#but at least it might communicate that I don't care about their opinion on my life choices or my body

[emeryhiro]

Hello!

I am new here and is feeling very overwhelmed right now with that is happening in the caryl fandom. I appreciate your insight into these characters. I am someone who has not seen Daryl Dixon season 1 and is seriously considering if I should even watch it with all that is being said about s2.

Reading all the early reviews that has dropped - I get a lot of mixed reactions to Isabelle's character. Some ppl say she was the best part about season 1 while others don't even mention here in their reviews. The caryl fandom is largely, understandably, biased against her.

I do not know anything about Isabelle and was wondering what your thoughts about her are - how she holds up as a character?

Hi Anon!!

Thank you for your question. I'm really glad you asked this question, and thank you for the kind words🥰 I'm going to do my best to properly answer and share my thoughts on all the points you've mentioned.

Firstly, welcome to the fandom!! 💖 I'm sorry you've joined at a time of so much uncertainty, but I promise that at its core, this community is a beautiful place to be. But like all communities, there is always positivity and negativity, and it's important to be careful with what's surrounding you, ensuring it's a healthy balance that works for you.

I've divided my response into several sections, as I find that to be the best way to convey my thoughts. I also wanted to be as clear as possible since this is a sensitive topic for some, and I want to try to alleviate at least some of the worries.

A mild spoiler warning for a mention of something that happens in episode 1 of season 2.

Reviews on Season 2:

I wasn't planning on reading any of the reviews for season 2, but since you asked for my thoughts, I read all the articles that I could find so that I could give you an informed response. And one thing I advise is to always take reviews with a grain of salt (this includes my thoughts as well) because, ultimately, they're all based on the writers' opinions.

What I've found with all previous seasons of TWD, especially season 1 of Daryl Dixon, was that no single review I read aligned perfectly with what I thought of the show once I watched it myself. And I know I'll say the same about season 2.

Regarding what I read in the season 2 reviews, I don't think I've actually read a single concerning line in any of the ones I've come across, and I'm pretty sure I've read every single one that has been released. There are, however, a lot of people who, out of fear or concern, focus on single lines from a review that may sound negative or worrisome when taken out of context, and ignore everything else in the review that's purely positive.

I can see many people have shared their specific thoughts on different segments of several reviews, but I won't go into my thoughts here for the sake of keeping this response reasonable short. If you're interested in a detailed post about my thoughts on the reviews in general or any in particular, let me know, and I'll share it as soon as I get a chance.

My thoughts on Isabelle:

I found Isabelle to be a fascinating character with many layers. She is unquestionably flawed and has a great mix of both positive and negative characteristics, which I think is what gives her character so much potential. She's intelligent, driven, brave, headstrong, and very protective, but she's also undeniably manipulative, which makes sense when you think of it as a self-defence mechanism that she developed during her rocky life before the apocalypse. I'm also a fan of Clémence as an actress, and I think she's a great fit for this character.

This next bit might sound a bit contrevoursial but bare with me. I've seen Isabelle get a lot of hate for being manipulative towards Daryl, even I personally hated seeing Daryl be treated that way, but it's important to remember that we've also seen Carol behave manipulatively when she's had to in the past in order to protect the people that she loves. This is something you'll see Carol do once again in episode 1 of TBOC, and when I watched it, it made me uncomfortable, but ultimetly, I could see that it made Carol uncomfortable as well; she doesn't feel any satisfaction out of what she does and is willing to carry the weight of that lie and guilt to achieve her ultimate goal of saving Daryl, the person she loves.

Even though, on the surface, it's not an admirable thing to do, we appreciate Carol so much more because of the lengths she's willing to go to for the ones she loves, and we've also seen her journey to this point, which naturally makes us love her and empathise with her.

So my point here is that I can't judge Isabelle for the same behaviour I admire in my favourite character. Just like Carol may act that way to protect Daryl (her loved one), Isabelle was doing it because she believed (to the best of her knowledge) that it was what was best for Laurent (her loved one).

However, what doesn't sit right with me about Isabelle's character is that what the showrunners and writers have been saying about her doesn't align with what I've seen on screen (this is a great example of why I try to avoid looking at unnecessary publicity). I want to love her character for who she is, flaws and all, but the inconsistency in her publicity makes me feel like there's some discrepancy behind the scenes, and that has stopped me from investing in her character and gives me slight concern for the trajectory of her arc, which has so much potential that would be incredibly tragic if wasted.

The only other thing that I would disagree with (IF the show ends up going down that path) is the negative messaging that would be given out about nuns if every surviving nun on the show is portrayed as willing to forget her vows the minute there's a man in front of them that they find interesting. I'm not catholic, but I think that it would be incredibly disrespectful towards actual nuns and the sacrifices that they make for their faith. But please don't take this as fact because I don't think this will actually ever happen. I honestly don't believe that AMC or anyone involved with the show would knowingly do something like that. I'd be happy to explain this a little further, but I don't think it's relevant if you haven't seen the first seasons.

Watching TWD: Daryl Dixon S1 & 2

My question to you would be, what draws you to TWD/TBOC? Is it Caryl itself and potential canon? And if so, do you feel that you'd be left disappointed and/or unsatisfied with the potential lack of romance between the characters in season 2? Or, do you enjoy the show for a combination of things, like the character development, world-building, cinematography, etc.?

I want to emphasise that there is no wrong answer to the above. Everyone is unique, and it's 1000% understandable and fair for each person to have unique reasons for being drawn to and loving, hating, or even being indifferent about a show.

I personally fall in the latter category; I love TWD for its rich story, action sequences, cinematography, multitude of interesting characters, and the mind-blowing ways in which they have developed over the years (the whole package of the show is exactly my cup of tea), and of course, it's no secret if anyone looks at my blog that my favourite character (BY FAR) are Carol and Daryl. I absolutely adore them for everything they are, both as individuals and what they bring out in each other and mean to each other. And if Caryl is ever canon (which I expect would happen in season 3), then that would be the cherry on top of a show I already love.

My very short review of season 1 would be that I really enjoyed it and would rank it at the top between all the other spinoff seasons we've gotten so far. However, in all honesty, I still felt and noticed the hole that was left behind in the story with the absence of Carol, but knowing that she will be returning in season 2 kind of made up for that lack in season 1. All up, I really enjoyed season 1 and have watched it several times in the last year. I'm actually currently in the middle of watching it again in preparation for season 2.

My recommendations:

If you personally fall into the former category and, as mentioned above, feel that you'd be left disappointed and/or unsatisfied with the potential lack of romance between the characters in season 2, then perhaps it's better to wait till all the episodes are released to then decide if it's something that you'd like to watch.

If you're willing to accept and are okay with the potential lack of romance between Caryl in season 2 but are concerned about and would rather not watch any potential romantic relationship develop between Daryl and Isabelle, then I'd say that you should watch the season as it releases because I honestly don't believe that something like that is a real possibility. At most, there may be hints towards one-sided feelings from Isabelle's side and maybe some confusion from Daryl's side, but untimely, it would not mean or go anywhere. I'm personally not even bothered with this worst-case scenario because it doesn't matter how many people have feelings for Daryl or how confused Daryl is because I know that once he's reunited with Carol, there won't be any more uncertainty about where his heart and loyalties truly lie. There's honestly not a single ounce of me that's concerned about this.

If you're more like me and enjoy the show as a whole, even though you may be slightly disappointed with a few accepts, then I'd highly recommend that you watch season 1 before the release of season 2 (if you have the time), because it genuinely was a good season and will give you a lot of backstory and context that would make season 2 feel so much more enjoyable and immersive.

~~~~

Thanks again for your questions!! I hope this all makes sense and that it answers your questions. As I mentioned earlier, if you'd like me to expand on my thoughts on anything in particular, please let me know, and I'd be happy to do so.

My last bit of advice is this: I know it's easier said than done, but I urge you, especially as someone who's new to the fandom, to not allow a lot of different voices and opinions to shape how you naturally feel or invalidate what you take away from watching the show (not that I think that's what you're doing but this is the general advice I wanted to give just in case🩵). It's really easy for anyone to be influenced by negativity and positivity when they find that that's all they can see from the people around them.

I personally try to focus on what I see on screen and what I hear directly from Norman and Melissa because, at the end of the day, showrunners and writers come and go, but Norman and Melissa have embodied these characters from day one and understand them more than anyone else ever could.

♡♡♡

[chthonic-cassandra]

Being partnered to a dancer who still works with the company in which we met means that I have still have to go to events with a bunch of people I really do not want to see, but I can cope by just dressing really Vanessa Ives about it.

[sendothetaurus]

How to write good dialogue

Almost every story needs dialogue - obvious right? Well, this post is about the not-so-obvious sides of conversations. I've struggled a LOT with snappy and realistic speech, so I've made it my mission to collect some handy directives. Here is what I found:

Contents

Information Dumps

Setup And Payoff

Characterization Through Dialogue

Three Simple Questions

Four-Sides Model

Depth

About Answers

Sources And Credits

⮮ Let's go! (^▽^) ⮯

Information Dumps

Everybody knows them, everybody hates reading them. But how do we avoid them? Something really clicked for me when I understood context. If your character talks about something that happened in the past, they don't need to explain what happened. They were there. Here's an example:

"It would be nice if we at least got a B for that paper. Since I will go to college next year, I feel that this is important to me."

The speaker and the listener should be aware of the exposition (regarding their last year at high school). During dialogue, these conditions go without saying.

Setup And Payoff

Instead of dumping everything at once, let the reader guess what's happening. This is done by mentioning something that is not answered right away. Also dropping hints can increase tension.

Scene 1 "Why do you always carry that with you?" she asked and pointed at the box cutter. Her friend eyed her with suspicion. "For cutting." "Yeah, but why?" "Might come in handy sometime." Scene 2 An ice cold shiver ran down her spine as her fingers felt around the bag, searching for the familiar shape. There was nothing. The other tossed the thing onto the floor between them. "Care to elaborate?" She couldn't have known. "How could you!"

Someone definitely has a secret here that they don't want uncovered. It makes the reader speculate: Does she carry the knife to defend herself or does she plan on hurting someone with it?

Characterization Through Dialogue

The general rule of thumb is: Show not tell. If a character is shy, self-absorbed or chaotic, make them act like it. Also, readers take part in the characterization of your protagonists. Make them guess why a character acts a certain way.

"C- can I have your pen?" She twirled her thumbs and looked at the ground. "What the hell, no!" Disgusted, he brushed off his hands on the front of his jeans. "I'mma better disinfect that."

Notice how the girl is stuttering and the boy has a loose tongue. Mannerisms help identifying traits in a character. Everyone has a distinct way to speak (e.g. relaxed, polite, malignly) which makes it easier to tell them apart. Sometimes there is a difference between speech and behavior. This can be quite useful to highlight conflict inside a character.

Three Simple Questions

Who wants what from who?

Why now?

What happens if they don't get it?

These questions ensure plot consistency. For question 3 the only other outcome is conflict. Conversations thrive off of conflict and it is of benefit to have a supplicant and potential provider for a solution. It's basically intention versus obstacle.

1. She wants to be his wife. He doesn't want a marriage. 2. She is pregnant. 3. She needs to provide for a baby all on her own.

Tadaa, a conflict ensues.

Four-Sides Model

The four-sides model is a theory on communication. It assumes that a message has four distinct ways of being conveyed:

Facts -> data, facts, truth and relevance

Self-Disclosure -> explicit and implicit information about the own mindset; likes, dislikes, opinions

Relationship -> information about whether the person is liked or detested; approval and disapproval; "I assume you have [this] opinion of me"; body language

Want -> a direct attempt to influence the behavior of another person; advice, desire or instruction

Since this is highly technical stuff, I'll provide you with an example:

Customer: "I always drink my coffee black." 1. Fact: The coffee I drink is black. 2. Self-Disclosure: I like black coffee. 3. Relationship (POV of the waiter): Did I do something wrong? OR It's their fault! They ordered the wrong thing! 4. Want: Bring me black coffee.

Controlling the message through sender and receiver gives a new level of influence to an author. The relationship-level is the bottleneck in a conversation that holds the most potential for misunderstandings. I'm trying to be aware of it when I write subtext (see below).

Depth

On the nose dialogue is what we want to avoid at all costs. For this reason subtext is created in stories. Read this:

Scene 1 A: "I like you." B: "Nah, I don't like you back. You're so annoying." A: "Ouch, that hurts. I'm not sure if I heard that right." B: "We were never friends. Go away."

This is not how conversations work. Thankfully, dialogue like this is not entirely useless. It conveys what the characters really want to say. The challenge is to think of a way to not say the thing but keep a similar meaning.

The true meaning behind the dialogue is called subtext (scene 1). If I don't know how to continue after a certain line, I write down the subtext first before I decide on how to paraphrase it.

Finally, I add a fitting description of expression and body language if needed. I try to keep it short and simple.

Check this out:

Scene 2 She tucked her hair behind her ear. "I need a ride home later. Are you free?" -> I like you. "Sorry, all seats' re taken," he said without looking at her. -> Nah, I don't like you back. You're so annoying. "Uhm, okay. But I'm small. You could fit me in the footwell, honestly." -> Ouch, that hurts. I'm not sure if I heard that right. He leaned forward as if he had the urge to stand. "Ha, funny. But no, I'm not planning on doing something illegal tonight." -> We were never friends. Go away.

A character's action depends on their own intention and the other's response. I feel it is easier to keep track of what's happening behind the curtains when it's written alongside the dialogue.

Simultaneously, you can keep habits and traits in check. Does the the character apply all criticism to themselves? Are they disregarding or constantly marginalizing others? Do they worry only for themselves or solely for others? Subtext truly is the most powerful tool in conversation-writing.

About Answers

Did you know that you don't have to answer every single question? In fact, there are two other ways to show an emotion without telling it.

The first one is called sidestepping. The character ignores the posed question and carries on with an entirely different topic.

A: "Do you still love me?" B: "We should get going."

It's very obvious, right? By sidestepping the question, we can assume that the character is uncomfortable or angry with the other person.

The other way to answer is actually a bit paradoxical. Through silence, a great variety of emotions can be displayed. It is recommended to refrain from actually describing silence with words like "he remained silent", "he refused to say anything", "he never responded".

- The laptop hummed. - The birds chirped in the trees. - She felt her legs going numb from sitting in an uncomfortable position. - His eyes wandered around, searching the parking lot for a familiar face.

It feels more natural to explain the things that grab our attention when we sit in silence.

This is it, folks. That's all I could find on the topic - for now. If there's anything missing, I'd love to hear it.

‧͙⁺˚*･༓☾ Anyway, thanks for reading, I hope this helped ☽༓･*˚⁺‧͙

My sources are this and this video as well as this article.

Also a big thank you to @zoropookie for helping me with the colors ⸜(｡˃ ᵕ ˂ )⸝♡

[cherrycokedup]

Bro what happened in the nevercord?? I am not a part of it but still curious

EDIT: please look at @thelesbomancer ‘s post/reblog, and @gothwineaunts ‘s post about this situation!

please defer to your own judgment when it comes to this, and don’t use my post as the end all be all! Those two posts have much more information on all of this! This post was made as this all unfolded and might be out of date (also turning off reblogs because i’m not an authority on this )

i'm gonna be careful not to name any names here because I don't want to start a hate train and I'm looking at all of this as neutral as possible and also please please please don't think of this like a call-out post or anything, it's not! I still think you can be a fan of rnf and support their work, this is just why I'm chosing to take a break from doing so!

Content Warning below for mentions of explicit content being sent to minors ( by a server member, not RnF, THANK GOD )

i don't have all the details but basically, someone was banned for sending heavy nsfw/pornographic images to minors, and then was unbanned later on because of two reasons

one: the children the images were sent too were banned from nevercord for varying reasons ( closest explanation I remember is about these kids doing witchhunts, whatever that means )

two: the evidence was apparently "unreliable" and heavily censored.

Also, the minors themselves didn't report this information, an adult did with screenshots, censoring the users of the kids.

The offending person claimed that they never knew the ages of the people talking to them and thought they were all adults, even though at least two victims from my knowledge have come forward and said the person did, in fact know their ages. The only age I've heard for sure was 12 years old.

My problem with the situation arised was when Red, the writer of Nevermore, posted a lengthy explanation that was pretty poorly worded. She used phrases about the situation, such as "egged on" or "cried wolf" about being sent this sexual content, saying it was the job of minors to stay safe on the internet. I was raising my eyebrow at that point, because the whole thing sounded rather victim-blamey.

Red then said that the evidence was faulty and suspicious for being heavily censored ( i don't know the full extent of the censoring ), and because of the fact it came from one person, an adult who was friends with some of the people who had been banned, implied reporting that behavior was all some sort of tatic to get one person they didn't like banned.

When a ton of people were (understandably, in my opinion) very upset by this response, including the victims, and other neutral parties, Red got very upset and started lashing out. I understand It had to be a stressful situation, having tons of people talking at you at once, but she started saying rather guilt tripping things, such as "I'm a horrible person then" "everything I do is actually for evil purposes", stuff along those lines. Admittedly, the situation was pretty upsetting to me, so once Red started saying those things I left. I might return to Nevermore one day, if there's signs of change and the like. I still deeply enjoy the comic, and the community! I don't think RnF are horrible people, I just think they worded this very poorly, and then continued to lash out when it didn't go as excepted lmao I'll grab some of the screenshots I took, and ask if my friends have any to add! If anyone else has anything to add about the situation, please do so in the notes or reblogs! I'm just saying my perspective here, and why I chose to leave! There might have been things I missed! screenshots below!

anyways, those are all the screenshots i have on haha, again for the millionth time I dont want this to become a massive big drama

[avelera]

A Doylist Argument for Why Alice, Daniel's first wife, is NOT Armand in "Interview with the Vampire"

So I know the IWTV fandom has more or less made up its mind about "Armand = Alice" but I have to say, I am still not convinced. In my opinion, the discussion of how Armand knew what Alice was thinking that night was because Armand was spying on Daniel and Alice as a powerful telepath, all things we've known Armand to do, not because he was somehow Daniel's first wife and at no point did Daniel, an investigative reporter, in the present day recognize that Armand was Alice, his first wife who he would presumably have photos of.

Anyway, let's start from a Doylist angle. Doylist means, "from the creator perspective, analyzing from the point of view as the work of art as something created by people outside the universe of the story, ie, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes, not John Watson who wrote the book in-universe."

First of all, it's pretty unusual for a show to outright lie to the audience. There used to be a whole script writing rule about it and if you look closely, it's very unusual in most TV shows for a character to outright lie unless the story is a mystery and unless the fact they're lying is well supported as being something the audience should be on the lookout for. But even when characters lie on tv, there's usually a bazillion neon signposts going, "The guy twirling his mustache and cackling is a liar!" and we're usually introduced to the actual truth at some point within the story.

Ok, all of that aside because I could talk about when and how and where and the nuances of writing liars into stories and why it's best generally avoided (unless it is the entire point, because audiences tend to take what they're told by a character at face value unless they're specifically told not to, etc etc.), IWTV by contrast with most tv shows is notorious for playing with lies and truth with this in very interesting ways.

Truly, I don't think I've ever seen a show lie to the audience as much as IWTV but even then, IWTV lies in very careful ways.

So, let's examine how IWTV depicts lies and subjective truth, and why I think this makes it unlikely that "Alice = Armand", which would be an absolutely gigantic lie to drop on the audience.

We always know that lies are going to be part of the story in IWTV. There's tons of support and scaffolding to the fact that the audience should know that this is a subjective story, that facts will be misrepresented and misremembered.

For example, it was an entire plot point with a long pay off that Lestat shouldn't have been able to communicate telepathically to Louis after he was turned and it was used to highlight that we should not take anything that happens in the flashbacks as objective truth. This has been told to us over and over and over again in this story.

This is so they can avoid the cheated feeling of a, "Gotcha!" Audiences do not like to be lied to but they do like to solve mysteries. If you're going to lie to the audience, you need to give them a chance to solve it. Generally speaking you accomplish this by telling them ahead of time what they should be looking out for and that there's a mystery incoming, you don't just "Rocks fall, everyone dies," dump it on them out of nowhere then laugh that they were too stupid to figure it out. That enrages audiences.

Now, it might seem like I'm contradicting myself here. "Avelera!" You might say, "We have it well established that something fucky is going on with Daniel's memories! A big red flag was raised that Armand has messed with Daniel too in the flashback to the 70s! We know from the books that Daniel and Armand had a relationship and the show is at least teasing that they had one in the show canon too! Isn't that enough to establish that Alice = Armand is a reasonable mystery that is being hinted at within the context of the story?"

And to this I answer, sure, it's reasonable. I think the number of people who are speculating that Alice = Armand is actually a point in favor of it being true, because a good established mystery should have enough hints that people can begin to put it together before it's confirmed.

But here are my personal hang ups about why it still doesn't feel quite right to me.

We have the fact that Daniel has ruined two marriages. This is set up early. Like, super early, in episode 1, before we even see the vampires. We also establish that Daniel's two marriages are with (presumably mortal) women and that he has 2 daughters. This is set up long before the themes and ideas around the subjectiveness and falsehood of memory are introduced. Generally speaking, you don't introduce a mystery before you introduce that there is a mystery. To my eyes, we were meant to see the details of Daniel's marriage and family life as objective truths about him that inform his character before the interview starts.

Even when we do get into Louis' interview, there is a strict dichotomy to the dreamy, subjective world of Louis' story and recollection, and the sharp reality and harsh brutalist lines of the apartment in the present day.

To my eyes, the meaning is clear: All flashbacks are suspect and subjective, but scenes that take place in the modern day are objective. They are really happening. We can speculate about what things like what the decor tells us about their mindsets and the way Armand and Louis present themselves to Daniel mean, but this isn't a dream or a lie or a framing device happening here. Modern day = objectively true.

Daniel talking about his two failed marriages and his daughters is not presented within the framework of the subjective interview flashback world. These are not facts we've been asked to question, these are the objective building blocks that tell us, objectively, where Daniel is coming from and why he's the bitter old man we see instead of the bright eyed interviewer seen in the IWTV film or books.

The very AU premise of IWTV from the books is that we are in a canon divergence world where Daniel was allowed to grow old, have a family, and have a successful professional life even if he never had a successful personal life. It is the way we are objectively meant to understand his point of view and other elements like his saltiness towards the vampires. It's how we're supposed to understand him as different from his book counterpart. I think it would be cheap to then pull a "gotcha!" about those, personally.

Now, there is a mystery introduced as far as Daniel's memory, recollection, and possible falsehoods in his own understanding of his life but those are questions like: "What happened after Daniel interviewed Louis the first time?" Which is part of the broader question of, "Why are we returning to the interview now?" Which also plays a bit into Daniel's broader questions of, "Am I going to survive this interview?" which is connected to the question of, "Why did I survive the first one?"

But those questions are generally raised and addressed within the flashback to the 70s, because flashbacks, as we've established, are (within the story of the IWTV show) where these doubts about objectivity are allowed to exist.

Note, that Daniel's 2 marriages and the existence of his daughters are not discussed in the flashbacks. What is discussed is, "Why did I survive that night in the 70s?" And we learn that Daniel's memories of that time have been tampered with, there's more to the story that it appears, and he had a moment of connection with Armand that he did not recall.

"But Avelera!" You say, "Is this not further proof of Alice being Armand if we establish that Daniel doesn't have the whole story and that he and Armand had a connection that he doesn't fully remember??"

I think it is a point in favor of the theory. I think it's a point in favor of the theory being a valid one to explore, but I'm still not sold because of a few reasons.

Armand has never:

Presented himself with feminine pronouns, never cast himself in a feminine light, never associated himself with the feminine.

Furthermore, Armand has never disguised himself as a woman. Disguise is a theme in the show, Daniel talks about how people put on disguises before he finds the truth of them. But if "Alice" is a way for Armand to disguise himself in Daniel's memory, it is not a disguise that bears any resemblance to the other disguises we've seen Armand wear throughout the show. It is not a theme for Armand, it is not related to his story. Armand is many things to many people, but he's never ever associated himself with the feminine.

Armand would not need to disguise himself as a woman in Daniel's memory for Daniel to plausibly remember having a relationship with Armand, because Daniel recalls having queer experiences in the 70s. If Daniel remembered a relationship with "Andrei", I'd be more inclined to believe he's substituted himself in Daniel's memories with a mortal. Going so far as to say, "Of these 2 women Daniel told us in the objective present that he's been married to, one of them was a man who was also Armand," just seems a bridge too far in tricking the audience for no apparent reason. To me, that feels like a cheap trick on the audience.

Now, what about those weird things Louis and Armand say about Alice when they're shaming Daniel with the memory of her?

Specifically: what about Armand knowing what Alice is thinking the night she turned Daniel down?

This is my biggest point of difference with those who theorize that Alice = Armand. After all, how could Armand know what Alice was thinking that night unless he was Alice?

To put it simply, I think he knows because he was stalking Daniel that night.

I think we are meant to go, "Wait, what??" when we hear that Armand knows what Alice was thinking that night. That conversation is mean to be a red flag when we're invited to notice that Armand and Daniel have more history together than we, or Daniel!, have been led to believe.

But we also know Armand is a powerful telepath. This is a hugetheme throughout the show.

And, personally, I'm big fan of Queen of the Damned the book. It is my personal theory that IWTV the show takes place in a world where Armand and Daniel had their "Devil's Minion" whirlwind romance in the 70s, but instead of Armand turning Daniel as he requested, he wiped Daniel's memories and then let him go.

IMO, Daniel continued life thinking that he'd lost his memories of the 70s due to drug binges, and then from the 80s onward lived a relatively normal life with his two failed marriages to mortal women, his two daughters, and his award winning career. That's the divergence point.

To me, it seems much more plausible based on everything we know about Armand, that after he "freed" Daniel from their relationship and "allowed" him to live a mortal life instead of "cursing" him with vampirism, that Armand continued to stalk Daniel. Because that's what Armand does. Even in the Devil's Minion chapter of QotD, he's constantly stalking Daniel to the point where all Daniel needs to do in a particular city to have Armand swoop in to save him is think about him really hard.

So to me, what I think that line of dialogue was setting up was not "Armand = Alice" it was, "Armand continued to stalk Daniel after their relationship ended and that is the red flag you're supposed to pick up on from this dialogue, not a convoluted masquerade where Armand replaced Daniel's memories of the relationship with a woman named Alice who at first rejected Daniel but then eventually agreed to marry him."

To me, Armand = Alice just seems too convoluted. It also seems too easy to disprove given that Daniel is an investigative reporter. You're telling me he doesn't have any photos with "Alice", his first wife? You're telling me that if Armand was Alice, Daniel's first wife, that he never looked at "Rashid" or Armand and said, "Wow, you remind me of you my first wife?" Because to me, that's the sort of line you drop (in a more subtle manner) if you want people thinking about Alice = Armand but there is nothing along those lines in the show.

Now, what about the line, "You felt safer holding her hand in Paris."?

That one is a bit of a head scratcher. That one I think does lend to the possibility that "Alice" was male, that "Alice" was Armand, because Paris is discussed as more queer friendly (even though we also have scenes of Louis and Armand receiving homophobic comments while in Paris so... idk, "more comfortable" doesn't mean it was truly accepting, much like Louis felt "more comfortable" being a man of color in Paris even if racism was still rampant, but I digress).

But I didn't take it as a comment on Paris being queer-friendly (and therefore Armand = Alice) at the time when I first watched that scene.

I took Louis statement there as much more of an attack on Daniel's hatred of Paris. Paris is the city of love. America is the country where Daniel lives and works and has his identity as a hard-ass American reporter. In Paris, though, he was able to relax and be in love, far away from his work. Daniel has now grown to hate Paris because Paris was the place where he was young and in love with his first wife, a relationship that ended badly.

I felt that Louis was more calling out Daniel's changing attitudes towards Paris, rather than implying that Paris was more queer-friendly so Daniel could be openly with his lover Armand.

TL;DR: Look, I think the theory of Alice = Armand has a lot to recommend it, but I still have my objections to it. I think it's too big of a trick to pull on the audience to say that investigative reporter Daniel Molloy wouldn't recognize Armand as his first wife upon seeing him. I think it's too big of a trick to pull on the audience because the identity of Daniel's wives has never been presented as a mystery to be solved. I think it's much more plausible that they were setting up that Armand has been stalking Daniel very closely over the years, not that he insinuated himself into Daniel's life under false premises as a woman, a disguise and identity he's never used before.

I think Alice is real. I think Armand is a stalker, and that was meant to be our take away from that conversation.

[erosastro]

Astro Observations - Synastry edition 🌝

｡:ﾟ૮ ˶ˆ ﻌ ˆ˶ ა ﾟ:｡｡:ﾟ૮ ˶ˆ ﻌ ˆ˶ ა ﾟ:｡｡:ﾟ૮ ˶ˆ ﻌ ˆ˶ ა ﾟ:｡｡:ﾟ૮ ˶ˆ ﻌ ˆ˶ ა ﾟ:｡｡:ﾟ૮ ˶ˆ ﻌ ˆ˶ ა ﾟ:｡｡:ﾟ૮ ˶ˆ ﻌ ˆ˶

🌙 I know people are tired of Sun-Moon aspects but it's seriously one of the best aspects to have in a chart, especially a conjunction. Everyone I know, including myself, have such good relationships with Sun-Moon aspects. My best friend and I have Sun-Moon conjunction and we just get each other on another level.

🌙Everyone knows that Mars square Pluto is one of the worst aspects and I 100% agree... the couples here have such an unhealthy dynamic. I do, however, kinda love Mars opposition Pluto? Which is an unpopular opinion but I just feel like they push each other in a different way than Mars square Pluto and arguably a healthier way, maybe because they're still in compatible elements? Eg. Taurus Mars opposition to Scorpio Pluto.

🌙Moon square Saturn is hectic mummy issues from past life and the Moon person ends up taking a bit of a motherly/parental role for the Saturn person likely to work out karma

🌙Ascendent is sooo often overlooked when people look at synastry (at least from what I've seen) but it's actually so important and my favourite aspects are Sun trine/sextile Ascendent, opposition can also work and I love Moon trine Ascendent it's so lovely.

🌙There's often a lot of emphasis on 7th house, 5th house and maybe 1st of 8th house overlays. But 2nd, 4th and 10th house overlays are the ones I see in relationships that last longer. Especially Moon in those houses and Venus.

🌙People forget how important aspects to Mercury are in a synastry reading are!! Mercury is all about communication and what is a relationship without good communication?? The most important aspect for me to look at is Mars-Mercury aspects and Moon-Mercury aspects.

🌙Maybe an unpopular opinion again but Venus conjunct Venus is not the best placement for me?? like a relationship can tend to get so monotonous with that placement. Mars conjunct Venus is better imo.

🌙Moon in 7th house overlay and Sun in 4th house are so wholesome!! It's one of my favourite placements (I think Sun in 4th might not be a popular opinion lol)

🌙 Be careful with Neptune-Mars aspects and Mars-Uranus aspects. They can turn toxic real quick especially conjunctions/squares and oppositions. They tend to make a very la vie en rose type of relationship that can become addictive because you don't see what the reality of the relationship is.

🌙12th house synastry gets bad rep and I understand most of it BUT I think the most worrisome one is Moon in 12th and Neptune in 12th house overlays because that relationship can get confusing real quick

🌙Lilith aspects are also so important in compatiblity especially sexually. If you got a Mars square Lilith... the sex is gonna be otherworldly.... 👀

🌙Harmonious aspects for Jupiter-Venus couples always have the other person feeling like they're lucky to have each other each other, especially the Venus person but it can go both ways.

[left-reminders]

(Below are broad vibes for each of the numbers. They are not meant to represent every opinion one could have within those parameters. Some aspects of the description may apply to you while others won't. If you picked a number with a description that doesn't match your perspective, let us know what your actual perspective is in a reblog comment! Comments in general are nice too, of course 👍)

(You also might notice a bias in favor of 5; or at least a far deeper description of what it would entail when compared against the other four. This is partly just because I wanted to soapbox, but I hope it doesn't detract. I genuinely want to hear the perspectives of the 1s, 2s, and 3s, if you're out there and don't appreciate my potential oversimplification!)

1 — It does not factor in at all. Much of the discourse around green politics is a liberal distraction and/or a roadblock holding us back from organizing for socialism. Economic development and human concerns will always matter more. Capitalism was a necessary/justifiable component in the march of history towards socialism, even if it did have certain negative impacts on the environment. The ideal society looks like Star Trek or fully-automated luxury communism (FALC) — one where we overcome "the state of nature" and become masters of our own fate.

2 — It doesn't factor in much, even if I may recognize the reality of climate change and/or the need for environmental protections. We can solve the biggest climate problems with advancements in green technology or perhaps expanding resource frontiers into outer space. In general, other social issues take priority when building socialism.

3 — I care about combating climate change and solving ecological problems, but I find other issues to be more important in my life and I will leave most discussion of it to people more knowledgeable on the subject. The world could be doing far better on these issues and changes are needed, but most of the modern civilizational infrastructure should remain unchanged (albeit organized under a socialist mode of production).

4 — It is very important to my politics. We can balance socialistic technological development with the dire needs of a planet in crisis. Certain human activities and production methods will have to be curbed or eliminated entirely if we are to find this balance (fossil fuels, widget production, private jets, etc), while others will have to be uplifted (renewable energy, public transportation, shared living, etc). Modern civilization is ultimately redeemable, but it needs to undergo a radical transformation.

5 — It is among the most important factors in my politics. I take influence from eco-socialism, social ecology, degrowth, post-civ, anti-civ, deep ecology, or any number of other political perspectives which are ecologically-focused. Locally-organized economies; drastic reductions in working hours and energy throughput; rewilding of the land; emphasis on non-consumptive forms of leisure; an end to consumerism, growth-based economic metrics, and imperial conceptions of "development"; agroecology and polyculture as core methods for obtaining food; and a vast deconstruction of much of the civilizational edifice are all pieces to this puzzle and are required if we are going to have a habitable planet for the generations to come. The ideal society looks like a Miyazaki film, that yogurt commercial, or lightly-automated comfortable ecological socialism (LACES) — one where we "don't seek to become larger within socialism, but rather more realized" (Joel Kovel).

[hms-no-fun]

What's your opinion on the new HS^2 update? I'm really excited it's back but I'm a little worried. Like, the fandom has had a real problem with pretending all the horrible shit that caused it to end in the first place never happened. Is this just gonna sweep that under the rug even more? Is James Roach heading the project because he's less "problematic"? I love James roach and I'm sure he'll do great but what about all the transphobia? I just hope they finally fulfill the Toblerone Prophesy and make June Egbert cannon.

short version is, i'm cautiously optimistic! but this is a loaded question you've given me on a lot of fronts, so i'm gonna try to take it piece by piece.

to start with, the sudden revival of Homestuck^2 (now minus the squared) took me by surprise because to my knowledge, it was entirely dead in the water. my involvement with anything Official ended at Pesterquest, and pretty much the entire post-canon crew i was friends with in 2019-20 has moved on to greener pastures. i share a similar sentiment with @pochapal in that i would have put money on hs2 staying dead forever. i have, quite frankly, dreaded the inevitable day when official Homestuck media would resume production, because the fandom at large seems quite eager to sweep the ceaseless harassment and transphobia that ended hs2 under the rug and pretend that it just, like you said... never happened. when that california cafe used older Pesterquest-like character designs that omitted short chubby Terezi and black-coded Roxy, however well-intentioned and ultimately harmless that was, it felt like a sign of things to come. that, as you fear, the sharper & more personal queerness that we tried to bring to this series would be erased, in favor of something meant to simultaneously appease both tenderqueers and redditors, two sects of the fandom most responsible for the aforementioned harassment.

luckily, that really doesn't seem to be the case!

to your worry that James Roach was made director because he's "less problematic," i'll just say that's entirely the wrong way to look at it. it's not like WP (such that it even still exists) were cruising to get HS2 back up and running. by all accounts, James is the only reason it's happening again in the first place. i can't stress enough just how small an operation this Homestuck business actually is (or, at least, was when i was involved). this is not a Huge Corporation making cynical cash grab decisions. this is someone who cares about the material pushing to get something made where otherwise there would be nothing. check the new About page, where the principles of the so-called Homestuck Independent Creative Union are laid out in plain terms. this is something the original hs2 team fought for, so for this new version to start from there as square one is huge and a good sign of the possible longevity of the project.

next, let's talk about the question of this new team erasing the legacy of the old one. Kate Mitchell is on the record that she was reached out to about this new hs2, approved it, and declined to be involved. i don't know if the other writers were reached out to, but i have no reason to believe they weren't. this is a tremendously important gesture of good faith and goes a long way towards easing some of these worries.

but let's look at the composition of the team itself. do you remember The Perfectly Generic Podcast? originally hosted by future hs2 writer Kate, pgen became a flashpoint for community discourse, often opening doors between official homestuck and homestuck fandom. what made that show special was that, rather than relying on the imo tired genre of the liveread, pgen focused on a different topic each episode and explored it with one or two qualified guests. Kate's goal with the show was to encourage a more adult and quasi-academic discussion of homestuck, of its successes and its failures. if you weren't there, the weight i'm putting on pgen might seem overblown (not least because you can't find it anywhere anymore except on the internet archive). but it's not! when they decisively criticized the wild contents of the Skaianet debacle in episode 19, Andrew listened and worked to bring a more diverse group of creators into the fold. in the months after the Epilogues were released, Andrew issued a statement through pgen on episode 52 about how the Epilogues are meant to create bridges and offramps for the post-canon fandom. it's an essential piece for understanding the epilogues and their relationship to fanworks! that it wasn't included as the author's introduction to the Epilogues in the book version remains to my mind an astonishing oversight, but whatever. point is, pgen mattered to the folks in charge.

so let's look again at the writing staff of this new crew. James Roach first guested on pgen in episode 7, and would go on to be a regular. Haven, who did the Vriska and Roxy sprites in Pesterquest (and probably more stuff i don't remember), guested in episodes 81 and 87. Miles guested on episode 87 as well (unless it's a different Miles, i'm not familiar with their work and ugh this damnable linkrot). Floral, creator of one of my favorite hs fanworks & huge godfeels influence Liminal Space, first guested on pgen in episode 47, and would go on to be a regular (including once during my tenure as host to talk about Jade). on the technical staff side, Kohi built the hs2 website and has remained a backend mainstay both on the WP side and on Vast Error.

all of which is to say, if you were looking for a crew to cynically erase the past and appease the haters, these probably aren't the folks that'd be at the top of your list. of course, if you *really* wanted to cynically erase the past and appease the haters, you wouldn't bother reviving hs2 in the first place!

and that's the crux of the matter here. what cash is there to grab? what clout could possibly be chased? i struggle to think of a decision less obviously profitable and popular than continuing hs2 with a new crew right where it left off. i have to believe this is happening because the people involved want to make it.

so, yeah, i'm cautiously optimistic. i like this crew, i like the contents of the first upd8, and i'm glad as hell it's not a reboot! i'm grateful that by reviving hs2, the hs:bc crew have instantly yanked the epilogues & the post-canon project back into relevance in the broader community. and i always liked hs2 a lot! i was excited to see where they were going! i'm really looking forward to seeing more YIFFY!!!!!

but the thing is, this won't be the hs2 i wanted. i know that, and i'm not expecting it. my greatest hope for hs:bc, for this crew, is that they get the chance to take up the reins and drive this thing in whatever direction they feel most passionate about. if that winds up looking like the hs2 that was originally planned, great-- but more than anything, i want everyone on this team to feel just as empowered to leave a profound and personal mark on this series as the original team did, as i did working on Pesterquest. i hope the outline changes! i hope they take some really wild swings! i want to be surprised!! i want to be challenged!!!

above all, i want them to have the chance to pick a course, sail it, and see it through to the end regardless of what the public thinks. they deserve the chance that the original crew didn't get.

i have plenty of bitterness and cynicism in my heart over the events and circumstances of 2019-20, but as far as i'm concerned it has no place here today. i would never, ever wish the trauma and stress of that era on anyone. let the fandom at large react in whatever way it will, but i want things to be different this time. this is a second chance-- not just for hs2/hs:bc, but for all of us. even people who hate homestuck post-canon! this is an opportunity for everyone to choose to be better this time, and to push back when others might squander that opportunity. this team is not a group of celebrities, not an abstract fiction on the other side of the world, they are human beings who took a job. they've earned the opportunity to do that job, and they deserve to be treated with the respect and dignity that was so often absent a few years ago.

as to your last point, about june egbert and the toblerone. i've been saying for years that andrew's confirmation of june was less "the granting of a wish" than it was "a spoiler shared without input from the creative team." that there is any doubt about june's providence in hs2 can only be attributed to willful, aggressive ignorance on the part of people who refuse to engage with the written word in any way other than plodding literalism. the original team didn't unveil june ~immediately~ because they didn't think of june as a wish, they thought of her as a character in an ongoing story who needed time to develop naturally. i have never not felt entirely crazy about how thick everyone has been about this!

but will the new team make june canon? obviously i have no way of knowing for sure, but i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that probably the answer is "yes, when they're good and goddamned ready." just, please, for the love of god, don't go after every upd8 like "where's june? where's june? why hasn't june yet????" this was one of the worst results of the toblerone spoiler and it put INSANE pressure on the hs2 team. so just... just let this story be what it is. let this new team make the homestuck continuation they want to make.

and in the meantime, if you're really hungry for june... there's always godfeels :)

[copperbadge]

Hi, please ignore if this is too personal, but as someone with Jewish ancestors who is considering conversion, I'd love to know your reasons for converting? For me it's more about community and reconnecting with that part of my family (there's a complicated family history there) than about religious belief, but I'm worried that might not be enough of a reason, if you know what I mean?

I don't know, I think conversion to Judaism is hard enough that if you don't have "enough" of a reason, you'll find out -- but I also think that one doesn't have to have a "sufficient" reason to convert to any faith which allows it, just determination and respect. If you want a connection to your ancestors and community, that's a very powerful motivation. And if it's not enough to sustain you through conversion, that's still a huge self-discovery for you, and while some practice should remain closed, you can still connect through things like traditionally Jewish foods and appreciation for Jewish art and culture.

For me, it's not that it's too personal, but it's difficult to vocalize; often when I'm asked about converting there's an assumption that I'm marrying a Jewish person, and when I say no, I usually add, "I just hear a call." Which admittedly is much more often said by Christians joining a ministry, but it's the most truthful I know how to be in short. Something in Judaism speaks to something in me. I have very little Jewish ancestry (although every time the DNA websites reevaluate their calculations it ticks up a percentage point, which is hilarious to me; I'm up from 2% to 6% currently) but the attitude towards the divine, the strength of tradition, the respect for learning, they all speak to my soul.

Even the hard stuff -- content in Torah or Talmud that I find difficult to reconcile with modern sensibility -- is at least something to challenge me, and Judaism is a faith that encourages argument, so I'm allowed to have a critical opinion of it. I think a lot about a quote I read from someone (possibly a reader, if so I am so sorry I can't find your name in my memory) who said, "I keep kosher, but sometimes I eat bacon when I'm mad at G-d." I think a lot about my Methodist confirmation class, where I was almost kicked out because I thought the Parable of the Wedding Feast was stupid and continued to argue against it after, realistically, I should have stopped; if it had been a class for a Bar Mitzvah, we might have been allowed to really examine it instead of glancing across it awkwardly and moving on. (As I found out years later, it was basically about how anyone can be a Christian but Jews should be punished for refusing to convert, so you know. Even as a kid I was very Jewish in my approach to theology and knew anti-Semitic propaganda when I heard it.)

I like that so many of the traditions involve things that I find compelling: bread, fire, water, the written word, the cycle of the harvest. I like that there's a search for truth and precision in Jewish scholarship, and that scholarship often seems to reward a neurodiverse approach to faith and study. As someone committed to philanthropy and versed in radical compassion, the exhortation to care for others baked into every foundational Jewish text is also very attractive. Some of the prayers I find viscerally satisfying (particularly the Traveler's Prayer, for some reason).

I find faith in a single divine entity extremely difficult, but one of the first things that got me to seriously consider Judaism (something I'd already been interested in) was being told that you can be an atheist Jew. To be able to commit to a faith community while still struggling with faith itself feels special to me. Whether a divine entity caused the miracle of the oil we celebrate this time of year is immaterial to me; the beauty of the narrative, the righteous rebellion rewarded with eight nights of light, is enough for me.

I might never finish conversion; realistically while I've done a lot of studying I still haven't worked extensively with a rabbi on a conversion path, and I do not call myself a Jew and won't until I complete conversion (I do observe a lot of the holidays and prayers, but mainly because that's generally advice to converts, so they can understand the demands of the faith and the myriad issues with being Publicly Jewish). But that's fine too; Judaism has been around for thousands of years, it'll wait for me, and if I never convert I'm still enjoying the journey.

[mandatory-blog-stop-asking]

thinking about Emma Frost again. let's imagine for a second X-Men matters and my opinion must be shared.

When I was a kid I really respected and liked Professor X. I thought his stances on issues were calm and reasonable and I thought his efforts were, while ultimately fruitless, the best ones in the fictional conversation about inclusivity and race and all that. this is a subtle reference to the fact I only watched the cartoon and the movies as a kid.

When I grew older and learned English I started engaging with the comics and realized that oh, turns out the adaptations are superficial at best and fladerizing at worst, and there's a lot more to Charles than Being Correct. He's actually in fact a scathing critique of control and flawed leaders of good faith ideals, and how you're supposed to grow over those who created the words you use to free yourself from tyranny. Professor X is a jerk, Magneto was right, all that.

But over time I realized how much that erases Emma Frost, villain turned voice of reason extraordinaire.

Emma starts her tenure in X-Men as Claremont's personification of everything that is bad with high society, accosted by Sebastian Shaw, which is that but male. Emma is genuinely awful when Claremont writes her; a GOOD awful, on purpose, but she's not supposed to be relatable. She has her own mutant school, her own team of mutants, her own answer to Cerebro. She's the most genuine Evil Xavier we get for a full two decades. and she's great at it! Even if the hellfire club almost always truces with the X-Men for the sake of fighting a more important battle, there's no question that you're not supposed to root for Emma.

And then in the 90s something changes, Claremont goes away for a second, other people approach the character, and the question becomes, why are we treating her like evil Xavier? She's building community. She's giving a voice to the disenfranchised. She's training them and she's caring for them and at no point is she asking of them things they actively disagree with, which can't be said of Charles. And so starts the process most every X-Men villain goes through: humanization, complexity, redemption. And fuck does Emma redeem herself.

Ten years into not being a caricature of high class, Emma has accrued a tragic backstory, several positive projects in canon, renown as a genius, positive relationships to several characters, and a main team spot in a highly acclaimed, influential run as of New X-Men. A whole new generation of readers introduced to Emma, new powers, new MO, new everything. Other characters are changing drastically, usually backwards, to accompany the movie's success -- Magneto is evil again, Jean goes back to being the Phoenix, Charles is a lot more like Captain Picard. But Emma? Emma gets to keep going. She changes things wherever she goes.

She hooks up with Cyclops, her daughters become their new Cerebro, she becomes the new heavy-hitter, the Hellfire Club becomes more Shaw and Shinobi's deal than hers... obviously, this isn't consistent. She's got low points and moments that don't agree to her new character. But this woman, who started as commentary on how the rich will destroy you for fun, is now a key positive portion of the world because at some point in time, she had a point -- Charles *isn't* the end-all-be-all of the matter of teaching young mutants, Erik *isn't* the best way forward as far as mutant armadas go, there *is* nuance to their dualistic conversation, the dichotomy is only enforced because they're loud, but she can be louder, she can be louder than any of them--

And then Krakoa hits. Yes, there's a full ten years of bad X-Men stories, many of them including Emma, at least one of them including Emma genociding a few Inhumans. But then Krakoa hits, and every character gets a new project.

Cyclops? Seeing the world move on in ways he might not approve of. Wolverine? Being happy, and realizing he means to fight to keep it going. Erik? Charles? Apocalypse?? Seeing how strong their "dreams" are when they compromise, and realizing oh, I am willing to do *anything* to keep this going, quite literally anything, there is no crime predicted by man or god that would be beyond my reach if it meant paradise would not be lost.

Emma? Emma keeps doing what she's been doing from the word go. Keep it fabulous. Keep the children safe. Don't fall for the lies. At some point someone will invade your privacy and try to take everything away from you. Your job is not to simply destroy them. Your job is to showcase to them how this too was accounted for.

Emma, alongside her planning, her alliances, her leading of the resistance, her unfathomable internal strength and her willingness to see the world for what it is, won the war for Krakoa. Charles wanted things to stay the way they were, Erik wanted things to be the way he dreamed they could be, Apocalypse wanted things to impress him.

Emma wanted them to be safe and sound. Emma wanted the children to be safe. And when Krakoa rose and left, now fully developed and having outgrown her as well, she picked herself back up and went to train a new generation.

There's always children to keep safe. There's always a new generation. The work is never finished.

Yes, the O5 have their own version of Xavier's dream fulfilled, but Emma is the only one who managed to keep herself genuine while evolving. In a room with religious zealots, war criminals, villains and ancients evils, Emma could always look at Kitty Pryde and think to herself, look at what we're doing, my friend. Look at what we have to work with. We're not saving them from themselves, we're saving everyone they're willing to sacrifice.

I wish those adaptations would make Emma Frost sound like she does to me. She's not just a third option to the Professor X-Magneto dichotomy. She's a person asking why is this a dichotomy in the first place. She's too busy actually caring about people to bother with the bickering.

For the children, they said when they wanted her to join their little utopia. For the children, she sighed back, realizing that if she didn't say it, quite literally no one else would.

[interstellarsystem]

Endogenic Systems and Experiences in the Neurodivergent Community

We tend to stay mostly on the fringes of syscourse nowadays without directly interacting with it too often but I'm going to post this more broadly and less focused on our specific instance of this because community-wise I think it's important to talk about.

Endogenic and other non-traumagenic systems are so commonly excluded from so many neurodivergent-safe spaces where they would otherwise be able to gain knowledge about the disorders they might have, share experiences and coping strategies with peers, or at least have a sense of community that is so commonly valuable to disabled and/or neurodivergent people. In a lot of cases, even people who only support non-traumagenic systems get shoved out.

[Continued under the readmore as it's long.]

This obviously harms non-traumagenic systems, but I have to point out that when people sit there and say "we care about REAL disabled people!", I have to say.... Do you? Because if you did care about those with mental illness, physical disability or neurodivergence, you in my mind wouldn't exclude them based on something unrelated to the topic itself which might even be something as small as holding an opinion that other people get to be the judge of their own experiences. You can say that you care about "real" disabled people, but what about when a traumagenic DID system also has a tulpa that they consider just as valid and real as their alters? What about when a system labels themselves as quoigenic because in reality, you owe no one the knowledge that you are vulnerable and traumatised? What about when a system starts out as endogenic but gains so much trauma later on that they develop dissociative symptoms?

We're quoigenic because while yes we are diagnosed with DID:

DID does not have trauma in the diagnostic criteria so our diagnosis doesn't mean anything by way of origin. Nontraumagenic is not the same as nondisordered the same way that traumagenic isn't the same as disordered.

We cannot remember a time before we were plural so we cannot say with accuracy what our actual origin was.

We have headmates we consider to be from both traumagenic and endogenic origins and it feels unfair to pick one.

We don't owe anyone a quick little "hey, we have trauma!" flag on our pinned post which can easily paint us as a target. This is the exact reason we don't share our triggers online--it's not safe.

You don't owe anyone personal medical information including your diagnostic history, your trauma history or lack thereof, your current medications or how many times you've been in a hospital. That is your business and yours alone to decide who you share it with. It's downright dangerous to share some of it, especially so publically. So who is anyone online that clearly isn't your specific medical practitioner to decide whether your experiences are real enough to allow you into spaces meant for a usually completely unrelated thing? Why would someone holding the opinion that endogenic systems get to decide what labels they use be denied access to spaces just because they support people with differing beliefs and/or experiences?

If we as a system with multiple disabilities want to go into a space for people who are schizoaffective because we need others who won't immediately jump on the ableism train when discussing something we're diagnosed with that has so much stigma, should we be denied that just because we don't label our origin with a clear-cut "we are traumatized!!" label? Should we be denied access to spaces because we don't want to sit around and smile while parts of our system and other members of our community are called fake and evil and whatever else they come up with? It's so common in spaces for people with disabilities to be exclusive to traumagenic systems and people with an anti-endogenic mindset that people don't realise they're not only hurting the endogenic community, but literal chunks of their own community itself.

I can't even begin to understand the reason why.

Endogenic systems by just existing do not cause harm. They're not like a transphobe you would not be safe around by default of having a label. Not every nontraumagenic system is a saint but if you took any communtiy and called everyone in it the equivalent of an unproblematic holy angel, you'd be lying. People are bad in every community, some worse than others, but the nontraumagenic system community literally just wants to exist--and yes, sometimes a nontraumagenic system (or supporter of such) does have dissociative symptoms, or maybe they have autism, or maybe they're physically disabled. Should they be not allowed access just because of the way they chose to label their system, or their opinion of people picking their own labels for their personal identity?

What exactly is the reason they're so excluded everywhere? I'd try to assume that this level of exclusion (to the point of endos being on DNIs next to transphobes and racists) would mean there's some real harm being done on a community-wide scale, but even when looking for it there isn't any explanation we've been able to find. "They're fake" is all we seem to see which has no actual backing whatsoever. "They're harmful" is another but.. How? We might be looking in the wrong places, but we have never seen an actual explanation for how nontraumagenic systems cause harm as a community just by being themselves.

At this point, I have to wonder how many people who say "we care about real disabled people!" are just covering up their "we care about socially acceptable disabled people who I understand and/or do not find cringey" sentiment instead. Being neurodivergent should never be about fitting into tight little boxes--it's part of the whole point of having a community like this. You're not the majority, and that's okay. So why are we dividing the disabled community into boxes too?

Of course, this doesn't only apply to ND spaces. LGBT+ spaces are similar and even more divided from the concept of being a system that it makes even less sense to block nontraumagenic systems from entering the space. How does their system origin relate to their LGBT+ identity? Sometimes it can, but should a trans person be excluded from a trans space because they have a friend who is an endogenic system and they support them fully?

Overall, the main point is that it makes no sense whatsoever to be anti-endo in general, let alone so violently anti-endogenic system to the point where you hurt members of your own community due to it. Sometimes from something as simple as them supporting endogenics alone. Your safe spaces aren't actually safe if you exclude a nonharmful group who also belong in that space due to having a personal identity or opinion different to yours. If you want somewhere to be a safe, inclusive space, it should include everyone as long as letting those people in won't cause harm. People who are seeking to cause harm (racists, transphobes, etc) obviously do not belong in a safe space because they seek to harm others, thus making the space unsafe. But people who just want to be themselves without harming anyone should be included in your space if they fall under whatever it may be topic-wise. Even the "cringey" ones. Even the ones who don't quite make sense to you or have "contradicting" labels. Even the ones who use labels completely differently to the way you do. And even the ones who are uninformed or misinformed but trying their best to learn. Your safe space is not safe if it excludes those who do not follow your every single mindset and thought without any deviation.

[cripplecharacters]

had to shorten this a bit: What are some thoughts on able bodied people writing a character who becomes disabled through an accident? In this instance a person in a wheelchair. I understand that this is often a tried trope which focuses on the characters “misery of being in a wheelchair” or can devolve into inspiration porn where the person is “cured” Might this fall under the category of “this is a tired cliche Maybe don’t” or can it be done if it’s approached with care and well researched?

Hi!

I believe that it can be done, sometimes quite easily so. While it is somewhat of a trope, for some disabilities more than others, people do become disabled through accidents. That's just a fact, rather hard to argue with that.

The main issue is related to the fact that a lot of abled writers merge the accident - usually an at least unpleasant experience - and the disability into the same thing. As you said, it does often go into the "misery of having x disability or having to use z mobility aid" territory, which is a very tired trope.

I think that the easiest way you can avoid that is to not write about the process of getting used to suddenly being disabled. For example, maybe the accident was years ago, or it happened when they were too young to remember, maybe the traumatic scenario is not even described (it doesn't have to be, really - most people don't love just talking about them for the fun of it). So then the character is disabled through an accident, but you don't have to write about them getting used to the new changes - that's generally better left to disabled writers because it's often very nuanced territory.

The second, harder way would be just "get a sensitivity reader, and go from there". If you do want to write about the process, you need someone to help you with that, in my opinion at least.

Last thing would be that the "accident trope" is, at least in my experience, overrepresented in fiction about disability. This doesn't mean it doesn't have its place, of course, but disability is inherently diverse - most people don't get theirs due to accidents. It's basically always a good idea to add a second (or third, fourth, etc.) disabled character to have that diversity shown! For your character specifically, maybe they're a wheelchair user because of an accident, but they would almost definitely know more people like them and a lot of them would have different reasons for using it - maybe they could have spina bifida, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, or rheumatoid arthritis, or polio, or a million other things. Especially someone who acquired their disability later in life would have community ties, because they would need to quickly learn to navigate a ton of new things, and you need to learn that from someone. Try to think of the community around them - it's a much better thing to focus on rather than just "misery from being disabled".

I hope this helps! :-)

mod Sasza

[sevensoulmates]

7x05 Buddie Meta YDKM Part 4 (of 4)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

I really didn't want this meta to be four parts again, but there's just SO MUCH to analyze. Thanks for sticking with me!

Eddie is aware that going the route of trying to force a relationship, the route of over-committing almost never works for him, and yet he still wants to try again despite knowing that something inside him was trying to warn him this episode. He's ignored the signs yet again.

Going back again to the notion that Eddie doesn't really want to try again with this relationship because he so desperately wants to get to know Marisol. We know he doesn't, because we just saw when he was on his own, he closed the box on Marisol's things, his metaphorical chance to get to know her. So what does he really want to work out this time? The relationship. A relationship. Eddie would really like it if this relationship could work because as we saw earlier in the episode with Bobby, Eddie wants the relationship so badly, the domesticity so badly, that he doesn't care who it's with. He let go too early with Ana, and this time he's not doing that.

Eddie's words don't match his actions. He tells Marisol he wants to start over with her, get to know her, but he doesn't really act like it. It's possible in future episodes he might try to put in an effort, but at least from his attitude right before Marisol walked in, it didn't really feel like he was being genuine. So I'm not sure if really getting to know her is really what he wants. Sure, maybe this time he'll get to know Marisol, but I don't think it'll matter what he does or doesn't learn about her. Something will always be wrong, and he's going to have to learn that on his own.

The tone of this scene is made to make us feel hopeful, and yet the words themselves aren't really that hopeful. They speak of Marisol moving out in the hopes of starting over and getting to know Eddie better. Though he's smiling, Eddie's words feel odd. He's happy she's moving out. I'm not entirely convinced it's because he's excited to get to know her. Maybe that's an aspect of it, but it just feels to me like he's relieved she's moving out.

Additionally, I want to point out that Marisol was first introduced in season six in an episode called Home Invasion, and in this episode that was exactly what she was. She invaded Eddie's home, though it was an invasion he invited, and almost immediately regretted. I get the feeling that this episode's title isn't to be ignored because although we finally got to know a little bit about Marisol, Eddie failed to really learn the true root of his issues--because it's not catholicism, though it may be a part of it. When Eddie closed the box on getting to know Marisol, he closed the box on examining himself further, and therefore, Eddie still hasn't gotten to know his true self yet. However, I do believe this is the start of his arc, and more of this will be progressively deconstructed throughout this season, and probably extend into next season. I get the feeling that we're laying the groundwork now and that next season it's going to really pop off.

In the same vein, Buck admits that he and Tommy don't know much about each other as well. The difference here is that Buck actually looks open to learning more about Tommy, open to actually seeing if what they have could be something worth exploring further.

Tommy however does demonstrate a real care for Buck's feelings here. Maybe he could've communicated that a little bit better after their date, but his actions were done out of care for Buck in the end.

This line was once again vague. Because in the moment, you're lead to believe that Buck's unsure about possibly being in a relationship with a man, but wanting to explore it. In my opinion, this is another one of those statements just like the one Maddie gave him earlier in the episode, where he knows that he's on the right path now that he's discovered and accepted that he likes men, but he's not yet discovered who the right person he should be on this path with is yet. But something in him tells him that this, exploring men, is the right path, and that's what he's ready for.

But for the time being, Buck wants to explore what he has with Tommy and I think that's a good thing. But it is also a good indicator that Bucktommy is not endgame and somewhere inside Buck (and likely Tommy too), he knows.

We then get an interesting parallel with Buck and Eddie once again by having Buck make a pretty big step forward with Tommy. Most people would agree that asking someone you've only been on one date with to be your date to a wedding you're involved in is a pretty big jump. It's slightly more "serious" than they are at the moment. Whether or not this will backfire is yet to be seen.

I very briefly want to touch on the characters they're supposed to be. I originally did not understand the reference, but I saw this opinion piece someone posted on twitter and thought it was interesting to share.

I just find it interesting that the writers made the choice for Buck and Eddie to be wearing couple costumes in the likeness of a pair that was also at some point read as queer-coded and had an "inseparable" relationship yet was never allowed to move out of subtext. Even if it wasn't the original writers of Miami Vice's intention, that doesn't matter to me. The fact that the relationship between Crockett & Tubbs appears to be a mirror to Buck & Eddie is what fascinates me.

This episode as a whole was mostly what I was expecting with Eddie doubling down on Marisol, but at the same time, I did NOT see the nun stuff coming and I definitely didn't see them diving into catholic guilt coming. My hope is that this laying down the groundwork to have Eddie work through these issues more later because this feels far from over.

I'm confident that this is the start of Eddie's eventual queer realization arc and I'm willing to wait however long it takes for them to write through it thoroughly.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

[a-doubleh-x]

Why I like Chaggie

Hey! My last casual ship review did pretty well, so here I am with another! Needless to say, but thank you all for the interactions, I appreciate it very much 🥰

Last time I talked about Charlastor, a notorious controversial ship and today I'll talk about a surprisingly controversial ship: Chaggie. Why do people dislike this ship? I'll go a bit into it on the second half of this post, but first I'll talk on the positive I see in this cute couple.

First of all, as a guy in his late twenties who's been on at least one relationship, I will say that I appreciate a relation that's mostly based on comfort and support. Some people might think that's boring or not quite the basis of romance, but I think quite the opposite. Johnathan Decker, a licensed couples therapist on youtube (you might know him from Cinema Therapy) often talks about how safety and mutual understanding are the basis of any lasting relationship.

At the start of the Amazon series, Charlie and Vaggie have been together for 3 years, which is evident in many of their day to day interactions. They're comfortable with each other, they rely on each other and best of all, they still coo every now and then over how adorable the other is.

That is not to say the relationship is without conflict, which in my opinion as a writer it's the lifeblood of any good story. Vaggie is clearly quite codependent of Charlie, which is why a large portion of her self worth is based on being useful to her. However, I think the two of them do a decent job of talking through the problems this brings sometimes, such as episode 3.

I think it's cool that the relationship seems to work despite their rocky moments. Charlie most likely thinks a person like Vaggie is a breath of fresh air in Hell, she's selfless, loyal and dedicated. That's probably the reason why she has so much patience with her, a feeling that I'm certain is mutual. Vaggie is clearly very aware of how silly and idealistic Charlie is, in fact she often tries to nudge her to be careful with her attitude. And even though she may not agree with everything, she still always supports her without appearing judgemental, which I think speaks volumes of her character.

Now, let's talk about the shortcomings in the face of the audience. Some people think there's not enough substance in canon to be sold on the couple, which I think is a valid opinion. Some people argue that Chaggie's relationship is boring and not quite as interesting to watch as Charlastor, which I don't entirely agree with. Some people plain dislike or hate Vaggie because they think she's just a naggy chick who is an awful partner to Charlie in every way, which I *definitely* don't agree with.

My opinion falls in a more moderate standpoint. I think, even in the series, their relationship isn't boring, but it could've been presented better. While I said earlier that I think conflict is good in a story, I think a problem in the series that's probably unintentional is that most of the story beats with Charlie and Vaggie are negative.

In episode 3, they have a fight over their lack of communication. In episode 6, Vaggie puts her own secret status as a fallen angel over Charlie, which harms her later. And in episode 7, Charlie spends most of the episode mad at Vaggie and they make up offscreen, which is something unilaterally most fans believe was a mistake.

To the showrunner's credit, there are some positive major story beats. There's Charlie's trust fall on Vaggie, which was cute. There's their beautiful duet in episode 8. And there's them fighting alongside each other in the final battle.

Unfortunately, the fact their arc is a bit wonky and doesn't have a proper buildup makes it so that the climax (the duet) may feel a bit unearned. I don't want to make this whole post about the series because I could spend all day talking about it, so I'll just say for now that i underdtand why some people aren't sold on the ship.

I will say. Some fans have some very beautiful, gorgeous pictures of this ship. There's this great comic made by squids-and-fruitcake that's been running around about Charlie giving Vaggie a gift for Christmas (here's a youtube link in case you want to watch a dub, I couldn't find the original)

I think it's a great example of why this relationship works: they love each other. They may not completely understand each other's circumstances, but they try every day and are still together because of their mutual effort.

Charlie herself, as Hell's number 1 laughingstock can really use the support and the fact that Vaggie supports her even though she doesn't have all the answers means a lot to her. She brings her stability, peace and affection, all things she lacked until she met her.

Vaggie, on the other hand, who was plunged against her will into a pit of violence and cynicism also needs Charlie's perspective. She loves the fact that she cares about something bigger than herself, that she wants to help damned people like her, which given her circumstances I think it's something she also needs in a fundamental level.

That haz bin my review for today! What do you think? Do you like Chaggie? Do you think it could've been written better? What's your favorite interaction between them? Let me hear your thoughts! It's been fun to put my thoughts down for casual reviews, I hadn't done it before, so expect more in the future while I'm still working on the next chapter of my fanfic.

I think I already have an idea about what my next Hazbin post is going to be about (hint: it has to do with Angel Dust). Thank you again for all the love, hope to see you all soon!

[the-modern-typewriter]

yikes i feel sorry for the villain who tried to hit on the aroace hero but just got rejected. could you make a sequel where the villain gets back at the hero for being such a heartbreaker, or maybe where they find someone who loves them back?

This genuinely isn't anything against you personally, anon, but...you hit on a pet peeve of mine or something. Dun dun dun!!! Now I'm going to talk about it. Sorry, so not sorry.

The hero in that story isn't being a heartbreaker (at least in my opinion). What they did was communicate very clearly that they were not interested because of their identity, also thus not leading the villain on. They did not do so in a cruel way. They are aromatic and asexual. That's just a fact.

If the villain punished them for that, they would absolutely be in the wrong. And yes, I know, they're a villain...but if they were that kind of villain, that whole story would have gone very differently in the first place.

Even if the villain's feelings were hurt (the feeling of hurt is in and of itself valid) that doesn't make the hero a bad person for rejecting them or not feeling the same way, and it doesn't make them responsible for the villain's feelings. If they'd been mean about it, sure, not cool. But they weren't.

People are allowed to not return feelings. Love or lust is not owed.

People are allowed to set boundaries and say no to relationships or experiences that they don't want. More than allowed, this should be encouraged. There is no consent if no is not an option.

Like, seriously, what's the alternative?

Because, as a queer asexual woman, every option I come up with is horrifying to me in some way. It's living in a world where I'm either forced to do things and be with someone I'm not interested in or...what? Have someone retaliate against me because I'm not interested in them in that way? Possibly violently?

Like, at the best case scenario end of the scale, maybe the hero is just in a relationship that never feels quite right but they grow to care about each other in their own way, and the villain is very nice and charming in their way too, and nothing bad happens. That's still not a happy ending. There will always be the secret-kept, and the lingering question of 'well, what would they do if they ever learned the truth about me?'

Being rejected hurts, but the dread that comes with always weighing up on if it is safe to say no, or to tell someone something as basic as your identity or who you are attracted/not attracted to, is so much worse. Because, you know, on the bad scale at best they reject your identity and tell you that you are not what you think you are, are not valid or real, and they know you better than you. At worst, they kill you.

The story was fiction, and in that story the hero did not stop to worry about what the villain's response was, other than that they might not know what aromantism or asexuality is. They didn't have to, either because (unlike me!) they're a fictional superhero who could drop kick anyone who tried to hurt them, or because I liked the thought of writing a story where people may fight and threaten murder, but not over that. Not in a way that feels entirely too real and close to the bone.

Does the villain deserve someone who loves them back? Sure.

Do they get to take it out on the hero for not returning their feelings? Absolutely not, and I don't think you'd enjoy or find any vindication/satisfaction in any story I wrote covering that.

[goodluckclove]

On Experimentation in Writing, and In Defense of Weak Words

So there's a lot of writing advice I don't like. I don't care if it's from a wildly successful career author or some random person on the internet - if anyone makes a blanket statement on how you have to craft a story, I automatically lose some degree of respect for them as an artist. The fact that so many people online refuse to acknowledge the use of I statements and find community by sharing their individual experience is tiring and annoying to me.

One frequent trend is replacing weak words with "stronger" ones. Don't say "sad"! They insist. If you say sad it's bad writing! Instead of that you should describe the slight drooping tremor of their brow! The arch of a single tear! Doleful is a synonym for sad, say that instead!

This is where I hope people realize that I am not someone who thinks no one should be angry ever. I struggle with anger issues, and this is the type of "advice" that makes me really fucking angry. But I'll try to approach this sensibly.

Prose has rhythm - that's how I see it. It's like music, and because of that there's a lot more freedom to create a successful piece if you can compose with intent. Whenever I see someone list acceptable synonyms for a word they don't like, I see someone claiming they have the list of acceptable instruments in Jazz. Like, what the hell are you talking about? Stop it.

Also, synonyms of a weak word that sound more literary also might mean something different. If you replace "sad" with any fancier synonym you might actually create absurdities in your writing that you don't intend to do. "Downcast" is a synonym for sad that relates specifically to people. "Regretful" is another one that means specifically showing regret. "Traumatic" is considered a synonym for "Sad", you understand why this isn't always the right fit.

I think it can be a good thing to explore the connection between a character's physicality and the description of their emotions, but a person can do a lot with that. People don't express emotions in very similar ways. When you see me at my most distraught, it will probably look different than how you feel. You can depict a character with any sort of physicality and decide that's what they do when they're unhappy and that can support a sense of full-realization in the reader.

Or the reverse. The scene is tragic, heartbreaking - insurmountable trauma and devastation. And in the internal narration it is said that the protagonist is sad. JUST sad? That can really say a lot about their mental state.

I am pro-synonym. I think every word evokes a feeling. I think when you are in a relationship with someone and they're visibly upset and you ask them how they're feeling and they say "I'm fine" - that's a weak word that suddenly has a lot of language.

I think when you have gone through a terrible situation that could've potentially ruined the rest of your life, and one day someone asks how you feel and you say "happy", that is a weak word that might cause you to break down weeping right then and there.

If you deny yourself any words or descriptors that doesn't sound like Fancy Real Book, you are actively amputating your language for no reason. If you only use Fancy Real Book descriptors without actually seeing if the words are truer to the atmosphere you're trying to create, you run the risk of an inauthentic finished product.

You are actually allowed to play with language and description as much as you want, or at least until you find a dynamic that suits your individual craft. If you are a newer writer I think this is something you should make an actual effort to pursue and see if it sparks something in you. For the love of god, do not limit the scope of your language in writing to what Opinionated People On the Internet say.

I say this again that a lot of the people in online spaces are the next generation of literature. And for that instinct to experiment and play to fade out just because it's 2024 and anyone with wifi now has the tangential authority of an art critic is so genuinely abhorrent to me that if I start talking about it to someone for long enough I can feel myself get a crazed look in my eyes. I need the new writers here to seriously make a pledge to develop a sense of artistic intuition as thoroughly as possible, even in the face of people who are desperate to feel artistically validated online in a way that requires very little effort.

It is hard, I won't lie. It takes a lot of work. It took me probably over a decade to get to the point where I feel like I can write with intent in virtually every medium. But I swear to god it's worth it.