Feferi is a good person, raised into a high position, in a bad society. One of feferis main goals in her life was to become empress and make things better for a people that have been subjugated to cruel punishment for ages and to fix a system that has been broken for a LONG time. Feferi is a kindhearted person that isn’t naive, but hopeful to an extent that she’s blind to the fact some problems can’t be fixed with a simple change in the definition of culling. She’s also a person that both narratively and functionally get sidelined by the men in her life. She’s a kickass Princess that’s going to rule alternia someday, but is instead of that focus she’s reduced to being the damsel in distress to be fought over by both eridan and sollux. A conflict in which she’s supposed to mediate even though she never wanted it in the first place. Her time to shine is taken up by boys fighting over a girl crush which is just a SHAME to see, even dying for a conflict she had no agency in. An empathetic and capable person with one of the most optimistic outlooks in homestuck unable to reach her full potential because of the “more important” men in her life. From a toxic friendship to becoming the damsel in distress with no agency, her capability as a character is erased in the face of loss of potential.

Tavros is a person that is naive but not of his own fault. he’s a teen that likes interests that are more stereotypically childlike and gets picked on for it, he’s disabled and lower class which means his life is worth less in the eyes of the society that rules over the lives of the trolls on alternia, he’s also someone that’s been abused and manipulated by a person in his life he was close to, who installed unhealthy views of himself and his purpose into tavros. He’s a person that’s been told his whole life that he was unimportant, worthless, and weak; wether that be by society or his peers. He’s also a character that does not get to be happy, most of the relationships he has are either unhealthy, tragically undeveloped, or one’s he’s slightly forced into due to circumstances he has no control of. He goes through loads of physical and mental trauma and is never allowed a break to heal or process. He’s has never gotten a chance to truly been valued by someone because his life is like a nonstop dhar man video where the kid gets picked on for unfair reasons except the bullies never get any sort of satisfying comeuppance.

He’s also optimistic but in a far different way than Feferi. She’s optimistic because she has the ability to make a change and knows it, she’s been raised semi-comfortably and, though definitely has responsibilities, has hope for a brighter future because she has to power to make that better future. Feferi is optimistic because she has the ability to chance the circumstances. Tavros is optimistic DESPITE the circumstances, he’s had it rough his whole life, but stays positive and trusting and kind regardless, still trying his best even though things NEVER end well for them. Feferi wants to change life for low bloods but Tavros has LIVED it, which is why… (finally getting to the point)

they compliment eachother perfectly, giving eachother the thing they didn’t have in their lives. Tavros grounds feferi, he has personal experience and can speak for the people she’s trying to protect, giving her a look into the lives of those she wants to help and letting her see them on a personal level; while Feferi shows tavros that he has value and can be loved the way he is. Her endless kindness and patience for the people in her life giving a him a chance to be cared for, plus proving that he has worth. I mean, if this badass high blood Princess cares about him and have faith in him, he must mean something! Tavros is also not demanding or controlling, he doesn’t feel entitled to feferi. he doesn’t see her as a damsel; he sees her as a capable, kind, and flawed person that is more like him than he could ever have imagined. For once feferi is the one kicking ass and tavros is the one to support and ground her. feferi recognize and helps tavros heal from the unhealthy relationships he’s been in because of her experience with eridan, and tavros humanizes (trollinizes?) lowerbloods and grounds her in reality to make sure her hopeful ideals for the future are still realistic and helpful for EVERYONE. I imagine Feferi felt immense guilt after tavros died, wondering if she could’ve saved him somehow, while tavros felt like he didn’t deserve being saved.

They’re also incredibly similar, animal lovers who see the best in everyone around them, people who would enthuse about eachothers intrests and wonder at the different worlds the other brought them into. They’d be super sweet and fluffy, wear matching outfits, giggle about animals and marvel at the others talents no matter if it was slaying monsters or being good at a niche card game. They would make eachother the best versions of themselves. They could make eachother happy in a world that has made it INCREDIBLY hard for that to happen. I also feel if this had happened in canon, we’d be able to see sides of these two we weren’t able to before (Aka feferi importance and tavros joy)

So yeah, I’m normal about these guys

[stainedglassthreads]

What are opinions on Toriel and Asgore immortality?

Just like in general? Or any specific facet of it?

From a worldbuilding standpoint, I tend to overthink it.

It has made me wonder a lot in the past what would happen if a boss monster has more than one child. Do boss monster children with lots of siblings end up having shorter lifespans compared to boss monsters who are only children? Or perhaps, like in some fics I've seen, only one child gets boss monster status. Or maybe any child a boss monster has becomes a boss monster, whether both parents are boss monsters or not? Were they already a dying race with slowly shortening lifespans by design, even before the war?

From how it effects them as characters, I think it's pretty interesting. I've seen Asriel's reset ability examined as a metaphor for grief and trauma, and Sans being stuck in resets and how it intersects with his depression. But I feel like Toriel and Asgore being stuck forever at the exact moment their son died also says something about grief and loss. Especially with how neither of them ever allow themselves to grow past that loss. Toriel keeps trying to adopt children and do it Right this time and keep them safe, but they keep leaving her, and she'll never watch them grow up, or grow old herself. Asgore is burdened with a war he no longer wants, and duties and responsibilities he cannot give up but which weigh on him more and more, but his people need him, and he can't step down, and he can't age so he doesn't need to retire.

Looking at it like that, their immortality is something pretty depressing because unless either has a new biological kid, taken at literal face value it means they can't heal and move on. And I'm not really a fan of readings where Marriage/Babies Fix Everything Ever. I'd like to think if I HAD to take away that reading, then the cause and effect are reversed. Having a kid means both are READY for that sort of responsibility again, be it together or with completely new partners.

I think it's also a good ending for them both to keep their immortality for as long as they want it, though. It's a very popular headcanon that Asgore was the king in Undertale's opening, and that both he and Toriel remember the war. It'd be really cool if they could bring it all full circle and, being some of the few survivors of the war, now see humans and monsters make peace again, and find peace themselves.

From an out-of-character perspective I'm pissed at how weird it makes Deltarune's timeline, and how it causes certain people in fandom to believe every single monster is immortal until they have kids, rather than just boss monsters.

[limeinaltime]

If there's one thing I am proud about with The Apotheosis of Mari Erebos, it's that the situation is both horrifying and sometimes beautiful from both a metaphorical standpoint and if you take it from face value, even if I struggle to convey it via my current level of writing skill.

A teen is bound to a nightmare realm that grows as it's fed. It's a metaphor for abuse. A boy is forcibly dragged into something greater than what he was made for. We want to save those that we care about but we are so so small. God is dying but the thing that wants to take their place is a force of pure malicious joy and cruelty that bathes in the suffering of others. You either die to the darkness or let it into your heart. There is a world that dwarfs the universe and it's supposed to love you but it hates you viscerally and desires you carnally. You've seen so much and yet you're still so small. A girl's mind has been taken prisoner by her abusers, and one of them is hopelessly, deeply, sickeningly obsessed with her. Teens hated and abandoned by the society they were born into for something out of control got Skinamarink-ed and stripped of their humanity and dignity. An entire section of a race was wiped out for the sake of growing political greed and corruption. There is a pit of dead versions of the characters we all care for so dearly. Every death becomes just a looping vivid nightmare where you're the same age you were when you started, but your body still remembers and the fear never goes away. A ten year old has been trapped in a cycle of suffering for far too long. Someone basically becomes a god-killing machine. A baby god was manipulated, killed and possessed by someone who wanted his entire race to suffer.

You will never hear him sing again. You were born a victim and you will die a victim. The one person you thought you could trust just threw you at a wall and said you deserved to die. The friends you grew up with or the one you just made must be lost in order for the other to live. The love you feel makes you want to rip your heart out and scream at it to stop racing. You don't know who you are. This flesh should not be yours. You were born to die. You are a slave to a predetermined narrative. You were born a helpless little baby, and you will die a helpless, sad adult. This house is your haven and it is your hell. The entire world has convinced you that you deserve all the pain it gives. You are repulsive and disgusting and everyone hates you. You belong to the house. You belong to your damage. You belong to your hurt and you are owned by your hatred. You can either heal your inner child with kindness or beat it to death with hatred. Might also be a gender identity metaphor if you want it to be.

Why can't I remember you? Why am I drawn to you? Why do you still make me feel safe even though you hurt me? Why do I know your face? Why does your voice soothe the anger I hold so dearly? Why did I say that to you? Why do I care about you? Why do I know your face?

Mari befriending Juhdis only to lose him to the place that they're both victims of. Sollux helping Mari fix the bracelet while being at the mercy of Amberose. Stryga, despite everything, still being rejected because he's not goldblood enough to be one of them. Adelyn being forced to live through the same nightmare over and over again because Kuro desires revenge and suffering more than he loves her. The Anathema falling in love with The Savant after they become a part of each other's beautiful, simple lives and losing him because that's what Alternia and Liminal Space do. It's all take, take, take and those who try to give back are punished harshly.

I want people to root for Mari, Stryga and Adelyn to win their freedom from Liminal Space. I want to invoke mama bear rage over what Amberose. I want people to see what a piece of shit Kuro is due to all the indoctrination and abuse he's now reflecting onto Adelyn. I want the readers to want to kill Amberose and Kuro with their teeth. I don't want it to fall to overhype. I want to feel like hot shit for writing it. I am experiencing my first possibly-longform fanfic and it is a ride and a half.

[arenee1999]

What is it with the OFMD fandom's ability to see multiple layers to everything as well see metaphor and symbolism in everything except when it has anything to do with Izzy Hands?

Season 1 and the virulent hate of Izzy because somehow, every other character in the show including Calico fucking Jack had multiple layers to them but Izzy was taken at literal face value. [s] Because there was obviously nothing more to Izzy than what was shown and nothing he said could have any meaning except the worst one possible. [/s]

Season 2 comes around and all of a sudden people start liking Izzy because [s]gasp, shock[/s] maybe he does have layers after all.

Then, FUCKING THEN!!! David Jenkins says Izzy represents a father-figure/mentor for Ed. And once again [!!!!!!!!] people lose the ability to see metaphor and symbolism and layers to Izzy and his relationship with Ed.

Edward and Izzy's relationship is complicated, messy and multifaceted. In this show (using Taika & Con's ages) Izzy is nearly 10 years older than Edward. (Unlike history where Izzy is approx. 20 years younger than Ed) So the mentor aspect makes perfect sense. The father-figure aspect IS NOT meant to be taken literally at face value. It is symbolism and metaphor.

{Metaphor :: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. :: a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.}

The hypermasculine, toxic, violent version of Izzy from season 1 was meant to be symbolic of Edward's father and Hornigold. That is where the father-figure aspect comes from. Not "Edward literally sees Izzy as a father", because he doesn't. A mentor, yes. Or at least he was a mentor early in their relationship. A relationship that has changed and evolved, probably many times, over many years. Their relationship is complex and multifaceted, it's not just one thing, and it's not neat and tidy. They love each other in multiple ways and it's all extremely messy. And neither of them loves the other in quite the same way or in the way that either of them actually need. Messy. Complicated. Layered.

One more thing of note:

Why can't Izzy be the new Captain of the Revenge? He's getting along better with the crew. Has learned how to work with them. Accept them and they've accepted him. So why couldn't he be the Captain?

Izzy is not a strategist, though he is a decent tactician. He is a combination of a Bosun and an Ops Officer. Which means he keeps the ship running in working order (requiring the crew to do maintenance) and he makes sure the Captain's plans and orders are carried out and implemented as efficiently as possible. But he doesn't make the plans. He can think and make judgement calls and decisions as events are unfolding (tactician) but he doesn't always see the larger picture (strategist). He also doesn't know how to lead without force. He can either work with the crew as part of the crew OR he can lead them but he doesn't know how to do both. Making Izzy Captain would just have the crew turn on him again. It wouldn't happen as quickly as it did last time and they'd probably take him to (or near) land before they forced him off the ship (possibly even dropping him on Stede & Ed's doorstep tied up and gagged) instead of trying to kill him, but it would still end badly.

[lightmotif139]

Video game compare and contrast time!

Another World vs. INSIDE

Ok so I just played the classic 1991 game Another World (also known as Out of This World), and it reminded me a LOT of the 2016 game INSIDE which I played about a year ago -- so much that I'm guessing the creators of INSIDE must have taken some inspiration from Another World.

Apparently I really love whatever type of game this is! And I just felt like doing a compare and contrast of the two games.

SIMILARITIES:

Minimalist gameplay style: 2d action-puzzle platformer with just a few basic controls.

No stats, points, levels, meters, inventories, or other interfaces of any kind.

Fairly short but not too short; can be completed in a few play sessions.

Little to no music, just very effective ambient sounds.

Aesthetically beautiful, with a strong sense of setting, mood, and the feel of the environments.

A protagonist who's surprisingly lifelike, despite not even having facial expressions.

Manages to tell a really immersive story without any dialogue.

The story is open to interpretation, but clear enough to make you WANT to interpret it.

A lot of variety in the puzzles; every stage is different and you wonder what will come next.

Does a good job of building tension and drama.

Lots of narrow escapes.

Trial-and-error gameplay where you're going to die a LOT, but you always get to try again, and it's kind of part of the point to discover how many crazy ways you can die.

A lot of creative worldbuilding that's just ambiguous enough to let you know there's even more going on that you don't see.

A dramatic, surprising, and open ending.

DIFFERENCES:

INSIDE is dark and depressing, heavily dystopian, and maybe-sort-of horror depending on how you define horror. It's really beautiful in its own way, but it also made me cry (and not in a happy way). The deaths are also more realistic and might bother some people, especially since the protagonist is a child. The ending is a lot more sad (and strange).

Another World is an upbeat and colorful sci-fi action adventure. It does have a few survival-horror elements (i.e. everything on the planet wants to kill you), but not in a way that's depressing or disturbing. It's also less realistic and a little more wacky; I wouldn't call it silly but it's got much more of a fun vibe. The ending is not 100% happy but not too sad either, and definitely hopeful.

INSIDE is the sort of story that lends itself toward symbolic and metaphorical interpretations.

Another World is more of just a fun story to take at face value. (Although I'm sure you could still find metaphors in it if you want to, and knowing me I probably will sooner or later. 😂)

INSIDE relies heavily on stealth; the protagonist is small and helpless and the game does an excellent job of making you feel that.

Another World has some stealth elements, but you're also able to fight. You get a weapon and learn how to use it (and it's a very cool one).

While both games are primarily linear storylines, INSIDE has an alternate path with a secret ending.

Another World is one storyline with one ending (but it's engaging enough that I didn't find this to be a problem!)

In INSIDE your character is very alone in his quest (well, except for one possible event, but I won't spoil).

In Another World you make a friend and you get to rescue each other!

Conclusion: If you've played either one of these games, and you liked the gameplay style and story presentation method, I recommend you try the other because you will probably like it too! But if you played one and liked it for the vibe, you might or might not like the other, because the two vibes are very different. Either way, I would consider both games to be masterpieces.

[author-updates]

Something weird I noticed while looking through Dhmis theories, specifically theories relating to Lesley is how literal everyone takes her actions/lines. While, to me at least, she's way more ambiguous/abstract. Not everything she says/does should be taken at face value.

For example, when Lesley and Green Eyed Yellow Guy are cleaning the bottom floor of the doll house; they're putting new dolls of the three characters around the kitchen table along with cleaning up the previous mess that was there. While they're putting the dolls down, Yellow Guy accidentally pops the head off of Duck's doll. Yet, we don't get a scene change of Duck suddenly dying. If the doll house was a literal manifestation of the house, instead of a metaphorical one, the "real" Duck should have been killed and replaced just like the doll. We also see Yellow Guy's doll sitting around the table, even though Yellow Guy isn't actually down there yet.

It's possible that the doll house doesn't become "real" until Lesely cranks the handle, spinning the house and resetting the loop. This would give the characters an amount of agency. As Lesley can't literally control them in a physical way. For example, I doubt Lesley can physically stop from leaving, by, for example, picking up the dolls and holding them in place. But what she can do is reset the loop and replace them.

It's unclear how replacing a doll actually affects the character. If the doll house doesn't become reality until the handle is cranked, then we don't actually see the effects of Lesely replacing Duck's doll, as the episode ends before a new loop or "episode" is played out.

It's also hard to say if replacing a doll does anything to a character because we haven't really seen that happen? I mean, I can say with pretty good certainty that Lesley replaced a doll at some point, judging by the way she readily has a spare Duck doll on hand. But, unlike the web series, the character's die way a less. I'm pretty sure the only time we really see one of the characters (the main three) get seriously hurt or die is in Jobs. It's possible that the three characters got replaced, or at least, Red Guy and Yellow Guy, did when the song started up again and they were placed in their pre-time skip bodies. We can also assume that the three characters got replaced at the end of the Transport episode, as we don't actually see the dolls in the car. So it can be assumed that characters have been replaced with different dolls, but we don't know for sure when that happened, or if it does something to the character.

It's entirely possible that replacing a doll affects memories, but it's also entirely possible that it doesn't. That replacing a doll does absolutely nothing, either because the doll represents the character, and thus will be affected by the character's changes, not the other way around, or because of a completely different reason.

Don't Hug Me I'm Scared is also just a very metaphorical show in general, not JUST how the dolls/Lesley works. Another theory that gets tossed around is that Yellow Guy has walked up the stairs before, and seen Lesley before. I don't think that's the case; I think Yellow Guy first walked up the stairs for the very first time in Electricity.

I know in the episode we see the painting of Yellow Guy walking up the stairs, but I think that's either recording what's happening in that moment, or a metaphorical sign that what Yellow Guy is doing is Great and that a recording of it is needed, just a cool cinematography moment, or something else.

My main justification of this is how the characters act in the Big Boy and Bigger Boy rooms. Upon both times Yellow Guy walks into the room, something to the effect "Oh, you're finally here" is said. Something that would be..... odd to say if they already saw Yellow Guy. The tone in which they speak to Yellow Guy tells me that the other characters believe that Yellow Guy has reached some kind of enlightenment, and has gotten smarter, and thus belongs in the Big Boy or Bigger Boy room. Not that they're seeing Yellow Guy for a second or third time. It's possible that they simply don't remember the last time Yellow Guy was here, as they could be victims of the loops.

What really sells me on the theory that this is Yellow Guy's first time walking up the stairs is Lesley's reaction to him. I really get the sense that this is the first time Yellow Guy has walked up the stairs and met her, seeing as she doesn't say anything to the effect of Yellow Guy doing this before, or being here before. She even gives him the book, something I don't think she would have done this loop around if she had previously done so, and the book got destroyed.

Though, it's possible that she knew that the book would be destroyed, and is simply trying to instill the status qou by letting it get destroyed like it has before.

I doubt that though. As explained above Lesley doesn't actually have complete control of the three characters, the doll house is not a literal manifestation, and the dolls are not literally the characters.

Don't hug me is also just a very metaphorical show, a lot of the story telling is done using the idea of things, instead of the actual things. The teachers are a great example of this, as they're not actually the literal thing they're trying to teach the main three characters. They're more so what the thing represents, along with being their own character. Sure, the coffin represents a coffin, but it also wants the funeral to go along quickly, and it doesn't like when Duck keeps ringing the buzzer.

Because the show is set up like this, I feel that when you're trying to theorize about it, it's important to consider the themes and how information is played out. I don't think that we're going to get a lot of concrete answers about a lot of the questions we're asking, because Dhmis isn't about answering questions in a straightforward way. I would argue that doing so would betray the themes of the show.

[ai-essays]

----

Completed by chatGPT

"When Mitski wrote the lyrics to "Your Best American Girl," she captured the struggle of feeling like an outsider and the desire to conform to societal expectations. However, when she wrote "today i will wear my white button down / i can at least be neat / walk out and be seen as clean," she was predicting the character Kendall Roy's attempt to reclaim control in Italy. Kendall's desperate grab for visual order is a reflection of his internal turmoil and the chaos in his mind. In this essay, I will explore the themes of control, conformity, and mental health in both Mitski's lyrics and Kendall's storyline in the HBO series "Succession."

Mitski's lyrics in "Your Best American Girl" touch on the feeling of not fitting in and the pressure to conform to societal expectations. The idea of wearing a white button-down shirt as a way to be seen as neat and clean is a metaphor for trying to fit in and be accepted. However, Mitski's lyrics also suggest that conforming to societal norms is not always the best way to find happiness and acceptance. The character Kendall Roy in "Succession" faces a similar struggle, as he tries to maintain control and conformity in his personal and professional life.

Throughout "Succession," Kendall's character is portrayed as someone who wants to be in control and who values order and structure. He tries to maintain control over his addiction and his relationship with his father, Logan Roy, the patriarch of the Roy family. Kendall's need for control is a reflection of his internal turmoil and the chaos in his mind. In Italy, Kendall's decision to wear a white suit is an attempt to reclaim control and order in his life. However, the chaotic events that ensue in Italy show that Kendall's attempt to control his surroundings is futile.

The theme of mental health is also present in both Mitski's lyrics and Kendall's storyline in "Succession." Mitski's lyrics suggest that conforming to societal norms can lead to feelings of isolation and anxiety. Similarly, Kendall's need for control is a symptom of his mental health struggles. Throughout the series, Kendall struggles with addiction and his relationship with his father, both of which contribute to his mental health issues. Kendall's breakdown in the season two finale is a representation of the toll that his mental health struggles have taken on him.

In conclusion, Mitski's lyrics in "Your Best American Girl" and Kendall's storyline in "Succession" share common themes of control, conformity, and mental health. Mitski's lyrics suggest that conforming to societal norms can lead to feelings of isolation and anxiety, while Kendall's need for control is a symptom of his mental health struggles. Both Mitski's lyrics and Kendall's storyline show the complexity of the human experience and the struggle to find control and order in a chaotic world."

[madewithonerib]

What is Heaven Like? | Timothy J. Keller [1 Corinthians 13:1-13] Sermon Summary by Matthew Ryan

Series: Love: The Way to Grow Up

Conversation about Timothy Keller's sermons we're going to talk about his sermon on Heaven & what is Heaven like? What can we expect the situation to be when we get there? What is the experience & why is it relevant, even as we live life now on Earth?

Timothy Keller breaks this down for us in his sermon titled Heaven a World of Love and it's actually taken from 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.

The famous passage on love it's interesting how Tim actually pulls a lot of content from this passage, as it relates to the domain of Heaven.

And I think you're going to find tremendous value in some of his insights. We are going to jump right into it, Tim tells us most of the content in this sermon is actually extracted from his readings & study of both C.S Lewis & Jonathan Edwards.

Two very important spiritual theological thinkers.

1.] Teleon/Perfection

Tim starts by talking about this concept is the Greek word called teleon. And teleon means perfection or fullness; & he gives us a metaphor about a beached whale—so when you think about its function & what kind of environment it thrives in..

The whale thrives in the ocean, working to glide & swim with ease; all of its reflexes make sense. But when you take that creature and you put it on the beach what happens?

It's not in its element & Tim says that's exactly where we find ourselves here at this point in time on Earth, that we've got these instincts, we've got desires, we have got these reflexes

—but they're not exactly working the way that they should & that's because we were created for some -thing else. We were created for a deeper level of fullness & reality than what we're experiencing now

So while some of our functions/#attitudes/#feelings make sense, we know they're leading us somewhere we never find that true satisfaction.

But that is all going to change in eternity.

Deep inside we have this desire to see GOD's face & you see this come out in Scripture.

A few times especially in the OT, where Moses is ask -ing to encounter GOD face to face, Jeremiah, Isaiah, & David & we as well all seek GOD's presence in HIS fullness in our lives.

But we can't have it!

What's the reason? It's because of our sin nature, GOD knows if HE was to reveal to us the fullness of HIS love—or the fullness of HIS character that would kill us since we cannot be exposed to HIS Holiness & survive.

2.] Made in the Image of GOD to Love

Tim Keller frames up eternity as a place of infinite love, an infinite presence with GOD. In fact he has almost minimized other attributes that are familiar to us like faith & hope.

     These are important, but not truly intrinsic      qualities of GOD's character, at the same      level GOD is a being and a divinity of love,      & that is a defining intrinsic trait; so when      we spend eternity with HIM, we get the      fullness of that essence.

We get the fullness of HIS love and that is actually the deepest longing in our heart. This makes sense when you think about other passages, where JESUS frames love as the highest virtue above faith/hope.

Tim then contrasts that against Eastern culture and Eastern religion which seeks to evade suffering, or difficulties & trials in life by basically saying

     you want to disassociate/disconnect from      it & become less of a self-identified entity      & absorb yourself into this all soul concept      in order to achieve peace,

not to achieve love, & not to achieve the fullness of who you are—not to achieve what GOD created you to be.

………………………………………………………………… But basically to disappear & to coexist with all other created beings and entities—so Keller says that will actually not satisfy your deepest desires. …………………………………………………………………

     Our longing is not for peace, it's for love      —it's for connection, it's for relationship

And the only way we can have true fullness is to find it in JESUS CHRIST.

Relationships are how we experience love.

So you have to think about how am I engaging with people? What are my interactions like? What are my values like? If I'm not prioritizing love/people & valuing them in my life the same way that GOD values me, or the way GOD values humans above all other elements of HIS creation.

………………………………………………………………… Then we're missing out on that promise, and we're missing out on that connection & that satisfaction, that gratification that comes through relationships & love. …………………………………………………………………

3.] What is Heaven Like?

And that leads to point #3, where Tim talks about what Heaven is like. Tim provides a very interesting illustration here, where he talks about some doctor

—who told a story about engaging & interacting with patients who are near death, and it's a very common theme for patients that are near death to have this apprehension about eternity

     because they are afraid they're going to be      bored & this is a real thing I think when we      imagine Heaven or only imagine eternity

We have a really hard time conceptualizing it; & in fact our imagination is so limited, we almost think of it in terms that we're more stark than what we're experiencing in our current reality.

………………………………………………………………… But that's not the reality that we need to envision, Tim states that the big characterization & reality of eternity is love. …………………………………………………………………

Though we can't really grasp that very well right now —when we experience the fullness of it, Tim tells us to think about your best memory where you felt most loved & most connected.

     Generally people associate that moment is      the happiest point in their lives, now you      expand that out infinitely…

And that's something like what eternity is going to be for us. Sometimes we don't do an adequate job of framing up GOD as a three-person TRINITY.

3.1] Made for Relationships

So you have JESUS, the SON, GOD the FATHER, and the HOLY SPIRIT—& we look at the nature of GOD, you see relationship.

     You see those three distinct BEINGS, all      in one GOD & THEY are defined & held      together by this construct of love.

………………………………………………………………… So if we're made in GOD's image, that means we're made for connection—we are made to love others & to have relationships. …………………………………………………………………

Tim Keller defines this as an infinite Holy energy that there's a synergy there—& a beauty in that & a rhythm to that.

3.2] Love: We Partially, Not Fully

We can only even try to imagine. So Paul draws this analogy about how GOD fully knows us now, but we don't fully know HIM.

And what he meant by that is

     A loving knowledge: so GOD knows us in      the completeness & fullness of HIS love      for us by sending JESUS HIS SON to die      for us on the cross

     But we are not able to at this time      reciprocate that love in the same way.

     We don't have that knowledge of love      that won't be completed until eternity

Contrast that with the theology that's out there, that talks about knowledge of GOD is we'll know all things when we get to Heaven.

That's not true.

     Only GOD is the truly infinite Sovereign      BEING, WHO runs the entire universe &      we're never going to have that type of      knowledge

What Paul is talking about here is,

     he's talking about the fullness of loving      knowledge and Timothy Keller goes on      to state that all of our problems stem      actually from a lack of knowledge of      this love

That it's actually a lack of love that causes you to sin and causes you to cheat—and try to achieve satisfaction in ways that you're not designed to.

Keller defines love as a desire to be surrendered to where somebody gives you their fullness and also a desire to surrender yourself.

There's a coexisting essence to it.

     just like we have in a marriage

Of course because GOD created marriage to model this type of affection & relationships—where both entities are fully giving themselves to the other & a sacrificial type of love.

Of course we do that imperfectly here because of all the trauma/mistakes & the ways we get along.

Sometimes that analogy isn't always helpful to us because we bring a lot of baggage into it. But in its completion & its proper state, it's actually the best gift possible.

3.3] Need For Community of Believers

Another neat metaphor that gives to us is this idea of community is being a member of Church because we all have our own independent relationship with GOD—but the nature & character of our relationship as an individual is different than what our neighbor might be experiencing.

     And when you form a mosaic, where a group      are coming together & sharing their individual      stories & their relationship with GOD with one      another—we all have a different glimpse of      WHO GOD is

     And we can weave everyone's individual      perspective into a whole to see HIM in a      greater way than we would on our own

………………………………………………………………… There's a real important aspect of relationships & community there—that in order to know GOD you have got to do it in context of being around other believers—who know HIM too. …………………………………………………………………

4.] Life is All About Loving Relationships

So Tim leaves us with this final thought of:

What does it all mean, in terms of what Timothy Keller's application is for us?

     It means that we have to value & prioritize      people & relationships over money wealth      health, or any other type of thing that we're      trying to get satisfaction from

     that falls short of prioritizing relationship &      getting along with other people & growing      with them because that's the opportunity      for love

     And when we connect in that way, we get      closer to GOD & understanding through the      reality of what HE created us to be.

………………………………………………………………… So if you have imperfect/broken relationships, you want to do what you can to forgive and mend those …………………………………………………………………

     because you're missing a huge opportunity      to grow with GOD, if you don't do that GOD      will reach out and connect with you in the      same way if you leave those relationships      fragmented—when you have the capacity      to go in there and try to heal and make      amendments

So become a person of justice where you're looking out for the good will of others, where you're looking out for other people's interests.

     If you're trying to bring them up, so they      have a capacity for more love in their lives      & you're advocating for them and for their      needs above your own

     that's a sacrificial love that will unite you      with GOD's goodness & HIS essence.

4.1] What is Hell Like?

Tim tells us that Hell is the exact opposite of that state, Hell is a place of 100% self-absorption.

He makes a kind of mocking joke of this idea that people state, “Well I want to go to Hell because all my friends are there.”

     There are no friends in Hell because      friendship requires sacrifice & caring      about somebody else & the state of      the soul in Hell is self-pity & pride &      self-delusion

     And self in any iteration, so there isn't      connection/community/love there.

     the absence of that is misery

Solitude/fear/hate so when you contrast those two environments: Hell with Heaven which one would you really want to choose?

Which one are we truly yearning for at the end of the day? What we're yearning for?

We're not learning yearning for long-term peace & eternity/tranquility/passivity—we're longing for a deep abiding affection & connection with the GOD WHO created us.

———————————————————————— I hope these ideas were helpful to you today.

Definitely Listen to Timothy Keller's sermon titled: Heaven a World of Love, & read 1 Corinthians 13 to see what the Scripture really has to say about the subject.

And please like this video, leave a comment with your own thoughts & ideas about love in Heaven

And please subscribe, I hope it adds great value to you. Thank you & GOD bless.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 | Import of Love 

¹ If I speak in the tongues of men and of Angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. ² If I have the gift of prophecy & can fathom all mysteries & all knowledge—& if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

³ If I give all I possess to the poor and exult in the surrender of my body, but have not love — I gain nothing.

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It doesn't envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It is not rude, it is not self -seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs.

⁶ Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. ⁷ It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be restrained; where there is knowledge, it will be dismissed.

⁹ For we know in part & we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away.

¹¹ When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways.

¹² Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

¹³ And now these three remain: faith, hope, & love; but the greatest of these is love.

[unmotivated-cosmere-nerd]

Blake could never fly.

In a lot of stories, learning to fly is often an incredible moment of self actualization and freedom, but in pact the ability to fly is granted to Blake because he needs to fight a dragon, and it's a solution. For a character who has romanticised and envied birds for there freedom, Blake's wings feel practical not emotional and he only gets that back when all that he is is taken away.

More interestingly is that Blake constantly turns down the ability to fly(you fools), he goes back to the police for Evan, back to the tower for Rose, and back to Ur despite having no obligation to face it again.

And in Isadora's interlude we find out why:

The Fool in the Tarot deck frequently depicted a boy with a dog at his heels, staring at the sky while he walked blithely off a cliff, burdened only by a bundle on a stick.  The diabolist had admitted a relationship to the card.

No single detail was quite right, but much as something might appear similar if one were to unfocus their vision…

The young diabolist walked with the sparrow at his shoulder, eyes on the windows without looking through the windows, walking forward as if he were afraid to stop.  His burden here was the gas containers.

No, he was burdened not just by the gas containers, but by some notion of responsibility.

A man, when facing death, aspires to finish what he started.

What had the custodian of the Thorburn estate started?  What drove him?

She knew he sought to do good and to vanquish evil, and she could surmise that both good acts and the existence of evil had touched him deeply.

The Fool card was akin to the ace.  Depending on the game being played, it was often the lowest card or the highest.  Valueless or highly valued.  Powerless or powerful.

It all depended on context.  He sought to kill the demon, and he would either catastrophically fail or succeed.

This Fool sought to slay the metaphorical dragon.  He felt his own mortality, which was quite possibly her fault, in part, and now he rushed to finish the task he’d set for himself.  To better the world.

The Fool was wrought with air – the clouds he gazed at, the void beyond the cliff, the feather in his cap, even the dog could often be found mid-step, bounding, just above the ground.

He was a Fool wrought with a different element.  The familiar didn’t quite fit for the departure from the air, but the traditional dog didn’t conjure ideas of air right off the bat either.

What was he wrought with?  That was another question that begged an answer.

For so many characters in fiction flight represents some level of ascension(haha) often this is being free, of some fear or restriction, but also rising above others, making them small in comparison to you, to fly you must sever yourself from earthly tethers and part of the reason flight is so special is because everyone else is on earth. 

So why can’t Blake Fly? It is because he carries a burden and it weighs him down. As Isadora says, he was touched by a great evil. The Evil has left him with a desire to be free, to get away to never be pinned down (He probably associates birds with a freedom from his trauma), but he was also touched by great good, Alexis has inspired him to make the world “better for having him in it” and that takes precedent. That's why he bonds with Evan,  that's why he goes back for Rose, that's why he faces down something worse most practioners wouldn’t face in their entire career

I’m sitting this one out.  I’ve earned a break.  I’m going to use that break to do some reading I’ve fallen behind on, I’m going to look after my circle, and when that’s done, when I feel ready, I’m going back to the factory.”

Blake Turns down a chance for freedom and safety, to do what is right, even if it isn’t Right.

So that leaves us with a question, what element is Blake wrought with? And I think the answer is Earth. In Pale we learn that the astrological symbol for earth means to be a part of reality, to be brought down to the rules and laws all must follow. Flying puts one above the world, made apart from it and Blake’s mission is to make the world better for having him in it and so he must be a part of the world he cannot be apart from it. (Also Evan is dead, and his corpse will be buried, hence his connection to Earth).

In conclusion I think the reason Blake can’t fly is because he must be part if it if he wants to make it better and that responsibility will keep as a part of the earth until there is no Blake Thorburn left, and I think that's beautiful

[plan-d-to-i]

At this point in regards to character interpretations, fans might as well remember the phrase "let's agree to disagree" and not fight anymore. Saves a lot of mental energy. Disregarding the portion that relies too much in fanon (and the ones that think abuse in literature is a love language), readers will have different interpretations. It what makes things fun! A little variation is good and too much uniformity is bland; fics and character interpretation should be about having fun in dissecting the character and wondering how this character would do if you place them in a different situation.

Now it's just, who has the most "accurate" meta or take and tbh, we wouldn't be as accurate as MXTX in terms of writing the characters. It gets frustrating when people try to enforce their interpretation on others, moreso when it's based on their own bland fanon than canon. It ends up being a Frankenstein abomination and I'm not sure if the one who made the fanon has child support for it.

This instead makes MDZS into some bland, poorly written novel when taken at a surface level— which actually happened to me btw! I had a PDF of the novel sitting in my file for months because I thought it would just be another trashy novel Tumblr glittered on to be great. The fandom made me think that it was some weird FSOG reimagining with bad sibling relationships. I was so, so, so glad I was wrong. It's one of the best novels I have read that deals with societal issues we see today— and I'm kinda annoyed the fans gloss it over to focus on some! Bland fanon take of a bad character! Like, dude, you get to read about the consequences of being pushed into a corner because you're the only one who voiced out the bad thing in a group and the lesson of it on how things can go bad than good when you want to stand up for what's right— it's both a cautionary tale of what happens if you're all alone in facing a giant problem and the ills of a society who doesn't want to change for the better, and a lesson on what happens if you have the right support and tenacity to face the same problem head-on and maintaining goodness and patience no matter what happens in life because it's you who gets to live it, not others. There's even more if you unpack the novel again when rereading it.

Rant of what you can learn from MDZS aside, sorry about that, some takes in the fandom end up making MDZS into some weird puppet monstrosity stitched together by bad writing (when it's the opposite). The ones who try to disprove them sometimes end up committing the same mistakes. Fans should learn from WWX and let things go and move on because you're the only one getting hurt from it.

"Only when people don't hold so much in their hearts would they finally feel free (Ch 113)".

Anon, love and light but :

We obviously all wish we could bake a rainbow smile cake, but it's not gonna happen. Nothing this shitshow fandom will come up with will ever carry the value of the canon work, as you yourself observed forming an opinion prior to reading it. Naturally, I do hope in the interest of your ardent desire to moderate via the medium of metaphors you sent this to every single account that's posting discourse yeah? Otherwise you're just trying to manage what I'm personally posting in my personal space, whilst not posting anything in anyone else's personal space, but instead quite industriously blocking the shit out of them so that never our paths may meet; With an added side of ~your own take on canon~. And that's not really very agree to disagree of you. No hard feelings. xx

[the-timewatcher]

broke: saying The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe is just more meta humor about the state of video games and the complicated dance of designer and player, where both parties can be interchangably adversarial and cooperative.

broke: The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe serves to mostly take a look at the in-universe dynamics between the narrator and stanley, while simultaneously addressing all of the above.

woke my broke take: The Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe continues to be both a story that can be taken at face value/character study and a metaphor for the nature of the relationship between artist, art and audience, deepening the themes of the original both by asking more relevant questions about the state of popculture (video games, more specifically), and by exploring the philosophical nature of art, while being just funny enough to make it entertaining if you don't like either - making the title of "parable" very fitting.

[secretmellowblog]

I’ve been thinking about the Javert/Eponine parallels lately and like!!! I completely forgot that the line where Enjolras tells Javert “your friends have just shot you” is immediately followed by the chapter where Eponine dies of her gunshot wound

I know other people have written posts (and i probably will too) about the parallels between Javert and Eponine— how they’re both described as “guard dogs whose parents are wolves,” how they turn against their criminal parents to defend “society,” how Eponine is described using police metaphors, how Eponine often talks about drowning herself and Javert is supposed to die at the barricades but then they “trade deaths” so that Eponine dies at the barricades and Javert drowns himself, Javert seeing Eponine’s corpse right before he’s about to be executed and remarking that he feels like he knows her, and so on

But I’m really emotional about the parallel between....... how Javert and Eponine are the “guard dogs” of a person or institution that Doesn’t Care About Them, and barely even knows they exist.

Eponine gives her life for Marius, but he doesn’t even notice! She has to crawl over to him to make him talk to her because otherwise, he wouldnt even know she saved his life. She did so much for him and gave up so much for him, and he barely remembers she exists. She’s at his feet after taking a bullet for him and he doesn’t even recognize her.

Javert gives his life for the society he serves, and is calm/resolute while facing his execution. Then the National Guard has an easy opportunity to save Javert’s life — they just have to pull a hostage exchange, giving Jehan in exchange for Javert. They could easily save the life of the police officer who has done everything “right” for them, who has been completely submissive and obedient his entire life, who has dedicated his entire soul to his work, who has turned himself into a cruel empty friendless husk for his work, who has sacrificed everything for them— but they don’t. Because they don’t care!

Because Javert is to the National Guard what Eponine is to Marius— if he’s not literally crawling up to them and begging them to notice him, he might as well not exist.

Les Amis instantly notice and care when Jehan Prouvaire is missing. but Javert goes missing and is instantly easily forgotten/discarded, because he’s not important and no one cares and the police/military don’t value human life.

There’s a line later on where Javert’s behavior as he awaits execution is described like this:

“A spy of the first quality, who had observed everything, listened to everything, and taken in everything, even when he thought he was to die; who had played the spy even in his agony; and who, with his elbows leaning on the first step of the sepulcher, had taken notes.”

And I’ve seen people try to argue that line shows how Heroic /noble Javert is, and I’m here like no! :((That line isn’t heroic, it’s just….deeply pathetic and pitiable.

To me that line has the same Feeling as Eponine slowly dying and, “with her elbows leaning on the sepulcher,” using the last of her strength to crawl over to Marius and try to make him notice her.

One major difference is that Marius is ignorant but he does ultimately Feel Something about Eponine and tries to take care of her as she dies, while the police/national guard do not care about Javert at alllllll........when he returns to the police station and gives a brief report of what happened to him, they indifferently just put him back on duty again without even telling him to take a break first. :|

Javert’s executioners (Valjean and even Enjolras) ultimately show far more concern for him than the people who are supposedly “on his side,” because unlike cops they actually value human life, lol

But I don’t know. Even beyond this specific metaphor, there’s just something so sad about the way both Javert and Eponine are so “unimportant” to the other characters, so quickly forgotten by them. Almost immediately after Eponine dies Marius moves on to reading Cosette’s letter; Valjean reads about Javert’s suicide in the newspaper and says “he must’ve been crazy” and then forgets about him. Eponine and Javert have these deep complicated thorny emotional relationships with the other characters that they literally destroy/kill themselves over, but those deep emotions aren’t returned/requited at all, in a really bitter horrible awful way.