#but like it's also the only modern interpretation i've seen to give MY MAN THE FORGEMAN a fair fucking shake

[vegalocity]

sometimes i wonder why 'modern greek mythology interpretations' tend to look at the Aphrodite's Affair situation and settle on 'it was so girlboss of Aphrodite to cheat on her husband with his literal brother' and make jokes about Hephaestus being 'cucked' or 'an incel' when memes about publicly humiliating cheaters are absolutely widespread on the internet, and in the myth itself Hephaestus basically just does the equivalent of the 'welcome home cheater' on the bedsheets meme, it's VERY weaksauce in comparison to what his mother usually does

then i remember Hephaestus is a disabled man and i realize exactly why.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

Ողջույն👋

Do you have any tips for writing Carlisle? For example, episodes from his work, human life, or something else?

General Writing Advice

Personally, I find writing scenes without purpose extremely difficult/not producing the best results. Obviously, everyone's unique, but if the characters don't have anything to do then they tend to just sit around not having anything to do.

Even something like a one-shot should have a point (reflection on an event, relationship, etc.).

So taking an episode from his work, human life, or anything else without asking the question "why am I showing this" or "what point am I trying to make" to me is the wrong way to approach it.

If you want the character to do something, he should have something to do.

Writing Characters in General

Once again we get into the weird realm of how I personally write the man versus how everyone else might. There's a lot of interpretations of Carlisle across fandom and even if I don't agree with all of them based on what we see in the text, none of them are wrong. Fandom's about having fun which means you can do whatever the fuck you want.

If movie Carlisle is your game, go for it, if fanon Carlisle's your man, go for it.

The trick with any character is to be consistent. You should have an understanding of them such that if X happens you know they'd respond with Y. This keeps the story from feeling contrived and as if they're being forced to react in whatever way the author wants them to.

If you keep it consistent and you write well then readers won't really care if it lines up with their exact interpretation of the character.

Tips on Writing Carlisle

A lot on Carlisle Cullen in here

However, I assume you came to my house for a reason and that you're asking specifically how to characterize Carlisle Cullen in the way that I and @therealvinelle do.

So, I'll give the general roundup characterization advice we've given for other characters in the past (thus far Aro and Lily Evans).

Carlisle is Religious

Carlisle is fundamentally a religious character. This is brought up in canon and is one of the first things you learn about him: he believes in God.

Now, this one is also very tricky as I've seen a lot of writers having no idea where to even start with this. Most writers I see... the only way I can describe it is they write a very Catholic, flagellating, God-fearing Carlisle Cullen. This is how writers in general write any religious character. That's fine, that is a way to interpret his character, but it's not what @therealvinelle and I go for.

Our thoughts are that Carlisle had to do a lot of philosophizing after becoming a vampire and essentially has his own doctrine. Because of this, out of the Cullens, he's one of the least haunted by what he is personally (a vampire) and is not necessarily married to interpretations of the bible we see in either the past or even the modern day. (The man canonically advocates abortion).

Regardless of how you choose to interpret him, you have to address the religion in some way or another.

Carlisle Thinks a Lot

We're talking about a guy who did the above section (rethink his religion) upon becoming a demon. He had large problems (such as trying not to eat people) and yet this is something he spends significant time and thought on.

We're talking about a very introspective guy then who is interested by abstract ideas and the way the world works. (As opposed to Emmett who would have no interest in such things).

This is probably not going to apply just to religion but to a lot of other facets including "should I turn dying people into vampires" (something he canonically confesses pondering to Bella), "what the fuck is up with Renesmee biologically" (less esoteric but still a very nerd topic with no real answers until Nahuel comes around).

Not to mention pre-canon his regard for the Volturi who were probably the most learned of the vampires he ever came across.

Carlisle is noted to have pursued several different fields before settling on becoming a doctor.

We're talking about someone very curious about the world, to the point where he's clearly not bored/moping after 350 years (as opposed to Edward who's only been doing this 100 years and is a brooding bored mess).

He's someone who wants to do things, learn things, and be a part of the world and keep up with it.

Carlisle's Way or the Highway

Canonically, Edward had to leave when he left the diet. Granted, Edward chose to do this of his own accord, but Carlisle didn't chase him down or try to negotiate with him.

You either try to do the diet to the best of your ability or you're out.

Edward was already a very close companion of Carlisle, Carlisle had broken down after three hundred years of loneliness, not to mention Edward was very distressed and very young: didn't matter.

What this says that is for better or worse Carlisle will stick to his principles even if those closest around him do not.

An important note on this is because of this Carlisle assumes that his family, those around him, share the exact same principles even if they do not (for all the Cullens think that they share them as well). It's unthinkable to him, even in canon where he sees evidence now and then, that they don't actually care that much for human life and more the Cullen lifestyle and moral superiority of it all.

He's Ridiculously Stubborn

We're talking about someone who crawled into rotting potatoes while dying, managing to stay silent, then crawling his way out of London without eating anyone and spending the next N days trying to kill himself until he crawled into the woods to starve painfully to death.

He discovers the animal diet, lives on cardboard for the rest of his life despite having a few morsels of blood here and there as he starts turning people, even when Aro's literally dropping corpses on the floor in front of him.

He then leaves Volterra despite having no idea where he's going, a good chance of getting killed, all for the chance that he might find someone on the diet or convince someone to do it.

He is unbelievably stubborn to the point where... Edward and Bella are close contenders but Carlisle's doing very well in the stubborn race himself.

The exception is that he compromises when it comes to his family/things that don't just affect him. In Twilight, he wants to move when it's clear Bella's Edward's singer and the van incident occurs. Nobody else wants to move though and Alice announces Edward's in love with Bella so... they stay... he guesses... In the Bella/Edward relationship, like everyone else, he lets Edward handle that one as it's not really his business.

He's Very Likeable

Everybody likes Carlisle. To a really weird extent actually, and by far he's the most outwardly charming of the Cullens.

Otherwise

You got anything else, @therealvinelle

[gunsli-01]

So, are you ready to jump into the first part of the Tarot rundown? Probably, hopefully... I've only been vaguely mentioning this essay for weeks at this point. Today we'll be going over the first five cards in the celtic spread shown first in MeMe. Next, we'll go over the other five and our interpretation of the cards overall. Then do the same with the second spread.

Now we're not just giving a surface level reading here. We'll also be taking a deeper look into how Mikoto designed his cards in comparison to the classic ones. This is going to be long and go over what people may feel is superfluous off topic information. Such as the history behind some tarot cards which will include how they were typically depicted and the history around those previous depictions.

Now with all of that out of the way let me put my suffering on full display. If anyone goes under this cut, you'll see pretty quickly why this was separated into four parts. Five cards down fifteen more to go-ha ha no some of these repeat so it's literally like maybe twelve or eleven.

Here's the link to preface explaining every bias I may have

Spread One

First Card Represents: The Situation

Card Drawn: Hangman

Position: Reversed

In Mikoto’s tarot deck the Hangman is portrayed as a yellowish orange man strung upside down by their leg on a glowing blue cross a yellow moon behind their head and eyes peering at them from behind. As if put up on display against their will. This is fun for multiple reasons it plays on Mikoto’s fear of being surveilled or unknowingly put into a situation where he is being watched by others with no escape from their gaze.

However, the eyes watching on at the display remind me of the game Hangman. That fun game where a person or team of people have to guess the letters in a word or term but if a guess is wrong another piece of the hangman is drawn on the board until he’s completely there signifying the guesser’s loss. It’s the one-time people will look on intently at something usually considered gruesome and find entertainment in it.

We’re not saying this could have been an intentional allusion when it comes to the eyes it’s just a fun thought. Especially considering that Mikoto has been related to competitive children’s games already.

Mikoto’s variation on the Hangman card is pretty close to what the card looks like within most modern tarot decks. Hanging upside down by their foot tied to a cross of some kind. Certainly, he took some liberties with the background. Though roughly it’s not too far removed from its typical depiction that it’s difficult to tell what it is.

However, that’s considering its modern-day depictions. Historically the Hangman card while still depicting a man hung upside down by one of his feet did not have him tied to a cross. In fact, he was tied to a tree said to hold up the heavens with roots that directly connected to the underworld. The card has been depicted with the man hanging from a branch held up between two trees firmly rooted within the ground. That or one tree with leaves on each side of the top branches. Over time the tree the hangman was attached to slowly became more and more cross-like. Eventually the cross took the tree's place entirely and no greenery can be found within most depictions of the card.

The hangman is also associated with the motif colors of both of the Kayanos seen in MeMe. Red and Blue. The hangman is also associated with yellow. In versions of the card the Hangman is depicted with golden blonde hair, yellow shoes, red pants and a blue shirt. The red is meant to represent the passion of humanity and the human form. While the blue represents calm and reflective emotions. The yellow on the Hangman’s personage is meant to represent his intellect.

In Mikoto’s first iteration of the Hangman card (the painting seen at the beginning of MeMe) the color red does not appear at all. Though this could be because it is unfinished.

However, I think the Hangman is the tarot card associated with Boku Mikoto. The Fool being the one associated with Ore Mikoto. Fun fact the painting of The Fool can be seen in MeMe as a visual indication of when Ore Mikoto is on screen in some scenes.

I think this is the correct interpretation of things not only because Ore Mikoto is heavily associated with red throughout the mv and Boku Mikoto Blue or because blue is the color of focus within the hangman card Mikoto draws originally. It also makes sense when we take their individual personalities into account.

Boku Mikoto is the leveled and calm one. Having him be represented by the hangman tied to a blue cross the color the card associates with calm emotions; the body and moon be yellow the color associated with intellect. Fits especially when you take into consideration that The Hangman is no hostage or victim of circumstance. It’s generally believed that he is not only fine but is there of his own volition. Only having one leg tied and his hands freely held behind his back.

It's thought that the hangman can leave whenever he pleases but he doesn’t. A lot of people would assume his hands are tied as well as his one foot and tend to be wary about receiving this card in any reading. Just because of the look of it alone. However, the hangman itself is the embodiment of calculated risk and reward. He’ll stay where he is until the time is right to get what he wants.

Hm, if that isn’t reminiscent of a certain lyric.

“I’d play dead even though I’m alive right?”

The Hangman usually foretells sacrifice in the sake of progress. To obtain or accomplish one’s goal something must be given. Though this time of sacrifice may not be pleasant it is expected to lead somewhere in the end. It can also allude to needing to take a premeditated step backwards to better move forward later. However, it is usually interpreted as a sign to stop. Warning against continuing forward on a particular path or with a certain action. Heavily recommending one take the time to step back to better analyze the circumstance before proceeding regardless of how urgent the matter may seem. Due to this it can also be seen as a sign of indecision.

It appears here in its reversed position which foretells that the querent has reached a point in their life where they feel as though they’ve sacrificed so much yet very little, or nothing has been gained in return. They have reached an impasse filled with a feeling of crippling stagnation. They are possibly curious if anything can be done from the position, they find themselves in now. Finding themselves feeling as though whatever they attempt to do, no matter how much they try nothing is turning out as it should.

“All those ridiculous accusations. Hurting it, holding it down, it doesn’t change anything, does it? Ah, it’s the same anywhere I go. It’s like what’s wrong isn’t wrong.” –- “My life it wasn’t supposed to be this way.”

Second Card Represents: The Challenge

Card Drawn: Queen of Swords

Position: Neutral

The Queen of Swords is usually seen with a stern look, her sword pointed up to the sky in one hand and the other out as if offering something. This card has been associated with the element air and clouds. It has been stated that the Queen of Swords place is in the clouds far from the reach of anyone who would wish to do harm to or deceive her. However, in Mikoto’s Tarot deck the Queen of Swords is represented by multiple knives with a chain-link fence behind them. As though the queen has been caged in and separated from her place in the clouds.

The clouds even appear to still be present just behind the fence. The Queen of Swords is meant to instill clear judgement when it comes to mundane situations that occur in the querents day to day activities while also leaving them flexible to the input of others. Overall allowing them to gain more knowledge from their peers while completing their everyday responsibilities.

It appears to signal to the asker that sometimes it is best to make decisions unclouded by one's own emotions. Instead beckoning the person to look at all the facts of the situation before making a snap judgement. Whether reversed or right side up it tells the wonderer to stop thinking with their feelings and look at things objectively. However, in this case it is neutral and representative of a challenge one will face.

When combined cards one and two form the heart of the situation Mikoto in this case the querent is currently facing. The queen being here doesn’t seem like a problem but should be read as such. Everyone interprets tarot differently so feel free to take the proceeding interpretation with a grain salt. Taking in all the information we have on Mikoto at this time.

Card 1 & 2 add up to one interpretation. Mikoto is having a difficult time with the outcome of his choices. He feels like he’s in a constant spiral of giving without ever receiving anything in return. The problem is he has no proper way of communicating this. Be it that his grievances are too far in the past to bring up now,

“If I could laugh, if I could go back, I’d play dead even though I’m alive right?”

A lyric that under this interpretation could be considered to mean even if I went back, I’d still keep quiet while screaming on the inside. He’d still just keep it to himself even if he could redo it all. This may be because he doesn’t even know where to start when it comes to communicating how he’s feeling or he’s willfully holding it all in. Making direct communication a closed off option entirely. This could possibly explain why the queen has been fenced in within his Tarot design as well.

Okay, so what? Mikoto has a problem. He’s feeling like all his hard work has amounted to nothing and he’s only being asked to do more. He can’t/won’t communicate that issue. Something that is very in character given how his communication style has been portrayed so far.

So, let’s talk about that communication style. Mikoto’s style of communication has been shown to be a mix of Passive and Submissive. He’s not a pushover but he has a general unwillingness to burden others around him. He doesn’t balk at communicating in general and attempts to keep the atmosphere amicable and positive. He shows outward disdain towards Futa whose communication style drastically conflicts with his own. Noting that he believes Futa’s way of communicating to be attention seeking in nature.

“Hey, it’s a bother having you be so angry and tense all the time. You should stop trying to get everyone to pay attention to you. You’re a uni student, right? You can’t act like that once you start working properly.”

Mikoto interprets Futa’s more aggressive communication style and tense mannerisms as attention seeking and notes it as a problem. This contrasts with his usually more amicable demeanor and mature way of communicating. While also showing off his ability to directly communicate issues with others. Even though Mikoto attempts to be the mature one most of the time like Mahiru he seems to genuinely enjoy communicating with others.

He may even find comfort and needed stimulation from his social interactions despite the strange circumstances. He even goes up to Shidou someone he states is difficult to talk to in a previous interaction five days later just to chat. All because a good opportunity to break the ice presented itself.

Even though Mikoto’s upbringing may not have allowed him to develop the best communication style when it comes to taking his own feelings into account, he seems to get some satisfaction from conversing in general. I believe his chatty nature is displayed the best in the Portal Timeline Posts on 20/07/15 when he discusses his studying habits with Amane, 20/05/31 where he talks over his belief that Milgram is a reality tv stunt with Mu, and 20/05/25 where he’s caught talking aloud to himself by Mahiru before they introduce themselves to each other.

In all of these situations someone initiates conversation with Mikoto first. Who is shown to be more than happy to reciprocate when prompted and willing to stretch the conversation on longer. Having to stop himself during the conversation with Amane twice because he recognizes he may be talking about things she doesn’t understand or someone her age might not be interested in.

After confiding in Mu that he still believes this is a reality stunt. Because he really hasn’t murdered anyone. So, this can’t be real but if that is the case, he is worried about being seen doing something as embarrassing as getting upset about his wrongful imprisonment. He then follows up lengthening the conversation by changing the topic to how if it is a tv stunt Mu will be really popular because she’s good looking. Plus, there are lot of folks who get their big break from things like this.

The focus of his conversation with Mahiru is usually how he gives her a nickname immediately. Mikoto explains who he does and doesn’t give nicknames to and why he likes using them as well. It doesn’t seem like a socially manipulative tactic on his part even though he notes the psychological benefits of it and recommends it. He says he doesn’t give them to people who are hard to talk to like Shidou or children like Amane. So, if he were using nicknames in a psychologically manipulative way or to come off more endearing wouldn't it be easier to use it on people you have difficulty speaking with like Shidou instead of not using them at all with a select few.

Something that could easily be taken as personal slight when you're known to give everyone else nicknames. Mikoto's reasoning behind who he doesn't give nicknames to leaves Futa to wonder where he falls between the Amane and Shidou. Difficult to communicate with or child. Neither of which are good options for the college student.

However, I propose he falls squarely into the category of Mikoto’s actual reason for giving nicknames. To differentiate between the people, he feels comfortable talking to and people he doesn’t. That’s why Futa doesn’t fall into either of the categories he presented and why the only common thread between these three is how he’s shown hesitance when it comes to communicating with them. Even if the reasons why vary. They're all people that he’s on more than one occasion shown a need to watch what he says around or a general discomfort speaking to.

That leads me to believe these nicknames are his way of going oh I feel comfortable around this person and want to interact with them more. This lines up with his introduction to Mahiru as well. Mikoto doesn’t just give her a nickname out of the clear blue sky before he does, he literally says,

“Ahh, I’m glad there’s someone here who’s easy to talk to.”

So, it’s likely that this is just his subconscious way of going this person is easy or safe to talk to. Our overall point is while Mikoto does struggle with communicating certain things he seems to enjoy the act of communicating itself. Something that makes sense given he’s the only individual in Milgram to have a communications-based vocation.

Q.08 What’s the most rewarding part of your current job?

Mikoto: I mean, it’s the top advertising agency in the industry? Anyone would be proud to be a part of it. I put a lot of work in just to get there, too.

He is just very unlikely to voice displeasure or do anything that he views as burdensome, uncivil, or generally embarrassing. This means he probably has a lot of patience when it comes to dealing with bad actors. Possibly holding the mentality that regardless of how another person behaves towards you, how you react to their treatment is a choice that reflects your character so be the bigger person. Let their actions speak for them and your actions speak for you.

If that's the case though... Then what could have occurred that was causing him so much emotional distress and irritation that his communication would be affected to this degree?

Third Card Represents: The Past

Card Drawn: Wheel of Fortune

Position: Reversed

In Mikoto’s Tarot deck the Wheel of Fortune is represented by multiple wheels. Some wheel designs appear multiple times throughout the card. However, the wheel with double layered spokes and rims only repeats twice. The wheel right above where the card says Wheel of. Another tire like it appears behind and under further behind the wheel stained with blood. One can tell it’s the same wheel because of the doubled spokes that can be seen in the gaps of the tire in front of it.

Since that specific wheel design appears twice it could be the design of Mikoto’s bicycle wheels. However, the shape and size of the wheels are more reminiscent of car tires with a snake slithering between them.

There are two things that we can consider odd about Mikoto’s rendition of this card.  Those being the snake and the use of car tires. To our knowledge Mikoto doesn’t own a car and to his own admission does not like reptiles.

Q.06 What do you hate?

Mikoto: working overnight / reptiles / violence

The wheel of fortune historically has been represented by one wheel usually covered in alchemical symbols surrounded by multiple creatures. An Angel in the top left corner representative of the zodiac sign Aquarius Air and Intellect, an Eagle in the top right corner representative of Scorpio Water and Emotions, a Lion in the bottom right corner with wings representative of Leo Fire and Passion, and a Bull in the bottom left corner with wings representative of Taurus Earth and Possessions. They are all depicted holding/looking at books.

Q.12 How do you travel to work?

Mikoto: Road cycling. It’s one of my hobbies, good exercise too.

The fact that I don’t have to worry about making the last train can be both a blessing and a curse.

Why are these astrological signs associated with the wheel of fortune? Simply put there is a bit of an overlap between Astrology and Tarot reading. Tarot cards overlap with many things. However, the explanation for these signs being used specifically may lie in the myths associated with them and their elements as signs.

The water bearer depicted in Aquarius represents a boy of legend by the name of Ganymede. While tending to his father’s land Zeus saw the boy falling for him instantly. Zeus then turned himself into a bird and swooped down taking the boy and bringing him to Olympus where he became the water bearer of the Gods. Going from farmer to immortal is hardly an unfortunate thing. Though being abducted by a bird kind of is and if you go into the emotional logistics of if the guy hated or loved his family, then it could have been a bit of a downer.

Either way, there at the top left corner of the wheel the eleventh sign Aquarius sits displaying that even life’s best turns are unpredictable.

In the bottom left laying peacefully is the second sign Taurus. The bottom is usually a rough place to be, at least that’s what many people believe. However, sometimes the place where you are is right where you're needed. Taurus showcases the ups and downs of the wheel perfectly with its myth. In it Zeus transforms himself into a white bull to steal away the object of his affections Europa in which he succeeded. Taking her to Crete and wooing her with multiple gifts. They had three children together. One of them would go on to become the King of Crete known as Minos.

However, the path of the parents is rarely the tale of the offspring. To become the King of Crete Minos prayed to Zeus’ brother god of Seas Poseidon. Poseidon then sent a bull from the sea as proof that Minos had the right to rule. Minos had promised to sacrifice the bull back to Poseidon in thanks. When met with the bull's magnificence much like his mom when it had come to Zeus he took a shine to the animal. It was gorgeous. So, what was wrong with keeping it? Minos then decided that he would partially keep his word to the Sea God sacrificing a normal bull to Poseidon instead.

As you can guess this did not go over well with Poseidon. As recompence for words not kept Poseidon had Aphrodite make Minos’ wife lust for the sacred bull. So, even though Minos had become king by not keeping to his word and trying to take more than promised. He became king but his wife was well getting horny over other things soooo…the bottom left you lay Taurus. Life truly is full of highs and lows.

On the upper right-hand side rests, the eighth sign Scorpio depicted as an Eagle with a book beneath its talons. Scorpio is tied to the myth of Orion. There are many myths surrounding Orion. He is a son of Poseidon and best known for hunting. It is even said he accompanied Artemis on a hunt.

His tale has many iterations in one telling of events he boasted that with his skills he could take down any creature on earth in another he promised to kill every animal on earth. This display of arrogance or callousness depending on the story offended and upset Gaia who sent a giant scorpion after him. Orion and the Scorpion both died during their altercation leading to the creation of the constellations Scorpius and Orion.

Zeus or Artemis decided to memorialize Orion in the sky, but Gaia is said to have created Scorpius in honor of the scorpion that killed Orion. In another tale Orion while a hunter spent most of his days attempting to obtain the hand of the woman, he loved the daughter of Oenopion the king of Chios. During his efforts to gain the right to be with Merope Orion cleared the beast from the island and brought his beloved the spoils from his hunt. Like a cat.

Despite all the spoils he had gathered her father Oenopion was disinterested in the man’s advances. Refusing to give his consent for the union. This led Orion to try to take Merope by force. This did not go over well with her father who blinded Orion while after he’d gotten inebriated and sent the man out to shore. He eventually found his way to the sun god and got his sight restored. After which he stayed with Artemis (Diana) as her hunting partner. Artemis grew fond of the man but her brother Apollo was brought to upset by this and would chide her about said affections.

One day when Orion was out at sea Apollo spotted him from above and bet Artemis could not hit him. It must be noted that Orion was so far out that he appeared to be nothing more than a black speck. Artemis took deadly aim and fired. When Orion’s body washed up to shore, she was so aggrieved she placed him into the heavens.

The less extravagant telling of events and possibly what the wheel of fortune is referring to is… Orion was a man who led a rather sad life and ultimately met his end when he accidently stepped on a scorpion. The Gods felt so sorry for him that they immortalized the hunter in the sky surrounding him with many animals so that he could continue his hunting even in the stars. Showcasing that even when the wheel runs you over you will one day roll up to the top again.

Last but certainly not least is Leo. The fifth representative of the western This one is somewhat common knowledge or at least has been showcased in various media over the years since it’s tied to Hercules/Heracles. For reference you know the giant lion Hercules fights during Zero to Hero in Disney’s Hercules. Yeah, that’s Leo. Getting folded by Hercules in what’s basically a visual footnote in the background of a musical number. That’s certainly a way to get to the bottom of the Wheel of Fortune card.

Yet somehow it gets worse for poor Leo. In one story possibly connected to the lion of the stars there was a young couple Pyramus and Thisbe who very much wanted to be together, but their parents contested their relationship saying that they were both too young to be wed and separated them. However, the pair decided to meet secretly with white berries beneath a certain mulberry tree. When Thisbe arrived, she was attacked by an already blood-stained lion at which point she ran away from their meeting spot. As she left her veil fell from her face and onto the ground and the lion pounced atop it. When Pyramus arrived, he saw the blood veil and assumed the worst. He then threw himself atop his own sword in grief. Thisbe returned briefly after whether it was out of concern for her already fallen love or just to keep to their meeting is unknown. However, when she saw the Pyramus there blade ran through him and her bloody veil nearby she took her loves sword and quickly followed him. It is said the blood of this tragic couple is what colored the berries of the Mulberry tree red. Some even believe that Zeus himself placed Thisbe’s veil in the sky as Coma Berenices.

The other tale is that of Hercules. In Nemea lived a beast of great size with a hide thick as iron that no weapon could pierce with claws that could rip through armor. A lion of great strength that far surpassed the others of its kind. It brought fear to the hills of Nemea. Hercules’ first task was to defeat the beast and bring the King its pelt. During his first attempt Hercules used arrows to no avail. After which he went after the beast with his club chasing it into a cave with two entrances, one of which he’d already blocked off.

He cornered the animal realizing it could not be slain with human tools he took to using his bare hands. Choking out the beast in his with his mighty arms while avoiding and at times ignoring its claws. So, there Leo sits at the bottom right of the Wheel.

-Back to Mikoto for those not interested in the mythology stuff-

I may have been writing this for too long but that last story of the lion sounds a bit familiar. Sort of reminds me of what Mikoto is shown to be going through in MeMe. Particularly, his last obstacle where we see him burying a person alive, but his bat is weirdly absent as though he was incapable of using it in that bout or disarmed. Though we’ll go into his crimes in another post. Just thought I’d note that here.

I explained all that to get across that there were many animals more prominent within the wheel Mikoto could have chosen. He could have even played on the eagle representing Scorpio and had scorpions crawling through the tires. The snake isn’t even a mainstay in most iterations of the card. It’s small and off to the side. Only there to represent evil. The fact that Mikoto’s tarot design of the Wheel of Fortune hones in on the snake says a lot about how he views fortune in general.

This also plays into why there are multiple wheels instead of one within his depiction.

For the most part Mikoto has presented himself as an individual who believes in personal accountability, working towards one’s own goals, and being considerate of those around you. Considering his character, it’s not surprising that the wheel of fortune is not just one individual wheel but multiple wheels that seem to be crushing and overshadowing his own. As though he’s just a cog in a larger machine as the snake slithers through unperturbed by the chaos around it. It really does perfectly visualize the fickle crushing weight that is the reality of such things as fate and luck.

Highlighting how most people don’t get anywhere without the help of others and sometimes it’s not about letting go or letting whatever happens happen. Instead, it’s only who you know and who likes you that decides how the wheel spins.

This card perfectly visualizes the fear Mikoto has around letting go of control of things like his emotions, job, or even past choices that aren’t working out and letting what will happen after just happen. Because there are so many variables that can’t be accounted for, and life is full of wills outside of one’s own. Having your life be affected by the lives of others is unavoidable.

Yes, we are all crushed by the wheel, but some are ran over more than others and the chaos surrounding his version of the card perfectly illustrates that. While it does a great job of highlighting his general wariness about letting what will be, be it also shows his disdain at the concept. Whether consciously or subconsciously Mikoto associated the one thing he openly dislikes with the card that literally symbolizes that everyone will have to relinquish control of a situation at some point and just have faith things will work out. That good and bad times both will pass.

Mikoto’s response to this card's existence is direct hostility, and he is using his artistic abilities to call bullshit on the concept of the card itself. He really went no I dislike this card specifically, designed it like this, and then drew that shit in two separate Celtic spreads. Like the cards, the cards, the cards will tell- Man I’m surprised he hasn’t burned this deck. The only thing I’ve realized through writing most of this is that Mikoto can be incredibly passive aggressive, and I love it.

Now when it comes to the car tires. He may have chosen them to represent the Wheel of Fortune because cars tend to be expensive making it fortunate for one to own such a vehicle. However, we believe there may be more meaning to this. One that may be discerned from looking at the other cards.

The Wheel of Fortune signifies the uncontrollable and cyclical nature of life. The ups and downs spinning in tandem with no signs of stopping. Reminding people that regardless of their status some things are just fated to occur. Like life’s many saddening facets and happy accidents, some things are unavoidable. The wheel runs over all indiscriminately.

It reminds the querant regardless of the situation they currently find themselves in that their present is not their end. Things will change. Upright it reminds people to appreciate the good times they may be having for they will not last and in reverse it reminds them that the bad times too shall pass. As the third card in the Celtic spread, it is representative of the querants past.

In this case signifying that Mikoto has faced many troubles in his past up until this point. Yet these times may be passing.

Fourth Card Represents: The Future

Card Drawn: Five of Swords

Position: Upright

In Mikoto’s Tarot deck the Five of Swords is represented by five cooking knives with seven holes above the edge of the blade. Other than that, the card does not differ too much from its regular depictions. The fourth card in the Celtic spread represents the querants possible future. So, we can discern a bit about how things may go from this card.

The Five of Swords suggests that the querant is facing a conflict of some kind. This conflict can be internal or external. It can allude to one having social disagreements. It advises the querant to introspect upon what is more important in this argument, being proven correct or keeping polite relations. Warning that even though it seems they have won they could end up losing in the long run due to the ire they’ve incurred. Highlighting that it may be necessary for the querant to face themselves by fully investigating their beliefs.

It warns against becoming overly ambitious. Stating that continuing in this manner will either lead to querants defeat or a victory in isolation.

“If I could end, if I could stop; how long would this dream go on?”

“Why, hey why, I’m nowhere to be found?”

Fifth Card Represents: The Conscious/Above

Card Drawn: Ace of Cups

Position: Upright

The Ace of Cups in Mikoto’s tarot deck is represented by a cup pouring what appears to be paint over the broken remains of a bunch of wooden mannequins used for figure drawing in front of a bluish moon. I could have brought this up earlier, but I assumed it was readily apparent and could not remember if there was an exact word for these things. However, I’ve given up on finding out if there is at this point.

So, yeah, the human figures in Mikoto’s tarot cards are wooden figure drawing mannequins. Tiny dolls with moveable joints that artists position in order to get a better grasp on poses. They can be found in art schools for example the only reason I know what they are is because I went to an arts high school, and they were brought up at points by students. They can also be found in art supply shops. Not everyone uses them, and some artists find them finicky opting to just look up references or stock photos instead.

However, these mannequins are usually fun to use, position in various ways, and are helpful for those who like a three-dimensional reference. So, it might be more likely that artists who studied mostly through drawing art models people who pose for art students to draw them either clothed, partially clothed or nude would gravitate towards these. While we’re on the topic all the items except for maybe the car tires depicted within the wheel of fortune are items that can be found within Mikoto’s home.

Pentacles being represented by records there’s a record player on one of his drawers, his baseball bat representing wands, the kitchen knives representing swords we don’t see his kitchen in MeMe but I assume he has knives and these figure drawing mannequins while not seen in his home are possibly something he uses for work or has around in an area of his house we have not seen yet like with the knives.

As I brought up, when going over the wheel of fortune card two of the tires within the wheel seem to belong to Mikoto. However, this is only believed to be the case by us because they have doubled spokes and are the only tires to appear just twice throughout the card.

Moving on. Usually, the Ace of Cups is depicted as a standing but overflowing cup held out by a hand as if it is being offered to the asker. Even though the Ace of Cups is depicted as overflowing it is rarely depicted as being deliberately poured out as it is here.

It is usually shown with five separate streams of water flowing out of it as it stands. In a way reminiscent of a fountain. Comparing the amount coming from the cup in Mikoto’s interpretation of the card to how much water is usually depicted in other variations of the card it becomes apparent how measly this amount is. So, why might that be?

Well, the answer can be found when looking into the meaning of those five streams. The five streams are meant to embody the power of intuition, highlighting the effect looking inward and listening to one’s inner voice can have. The cup standing showcases how it does not need to be disturbed or moved for it to overflow just filled or fed by its holder. The streams flowing or jutting out of it illustrate the tangible effects the holder can have on their environment by doing such a thing.

Think of it similarly to how we talked about bottling up emotions earlier with Kazui. Doing it for too long will eventually cause one to overflow in numerous ways. It can either boil over or burst forth in a controlled way.

However, in Mikoto’s case doing it too little will leave one with nothing to fall back on when external sources of validation fail them. Because there’s very little of an inner voice to connect to in Mikoto’s case be it from him focusing most of his emotional understanding outwards or other reasons he has to tip the cup over to even get a smidgen of what for most it can give while standing.

The Ace of Cups is Upright here highlighting that the inquirer needs to let go of any lingering pain from their past to move forward in a more open and unburdened way. New beginnings are on the horizon if the asker is open to them, themselves, and is willing to leave their baggage behind. Because it is in the position representative of the querents conscious state.

This can be interpreted to mean that Mikoto is making the conscious decision to remain open and flexible. He’s making a conscious effort to be approachable and amicable in his relations. Possibly even purposely ignoring any misgivings he has about his circumstances to do so.

“The minus energy that I swallowed hugged me.”

[takemealivelh]

SHAKES (MV) - Luke Hemmings

I've been putting off writing this because the music video woke so many feelings in me that i'm scared to watch it again. but here i am! ready to do this essay

Starting that it's very Lost in Translation (2003) but set in the 70s is everything i could've asked for. favorite decade aesthetics, amazing movie. and i love that luke is giving nods to not only bill murray's character but also scarlett johansson's. the elevator scene is so beautiful, especially when he does that little awkward dance(?) while the camera captures the scene in front of it.

Not only this song is incredibly crafted, but the music video really surpassed my expectations. it's the best that he could've given us. you can see the effort and attention to detail and also the way it portrays loneliness makes my heart hurt. because i've been in that place. feeling like everything's so dull. feeling so empty and longing for something that you can't get. in luke's case, it's his inner child. in mine, it's the yearning for the times that i feel good.

anyway

the music video is devastating. top 3 moments

luke taking off his makeup while the song sings i wanna go out in my sleep now so i don't feel no pain. like, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? i want to cry. taking off a mask, feeling really desperate but also hopeless and too tired to function.

the final shot zooming out of the window and then the car sounds in the background when the song ends. like??? we just had this beautiful intimate experience with the production of the song and suddenly real life comes and the pain is even worse. heart aches.

not really a moment but the makeup and the clothes are AMAZING. it's very nostalgic but also modern if that makes any sense?

IN CONCLUSION

I knew luke would feed us, but i also didn't expect to be this blown away by a music video. feeling so fucking seen. when he said he hopes people can relate to it? MY MAN, I DO. the city tends to move on all the same.

i saw this post where someone pointed out when luke said he was going to therapy. and even though i'm incredibly devastated by the mv, it also works. i'm too in therapy and when you're doing a lot of stuff and there's pressure to succeed, you feel like this -again, my case. like, a shell of a ghost. feeling so much inside you're numb. and we see him fidgeting at times, which i interpret as this urge to feel normal again, hope that you look normal -not like you're life feels so exhausting.

HONORABLE MENTION

The coloring of this!!!!! very gloomy, it works perfectly

i don't know. what are your thoughts?

[quackingwolves]

Charles Dickens- George Orwell's A Collection of Essays Part 1

Again, this essay seems extraordinarily long. A brief look at the table of contents after I read the first part revealed that it's a whopping 56 pages, even longer than the last essay.

Because of this, I again decided to split the essay into parts- this is the first one. It also took me two days to get through the first part, though it was two days separated by almost two weeks. I've gotten busy with other things, but I'll try to read at least an hour each day.

---------------

While the first sentence of this essay is genuinely complimentary, the way I read it was certainly not. “Dickens is one of those writers who are well worth stealing” became “Dickens is one of those writers who are well worth stabbing.” Granted, I had just woken up so I’ll give myself some leeway.

I, admittedly, have never read Dickens, but I have seen some modern adaptations of A Christmas Carol, which is only thought of by most people once a year. But it’s not surprising some groups of people- Orwell mentions Marxists and Catholics- want to say that Dickens thought ‘almost’ like them. Most very successful people have other people claiming that they made them everything the successful person is, or at least are somehow like them. People love to see themselves and their own beliefs in successful people, even if it’s imagined.

Orwell writes of Dickens’ work, of course, but also the possible meaning of his work- what Dickens drew from when he sat down to write. As someone who’s never read a single Dickens novel, it was interesting to read short descriptions of specific events in Dickens’ books.

Orwell also writes that Dickens fell often on the character of a kind rich man, a rich man who wants to help his employees and others. This is a fantasy. Most rich people are more like dragons jealousy guarding their wealth. Nearly none freely give money to even their employees, no matter how well-earned. They tend to keep employees’ wages as low as they can if it raises their own, even slightly.

I was surprised when Orwell writes that Dickens seemed to disapprove of unions. As a child of a union worker, I would never cross a picket line of any sort- whether working or buying. Unions are just people trying to make work a little more tolerable. Unions are what protect every worker. If employers had their way, every second of work would be as grueling and uncomfortable as possible to raise profit for themselves or any shareholders. No one would have breaks, and there would be horrible conditions and child labor. 

Orwell also makes an observation that in A Tale of Two Cities, the only thing people seem to remember is the French Revolution. Orwell writes that that plot line only lasts a few chapters, but he seems to think it sticks in people’s memory because of its detailed and evocative writing. Orwell writes that Dickens wrote that if someone behaves as the French nobles had, it was inevitable. There was a particular fragment Orwell writes that I enjoyed- that while the lord is comfortable in their bed and people starved, “somewhere in the forest, a tree is growing which will presently be sawn into planks for the guillotine.” What I found interesting was that Orwell follows this with ‘etcetera etcetera,’ which almost sounds like he doesn’t believe either Dickens’ message or his own interpretation of it. My bed would be on the former, because Orwell already cast doubt on Dickens’ view of the average person’s right to overthrow those in power if they are not being fairly treated. 

As I already said, I have no opinion one way or the other on Dickens (based largely on the fact I had never read the man’s work) but from Orwell’s assessment I quickly found myself greatly disliking Dickens. I had to continuously remind myself that this is just one man’s opinion of works I never touched. As I mentioned- union kid taught to never cross a picket line. So reading that Orwell thinks that Dickens had a negative view of unions is distasteful. 

Orwell clearly writes this- it’s not just me reading subtext. Orwell writes, verbatim, “And Dickens is very sure that revolution is a monster.” Revolution is many things to me, but not monstrous. There’s only so far you can push people before they snap. And if the abuse was extreme, the snap is the same way. If it’s a whole group of people that was abused, the reaction will be felt. For things to change, people have to turn wheels themselves. And not always peacefully. I’m all for peaceful protest, but if those tactics don’t work, the next step must be taken. Letter-writing is effective, but so is punishing fascists on camera. The former is easier, the latter might be one act but there’s a reason Richard Spencer fell out of view. You need to make people ashamed of their actions, that there are consequences. If you’re racist, be prepared to be shunned or mocked for being one.

Orwell isn’t purely critical of Dickens- he praises the man for being able to accurately portray the way children think and feel, even when the same person reads the same work in childhood and adulthood. Orwell admits that the early 1800s, when Dickens was writing, “was not a good time to be a child,” which is a huge understatement. Children were generally treated as small adults at times, liable to be executed as anyone else for a crime. At the same time, children were seen as very unmotivated people, people whose wills must be broken in order for them to be proper. They weren’t allowed to be kids.

Orwell returns to criticizing Dickens for criticizing school (odd, considering the whole last essay was Orwell criticizing his own schooling). But Orwell makes a clear delineation between his own criticism and Dickens’- Orwell writes that Dickens wants the current system, but just ‘watered down’ and ‘moralized.’ For example- no beatings, but instead some unspecified form of punishment the children avoid. As for what the children are learning in school, Dickens is just as vague. In David Copperfield, the titular character apparently goes to a school that must be better than his previous one. In Dickens’ own words as Copperfield, the new school is “ordered,” though he doesn’t specify how. Dickens also writes that Copperfield and his fellow schoolboys had “an appeal, in everything.” 

Now, I’m a firm believer in giving children choices and a say, but those choices sometimes have to amount to the same thing. Not “do you want vegetables?” but “do you want carrots or broccoli?” Children don’t know what’s best for them yet, they have to be shown. Sometimes, showing seems too obvious, but you have to remember that children experience a lot of firsts very quickly. So if they see a trusted adult handling a similar thing, they will copy them. I once stumbled upon a parenting advice post that recommended narrating certain aspects of everyday life. I believe the example was a crooked picture, and it was something along the lines of “This picture is crooked. That makes me sad. How do I fix this? I know! I’ll straighten it. Now it’s straight and I’m happy.” It might seem ridiculous, but I can see how that can help a child. Children listen more than you think, and they’ll learn their own lessons- most of which you never intended to teach. So if you’re more deliberate, chances are the child will learn the ones you want faster. 

Orwell neatly sums up his issue with Dickens by writing that Dickens wants “a change of spirit, rather than a change in structure.” In other words, Dickens was mostly fine with the status quo- the only thing wrong with it is that those in power are too cruel. Dickens believed, according to Orwell, that if the powerful were simply more just, then everything would run smoothly. Which is a fairy tale. The people in power want to stay in power, and the way to do that is to take others’ power away. The system isn’t flawed- it was created to be grossly unbalanced and it works perfectly.

[agent-cupcake]

Hey AC! I love your blog and was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. I've seen some people complaining that Ingrid and Hilda are treated by the fandom, with Ingrid stans saying that Hilda is also racist towards Almyrans (which, granted, she is) but doesn't get nearly as much hate about it as Ingrid does. But personally I feel like their attitudes and the way they react towards Dedue/Cyril are wildly different and Hilda generally seems less hateful/irrational about it. Thoughts?

This is... kind of a touchy topic... I like it though! It’s worth discussing, especially since I feel like it’s broke criticism to simply deflect blame onto a character in order to prop up another.  Full and obvious disclosure: I very much dislike Ingrid and very much love Hilda. That said, I don’t think it’s fair to compare them for the sake of which is worse. I fall into the trap of character criticism through comparison far too often and it's not really valid unless you can fully explore each character in their own right beforehand. Which is why, while writing this, I came to the conclusion that the ways these two characters are interpreted and the reason people view their racist tendencies differently has far more to do with the characters themselves than their actual beliefs.

From first impressions to subsequent playthroughs, this is pretty much how I feel about Ingrid: she brings up her hatred of the Duscur people and Dedue unprompted and uncontested several times at the very beginning of the game, putting it front and center to her character. This is important, it sets a foundational component for how I could come to view her. According to her introduction, she is honorable and respectful, a model lady knight trope. But, as mentioned, she's really racist. Literally standing around thinking about how awful it is that Dimitri would trust a man of Duscur because they are all bad people. Yikes. And nobody calls her on it. Again, this is very important for perception. People judge Sylvain for his bad behavior in a much more harsh way than they do Ingrid for her vitriolic loathing for another classmate who we have seen as nothing but respectful. It's weird. And then, despite the fact that her close friend Sylvain was able to reason out that it’s not possible for the Duscur people to be at fault for the Tragedy, despite the fact that the prince of the country she supposedly hopes to serve with unwavering respect and loyalty has made it clear that he does not believe that Dedue or Duscar are responsible for the Tragedy, and despite the fact that Dimitri, her close friend and the one most affected by the Tragedy (seriously, she lost a guy she might have married and he lost his best friend, mother, and watched his father be killed in front of his eyes) continuously insists that neither Dedue nor Duscur are at fault, she loudly and openly believes that the ensuing massacre of Duscur was deserved and Dedue is inherently culpable simply because of his race. Her motivations for this hatred feel even more cheap considering her dogged hero worship for Glenn was born out of the fact that she was promised to him, making the fact that she’d use his death as reason enough for the destruction of countless innocent lives even more unsympathetic in my eyes. I mean, seriously, she was around 13 and he was older than her, how close could they have truly been? Dimitri says they were in love, but she was a child. Abandoning my modern sensibilities about age of consent or whatever, kids at that age don't have the emotional or mental capability. Maybe this is just nitpicking, but I have a very hard time caring about that relationship. But, if her actual justification is because of what happened to Faerghus as a result of the Tragedy and feels duty-bound as a knight to find justice through the systematic destruction of the Duscur people, then it just circles back to confusion considering the future leader of said country doesn't hold Duscur or Dedue responsible. The importance of perception comes in because despite these paper thin excuses and her seemingly willfully ignorant hatred, she is never challenged on her racist beliefs. The reason she seems to change her mind about Dedue and consider that maybe excusing a genocide is wrong stems from guilt that Dedue continuously comes to her aid in battle at the potential cost of his own life. I can understand, to a certain extent, why she might feel the way she does. But, again, I have such a hard time with any justification when nobody that she's close to is even nearly as hateful as her, there is plenty of evidence (evidence that the people close to her have found!) to provide a very reasonable counterclaim to Duscur's guilt, and that none of that even matters when it would require her to openly contradict the prince of her country to make the claim that Dedue was in any way complicit in the Tragedy. Which would be fine if she wasn't established as the model Lady Knight archetype, which also brings us into Ingrid's moral high horse. Admittedly, I hate the Lady Knight trope. I have a significant bias against these types of characters. However, I really do think that this moral crusade is where she lost me completely. Without even a shred of empathy or self awareness, she lectures Sylvain about his shitty behavior even though their circumstances are at least somewhat similar and he has his reasons (bad ones, maybe, but ones worth understanding if she actually cares about him), she lectures Felix about not being interested in knightly endeavors (an aspect of his character that is born of the trauma she has appropriated), and she lectures Claude about behavior that is befitting of a man in his position. Not because she cares about the girls Sylvain is hurting, not because she thinks there are any grave stakes from Felix choosing to do his own thing, and not because she knows that Claude's behavior affects his ability to lead, but because she doesn't like these behaviors and thinks they should be fixed. Yet, at the same time, she believes Dedue deserved to lose his family, country, and culture based on his birth and nobody ever does anything to morally correct her, it is something she eventually is forced to acknowledge on her own. It's frustrating, infuriating even, that the game lets her get away with being so grossly hypocritical. And, all the while, she is being painted as sympathetic. Again, I have a hard time feeling sympathy for her about Glenn, and I certainty don't feel sympathetic towards her issues about marriage because there's never any actual tension there. Of course she won't be forced to marry, she's a Lady Knight. Beyond being unsympathetic, I also find her massively unlikable. Awful design, poor voice direction, food-loving-as-a-personality-trait, the fact that she's written as one of those stock "feminist" characters who hate makeup and girly things until it benefits them, and constantly butting in on other characters to give her opinion without taking any criticism herself are all aspects that I just personally dislike. Ultimately, Ingrid being racist is only a symptom of the many reasons her character is one of my least favorites. Most of these points can be countered by someone who doesn't take issue with the things that annoy me and to point out that Ingrid DOES get over her racist beliefs. It's not fair to say that she doesn't change but, for me, the damage was already done by the time she became tolerable so I still have a hard time appreciating her. My assumption would be that there are a lot of other people who feel similarly to me regarding their dislike of Ingrid so they focus on one easy character flaw, her being racist at the beginning of the game, as a reason to validate their dislike of her overall.

On the other hand, Hilda's racism isn't a main trait of her character. It's related to her overarching character flaws, but she doesn't bring it up unprompted and can actually be pretty much missed without the Cyrill supports. Like you said, Hilda does seem less hateful and irrational, it doesn't take willful malice and an active rejection of reason for Hilda to dislike the Almyrans, they pose a genuine and provable threat to her family and territory, seemingly senselessly testing the borders and throwing away lives for the sake of conquest. To be clear, her "you're not like those OTHER Almyrans" schtick is legitimately nasty. Her behavior is gross and condescending and it really underscores the fact that Hilda is ignorant, lazy, inconsiderate, and incredibly comfortable in her privilege. She accepts what she's been told at face value because she's too lazy to look into it further. Cyrill does tell her she's stupid to think that way, though. Which is satisfying because Hilda in those supports is insufferable, it really highlights the worst aspects of her character, dismissive, manipulative, and very selfish. However, for me, she's also very likeable. I'm not interested in going over my opinions on her like I did with Ingrid as I don’t feel it’s as important to my point but a few reasons I really like her is because I think Hilda has a fantastic design, cute supports, amazing voice work, and is secretly sweet in a way that absolutely tickles my fancy. I am sure many people do not agree with me, which is fine. Additionally, just as Ingrid grows out of her racist beliefs, so does Hilda. They both end the game as more tolerant and caring people. Still, for the same reason a person could argue that Ingrid is actually great and I'm being unfair, they could argue that Hilda is terrible and I'm too biased. That's fair and true..... but I think the fact that Hilda is more generally appealing in conjunction with the less obvious nature of her racist attitude makes people less likely to dismiss her as a racist in the same way they do Ingrid. Unless they dislike Hilda, in which case, it’s all fair game.

Anyyyways, a main takeaway from this is that I highly doubt people are truly arguing on the individual basis of who's more racist, but that they're engaging in the age old waifu war. As with many characters in this game, it's easier to argue moral superiority when you can't quite articulate what you like or don't like about a character. Or, even worse, when you're arguing opinion. Even now, as is clear by reading this, I am arguing my opinion of why I don't like Ingrid. Not because she's racist, but because of the character traits and writing choices that make her unlikable to me. I like Hilda because, flaws and all, I find her to be compelling and enjoyable. From the people that I know, at least, that is basically how the Ingrid stans v Hilda racism argument is structured, even if they dress it up in different language.

By the by Hilda never talks about how the Almyrans deserve to be wiped out. I think that probably sours a lot of people's opinions of Ingrid no matter what happened afterward but that’s fine we can just pretend that didn’t happen

[tartagliaxx]

L isten, I only stumbled upon your blog recently, but your writing? Chef's kiss! Absolutely wonderful! Consider yourself having a new follower mate uwub

But yes, I'd also like to join in the event for Zhongli, if you don't mind!

I'm the Sassy Lost Child. No, seriously. I'm... very short to say the least (short enough to be considered a gremlin against him honestly with a whopping 4'9" despite me being the eldest), but what I lack in height I do try to make up in personality! Can be very loud, expressive, and animated considering I once used to dream of being an actress, but can get very timid and very easily flustered if you play your cards right. Also known to be both childish in how I act sometimes, but mature when it comes to serious matters? Ah, the duality of looking young but being old--

Surprisingly enough, I'm very careful with my heart. Or, well, I try to be, at least. I've seen a little too much of heartbreak to be careless with it after all. That's why I may keep others at an arms length--there's no point if we end up hurting and leaving each other one day. But with some time and some reassurance, that fear will slowly die down, and you'll get to hear secrets I'd never tell anyone else.

time itself is an expression of love.

when a young man waits at his table an hour before the agreement just to make sure his lover wouldn't need to or when a young woman ponders over her dress nights before a date — each second thinking about the other is an act of love itself. zhongli, no, rex lapis oversaw many contracts though one he could never quite grasp was the contract of matrimony. some fail before the first year, some last until fifty, and some... well, some last beyond the lifetime of mankind, and those are the ones that are celebrated ever so merrily by their descendants.

it's quite an endearing thought but not one he fully comprehends. he knows, however, that if time is a reasonable measure of love, then he has so much to give. a hundred years worth of longing, a thousand years worth of waiting — three millennia's worth of slow burn romance. meeting you wasn't the climax, it was the first page and everything else was a prologue written in a separate book. falling in love with you? well, that's the hundredth chapter that would extend infinitely until the word 'infinity' loses its missing.

aside from your contrasting quirks, well, there is no real way to describe your love and it comes to a point that most say that it's anticlimactic. perhaps the billions of words that preceded your loving climax brought their expectations too high but is there really no beauty to a love that is simply... is? love with zhongli exists between mercury and jupiter. it's finding firm, solid ground after a jump and it's having curtains billowing in the wind. it's the stark contrast between the skies and the earth and it's the way he easily steals your composure even without meaning to. it's the way he manages to quell your worries with a small smile and it's the way he stares after you every time you burst into a beautiful explosion of exuberance. it exists the same way calcium lives in your bones and it is a tale of untold satisfaction and relief. perhaps meaningless to the world's greatest critics but to the eyes of the two artists that made it, it's a masterpiece that held so many hidden meanings reserved only for their eyes to see. it's a kind of love that's mature but curious — much like a child's youthful innocence — and perhaps, so unexplainable that the poets could only ever attempt to write it off as a play and yet, still fail to capture it wholely.

bizarre and mundane. old and childish. traditional and modern. it's a work of art in the sense that it's open for interpretation but everyone knows that behind closed doors, its existence makes the whole world glint with a golden sheen.

━━ ☆ NOTES: hi! welcome to my blog and thank you for joining in the fun! i have... so much i wanted to say about your relationship but i don't know how to phrase it exactly. i just know that zhongli understands your need to take it slow and in fact, will probably insist even after you give him permission to court you (might be because he's the one who needs to take it slow). i also know that he's more than willing to reassure you whenever you need it. conversations could extend for so long and he's just so soft for the way you ramble about this and that. and the way you're just so charismatic in a way so different from him? asjdafakfajj zhongli's so whipped but he has an old timer's heart so he doesn't know how to express it. ah, i'm rambling sorry. again, i hope you liked it even if it's like,, a hot mess :DD

━━ ☆ WANT TO JOIN?: send me an ask here!

[giorgiastastes]

버닝 / Burning (2018)

"It's too close, you might not see it"

What to say about this movie...

The film itself is quite simple, even too easy at first sighting I'd dare to say, but the meaning behind, the interpretations and smart details is what makes it unique and pretty much a masterpiece.

I'm sure that most people, or at least those who usually watch unchallenging to elaborate movies, won't like it. If you're looking for something what will be "explained to you", for the director to give you that big plot twist or long monologue, you won't find it here. But if you want to watch a work of art that'll make you think, reflect and crash your minds, you have a good journey in front of you.

I remember that as soon as I've finished watching it I went online to look for theories, to see if someone else had the same idea as me, if I got it right and what I've missed, and then I planned to write here my thoughts on the real explaination, but after rewatching and searching I've figured it out BURNING doesn't really have a "true" explaination in my idea, or better, the director definitely knows what he believes is the so called truth, but the strength of it is how free of interpretations it is. I've read hundreds theories and honestly all of them could fit just right, so for once I've decided to do something different.

In here I will summarize all the theories, under layers and explaination that I've read, figured out or found, and I will leave to you, the reader, to believe your own "truth"

This will be full of spoilers, it's actually a summarization of the after watch, so read at your own risk, and since I'm taking for granted that you've watched the movie and remember it quite well too, I won't always repeat the plot when not necessary.

• Ben sells organs on the black market. That's how he gets his money and Haemi is aware of this, and decided to sell her own organs to pay off her debt. She even says I'D SELL MY ORGANS IF I WERE YOUNGER. She could also be unaware of this and that's why she dissapears.

• Ben is a serial killer. He seduces fragile women who are very easy preys to such an handsome and carismactic young man, and then gets rid of them after he gets tired. This happens about every couple of months, which corresponds to his journey in Africa timeline. They are the greenhouses he burns, because he knows nobody will look for them, and in fact the police does not care about the greenhouses, just like they don't care about missing women nobody knows about.

Ben also owns all the qualities of a maniac sociopath who's keen on control and feels no emotion or empathy. He never cries for example. He also feels pride in his crime and he's almost tempted to confess them to show how good he is. That's why he says to Jongsu that he will burn a greenhouse close to him, but he didn't mean it in a special terminology, but more like in an emotional sense. He will kill the the closest thing the other has, which is Haemi. He also states that she dissapeared like "smoke".

This would also be justified by the creepy call the protagonist receives by Haemi before she dissapears. The biggest evidence placed by the director to prove that this theory is the most correct one is in the last scene, where Ben is putting makeup on a new girl. For a non Korean speaker it's quite hard to get the reference but Makeup and corpses' cremation are spelled in the same way in the hangul language, therefore the movie showing us Ben doing the girl's makeup is the alternative way to say he's killed her and is now cremating the body, hence his obsession with fires.

He's the one who cleaned Haemi's room and took her cat. He also keeps his victims personal objects as a throphy of some sort.

• Ben is a pimp. He's the trainer for these beautiful, young but poor women who are ready to sell themselves when he convinces them to do so. This is shown as Haemi also become less and less shy as the movie goes on, as seen in the undressing scene, while being more bold and provocative too. He changed her drastically, or maybe only let her discover a different, more free, part of herself. He also applies makeup on them how he would do to a doll, playing dress up for a woman who's now becoming just an object of desire that can be bought.

• Ben is a human trafficker. He sends women into slavery while promising them a life of luxury and happiness. That's why he shows off his idyllic lifestyle, and then sells them in Africa (where he goes frequently), where they'll never be found.

• Ben is a life guru. He teaches unsecure and frustrated women to feel liberated and less oppressed, to leave it all behind and start from scratch. They pay him, that's why he's rich. He also keeps a "souvenir" of every woman he has turned. This could explain why he shows up to the meeting with Jongsu in the finale. If he actually killed or sold these women he wouldn't fall into the other man's trick.

• Ben doesn't exist. He's just the symbol of everything Jongsu is not but aspires to be. He's rich, confident, cultured and attractive. Every flaw and layer of insecurity Jongsu seems to have, Ben lacks. And in the end, when the protagonist finally becomes brave enough to mature, to actually chase the woman he loves, he's able to kill the shadow of himself that only reminded him of how miserable he was.

• Ben and Jongsu are the same person. Much Fight Club like, they're the same human being, just different, extreme sides of one. Jongsu could have a personality disorder or maybe we're just shown two sides of him that prove his mental health issues. That's also why Haemi seems to be involved with both of them without choosing a side, because one is the gentle but insecure fraction, the other the bold but arrogant one. And then, in the end, when such division is making him go insane, he decides to kill his alter ego.

• It's just a love triangle. One of my favorite songs of all time had a similar topic. There's the main character, a shy and quiet boy, who falls in love with a girl who feels foreign and unreachable to him. But he's not the only one in her life. She also has another lover who's much more attractive and manly in a way, and all three start to share this peculiar poliamorous love story, mostly platonic. She's very pretty and feels as free as Venus, torn between two men. Then one day she leaves, and she'll never come back. But while the second boy easily moves on with his life, figuring out it was just a näive fling, the singer remains stuck, obsessing over her day and night, trying to find answers and solutions just not to deal with the realization of her not loving him enough to stay.

• Every character represents a social stereotypes and criticism of modern South Korean classes. I think this is very straightforward, especially Jongsu's jealousy of Ben's wealth, and Haemi's attempt to RISE in the social pyramid, surrounding herself with high class people like Ben or his friends, even letting them make joke of her, to mock her, all of it just to feel part of their group and reality.

• It's all in Jongsu's head.

• The disappearance of Haemi, whether it happened or not or HOW it happened are not the main focus on the movie, which instead is the characters dealing with such loss and lack of knowledge on what happened. Much like the Russian movie Loveless (2017), where the event is only used as an artistical device to let the story progress and the characters' grief culminate. Maybe we really don't need to know what happened to her, maybe she's dead, maybe she's alive and better than ever, but to the movie's intent such information is superficial, it's just the human need to fill our curiosity when were too afraid to deal with the pain of remaining unaware of it. Jongsu is sure she's been killed and that brings him to his next move, but the viewer, he doesn't need to know, because he doesn't need to act, to keep the story going.

• Haemi might have killed herself. Ben is the only one who knows about this and that's why she gives him her cat. She also shows multiple signs of advanced depression, for more than half of the movie is almost like she's not there, like she's already just the memory, the ghost of a girl who once was there.

• The movie itself is just a metaphor. The metaphor is many times used by the characters and maybe not only as a word, part of a dialogue, but the overall film might be A BIG, CRIPTIC METAPHOR.

• Everything is hereditary. From family's fortunes and richness to behavior and inner rage. Jongsu was born poor and will die as such just like his father, and even though he seems like the most innocuous being, he's able to take out his rage on other just like this father. I guess it's in the genes.

• Jongsu is the calf. The calf represents Jongsu's pureness and naivety. And when he sells it, he's also selling his soul in a way.

• Haemi represents South Korea, Jongsu North Korea, Ben is the new Korea, the one always more and more Westernized.

• We're just reading the plot of Jongsu's book. When Haemi leaves for Africa he has plenty of time to write the story he's planning to put into words, and that's what he does. Everything we see after she comes back from her journey is just the plot of the book, and the creation of Jongsu's imagination.

• A modern reinterpretation of the Great Gatsby. Yes, obviously a VERY liberate view of the novel, but many details seem to be quite evocative.

• A criticism to how South Korea treats women. Even the movie itself does this, probably on purpose. The one who disappears is a woman, but the ones who are the main centre of attention are men. She's only a story device, never the real protagonist.

• Ben wanted Jongsu to discover his crimes so he could reach fame if the other ever made a book out of it. He's so full of himself he'd rather be punished for his crimes than never showing off how good he was at covering every proof. That's why he dies almost peacefully, and shed a tear, which he claimed to have never done before.

• The well Haemi reference to, symbolizes falling into prostitution. That's why Jongsu's mother knows about it too, since it's quite obvious she's now an escort. But she states the well is dry, as a way of saying that it's not how easy and fun it might seem.

• This is just the tragic story of a boy who's lost every possible source of love. From his father in jail, his mother who abandoned him, to the only girl that ever showed him affection disappearing, and a new friend who he decides to kill.

• Ben is Death or maybe the devil personified. He helps Haemi get the courage to end it one for all, and even pushes Jongsu to kill, cursing his soul.

[occultadama]

Appropriating nature - Alpha Males to Worker Ants.

Why do we only aproppriate and relate to nature when it applies to dominance or taking other people's stuff? The best example of this is wolf politics or the fallacy of the "Alpha Male" which found its footing in since debunked science . It was born of synthetic conditions that only tell us the distressed lupine psychology once wolves are held captive. The concept of an "alpha male" is infact modelled on emotional distress displayed by wolves once they are stripped of thier freedom...Alpha Wolfs complete flim flam. (Somewhere Joe Rogan is weeping into a deer carcass)

So post WW2 (The exact time we're our relationship with nature really seems to collapse with the same grace as Charles and Diana - we are Charles in this scenario btw) a scientist named Schenkel was tasked with studying captive wolfs and thier hierarchies. Which was directed to support new ideas of classism and capitalism. The wolves were found to be aggressive (me too if I was trapped in a small lab) to one another fighting and concluding with a victorious male. This made way to the term "Alpha male" and our misunderstanding of archetypal male behaviour. All of which would encourage competitive male work hierarchies and the "dog eat dog", toxic male culture rife in modern culture (i believe everytime "alpha male" is uttered in earnest, a man will start another "political discussion and satire"  podcast and be sponsored by a protein supplement)

What later studies found was these conclusions by schenkel were largely due to the subjects being held in captivity.  Other studies conducted in there natural enviroment found wolf packs operate within family units. The references of alphas refer to the mother and father were "power" is distributed equally and its used more to ensure pack members have what they need I.e being safe and fed. Dominance fights are infact very rare. The study was conducted over 14 years and made none of Schenkels observations of lupin social structures. Concluding "Alpha male" refers exclusive to the breeding couple and nothing else.

Its not more appropriate to refer to a doe deer as an alpha. Its a meaningless term that has been attached to social and institutional structures and then absorbed as fact. The entire justification for schenkels theory is validated by natural science when in reality it just enforces an artifical dominance hierarchy amongst humans. Its like studying humans in prison and asserting  "oh wow humans really like trading things for cigarettes"

Curiously we rarely appropriate nature in regard to insects. The only real comparisons I can strike is with the industrious hard working honey bee - which is directly championing over working for a "hive" or Queen. We even visualise many work infographics as hives. Making a distinction of the lesser workers (bees) and a buisness money pot (queen) A model in lue of the Queen is also exclusively male in our aproppriation. A similar appropriation can be found in our interpretation of ant colonies. The exceptions being that ants triumph due to thier lacking emotional capacity and dominate strength, it resonates better with our misunderstanding of male traits and emotional capacity.

Despite our constant misinterpretation of nature and its absorption into our social structures it communicates the power of natures mascots we use to orientate ourselves and one another. It has been historically used for nefarious gain but can this be subverted? Nature is far more giving and kind than it is dominant and aggressive. How can we appropriate the positive interuptative traits of nature? Could animation be a way to rearrange our entomological appropriation? Is this appropriation of nature good at all? This last one is the trickiest for me.

We mould our understanding of nature in relation to our own human experiences. As a consequence the seperate and complex intelligence of nature is sidelined and abstractified. We no longer look beyond the "Alpha wolf" label for example. A species becomes defined by our reductive and inaccurate human lens. The hard working and robot ant become only this and now incapable of escaping the role human narrative has forced upon it. The appropriation of nature in our language, science and entertainment may in fact shoo away our biophilia. It strips species down to a singular emotional construct.  They can no longer be seen outside of it and this often gets absorbed into popular culture. We rationialise deplorable human behaviour into a precast mould that we pour the natural world into. We simplify and politicise natural  "science" to fortify indifference to one another and often non progressive, Conservative ideal and capitalism. We use it to double down on alot of unnatural evolved human idiocy. As if we are aware it's damaging for all involved so we grasp at the earth to find reasoning. This reminds me alot of Kafkas reflections in regard to bureaucracy and how he projects it onto nature (The Metamorphosis 1915)

The interuptive nature of this phenomena however does leave appropriation vulnerable to the opposite application. As an artist there's a strength to be found in subjectivity and interuptation that isn't bound to accuracy. Illuminating and exaggerating favourable insect behaviour to fit around comparable human habits may encourage behavioral change and biophilia. Appropriation of nature in both a biophobic and biophilic sense supports E O Wilsons observations of us as the "Poetic Species". That we favour our metaphors, symbols and interuptations much more than our data. E.g we have compared and modelled much of our gender roles around misinterpreted or debatable animal pack hierarchies.

Ok. I'm beginning to walk into neighbouring Gardens now, I don't know where I am anymore and people are looking at me through their windows. Il stop here. I've lost my footing and fell into a ditch.

[watching-pictures-move]

Viddying the Nasties #37 | Possession (Zulawski, 1981)

This review contains spoilers.

Andrzej Zulawski's Possession is a movie I'd somewhat been dreading revisiting. When I'd seen it all those years back (on YouTube, split into two parts if I recall correctly, as the DVD had been hard to come by in those days), despite being greatly moved by the experience, I'd also found it an extremely exhausting film to sit through. It's a tortured divorce melodrama (among other things) that starts at 11 and only goes up from there. Lots of shouting and screaming, physical abuse, kicking around chairs and tables. The movie is not what I'd call an overtly pleasant experience. Watching it now (on a Blu-ray from Mondo Vision, a substantial upgrade from my original format), while I won't characterize my previous impressions as inaccurate, I was able to better appreciate how the movie modulates this tone, acclimatizing us to its fraught emotional space. The movie starts off in the realm of a normal, bitter breakup, with the husband having returned from a work trip only to learn that his wife is leaving him and struggling to make sense of it, his frustration and anger stemming as much from the fact of her dissolving their relationship as his inability to comprehend her motivations. It isn't really until the half hour mark that it asks us to dive off the deep end with it. The husband hits his wife in the middle of a fight, follows her onto the street as she tries to halfheartedly throw herself onto the path of a truck, which then drops its baggage in an almost comical bit of stuntwork, their squabble ended when the husband becomes surrounded by children playing soccer and joins in. Any one of these by itself is nothing out of the ordinary, but Zulawski assembles them into an off-kilter crescendo, and does away with any sense of normalcy for the rest of the runtime.

That this approach works as well as it does is largely thanks to Isabelle Adjani as Anna, the wife, who spends the aforementioned scene looking like a vampire in cat eye sunglasses and blood streaming down her grimacing mouth. She delivers perhaps the most bracingly physical performance I've seen in a movie, but again this is something I'd maybe underappreciated initially in terms of how finely tuned her choices are. An early scene where she fights with her husband has her manically cutting raw meat and shoving it into a grinder, as if to channel her frustrations into acceptable form of violence for women. When she takes an electric knife to her throat, she begins to spasm about like a farm animal during a botched slaughter, providing a further comment on her domestic situation. The film's most famous scene has her freak out in a subway tunnel, thrashing her limbs about chaotically but almost rhythmically, maybe like the contractions when goes into labour. Her character later describes this as a miscarriage, ejecting the side of her which is neat and orderly and "good". Adjani plays this other half as well, with a much more old fashioned hairdo (braided conservatively like a stereotypical schoolmarm), one which provides a much more tender maternal figure to the couple's son. Adjani is also well cast because of her emotive, saucer-like eyes, which she isn't afraid to point at the camera repeatedly, providing a genuine emotional grounding during both the quieter and more hysterical sections of the movie.

Her husband, Mark, is played by Sam Neill, who had been cast after the filmmakers had seen him in Gillian Armstrong's My Brilliant Career. To understand why Neill works so well, it helps to know that Sam Waterston had previously expressed interest in the role. Waterston, while a good actor, would have come off too fogeyish as the husband. Neill brings the appropriate edge and even sex appeal necessary for the material. And like in Jurassic Park, his best known role, he brings an inquisitive quality that keeps him close enough to our vantage point to give the narrative arc some grounding. The other major human character here is Heinz Bennent as Heinrich, a new age guru who happens to be having an affair with the wife. One on hand, this character represents the counterculture from Zulawski's homeland, which he had left after trouble from the authorities when making his last movie. On the other hand, Zulawski was drawing heavily from the bitter divorce he had just gone through, and directs a sizable fraction of the movie's contempt at this character, leading me to believe that his wife in fact left him for some new age buffoon. In one of the movie's funnier scenes, he has Heinrich confront Mark over Anna's disappearance and then go into a dumbassed trance while spouting new age nonsense and basically calling Mark a Nazi. This is the guy his wife left him for? This jackass? Mark sets him up by sending him to Anna, knowing full well he could be killed, but the potency of Mark's rage (and Zulawski's, by extension), as well as the ludicrousness of the Heinrich character, keep us from sympathizing with the latter too much. Zulawski has Heinrich die with his head in a toilet, a final flush by Mark serving as one last hilariously mean-spirited gesture of contempt.

Zulawski originally conceived the movie as having another major character, Anna's ex-husband, to be played by veteran actor and director Bernard Wicki, but after the first day of shooting with Wicki, he decided to drop the character entirely. (I suppose it depends on the personalities, but I wonder how actors react to being let go early from a project. Is it worse if it's on the first day? How about if you lead the filmmakers to realize they should do away with the character altogether? I only hope Wicki got paid.) It's not hard to see what purpose this character would have served, particularly in the way that Anna "upgrades" her lovers, having traded a much older man for the younger, sexier Mark, and then trying to replace him with an evolving monstrous fuck-squid (more on this later) that she was trying to nurture and reshape into the ideal partner. The only remnants of this character in the finished film is his young wife, who appears in the climax and his goaded by the "new" Mark (the final form of the fuck-squid) to shoot into the corpses of the real Mark and Anna. The character's proposed thematic purpose might have spelled out this moment's significance more clearly, but I'm not always convinced thematic clarity is preferable to how things move and feel, and the end product does not feel incomplete or incoherent, or at least not detrimentally so. The emotions make sense, even if the events onscreen are outside the norm. (My condolences to those of you who've been dumped for a monstrous fuck-squid.)

Having been conceived after his last project was quashed by authorities in Poland, there's undeniably a political element here, enhanced by the noticeable presence of the Berlin Wall, near which much of the film is situated. (At one point the camera looks out the window and sees the police from East Berlin staring back.) The realities of the Cold War figure heavily in the characters' lives, as it's suggested that Helen (the other Adjani) is from behind the Iron Curtain (she speak of readily identifiable evil, which could be interpreted as the visible presence of an authoritarian regime) and that Mark's work is in the field of intelligence, maybe even espionage. But the movie is less interested in pointing out political specifics than in the accompanying sense of repression and division, which plays heavily into the visual style. The movie often divides its frames to separate the characters, but rarely with any sense of symmetry, suggesting a sense of emotional chaos enhanced by the bruising mixture of wide angle lenses and handheld camerawork. When we're with Mark, the movie looks overcast, bluish grey, appropriately repressed at first, although Anna's presence throws his neat, fluorescently-lit apartment into disarray. Anna's love nest, situated in the Turkish district right beside the Wall is dilapidated and unkempt, which may have reflected the squalid realities of a hastily rented apartment in what I assume is a poorer part of town, but after having excised the orderly part of herself, it seems like an accurately messy reflection of her headspace.

Now back to the fuck-squid. It's hard to go into Possession this day and age completely blind, and even back when I first saw it, it came on my radar as the movie where "Isabelle Adjani fucks a squid". I have a lot of respect for Zulawski for delivering the goods on this front and for Adjani for throwing herself into this material, not because I'm some kind of sexual deviant who gets off on this stuff (although if you are, I'm not here to judge, it's a free country, just clear your browsing history after), but because modern arthouse cinema often defaults to a mode of cold, downplayed and too afraid to raise the audience's pulse (because apparently it's undignified to force a reaction out of the audience) and it's nice to see a movie serve what it says on the tin (this is one I'd have loved to see with an unsuspecting audience back in the day). Producer Marie Laure-Reyre notes that Zulawski was very hands on with the conception of the monster, drawing inspiration from gargoyles in Polish architecture, as if to further imbue political context into the proceedings. When seeing the end product, I can only assume Zulawski broke up with his wife at a seafood restaurant (I would hope he didn't react like Mark and throw around all the tables and chairs). Of course, the design of the monster means that the movie leans heavily into body horror, and its inclusion on the Video Nasty list in the UK and its release in the US in a heavily-trimmed 81-minute version emphasizing these elements likely contributed to its psychotronic reputation early on. (I am still interested in seeking out this cut, as I can't imagine the loss of 40 whole minutes wouldn't substantially alter the film's character.) It flirts with other genres as well. Certain scenes have a clear slapstick quality. Some of these involve Heinrich, the ever-reliable target of the film's ridicule, but there is also Margit Cartensen, playing Anna's friend and Mark-hater Marge, falling on her ass like a Three Stooges bit. And there's the climax, parodying action movies with its woozy cocktail of car chase, shootout and explosions, which leads a headlong rush into the film's apocalyptic final moments.

[monochrome-in-madness]

╔══��═════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

My Top 10 Favourite Horrors

Within this top 10 list, some will include the prequels, sequels and any other follow ups as 1 ranking number. Some may be considered thriller, sci-fi, suspence etc, however, I do regard these as horrors myself.

I have take many aspects into account, such as videography, actor quality, SFX makeup quality, soundtrack, directors, CGI etc.

Note : this is my personal opinion. You do not have to agree with it, though if you haven't seen these, I highly reccomend them.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

1. The Conjuring

(1 & 2)

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

The Conjuring 1 :

The Perron family moves into a farmhouse where they experience paranormal phenomena. They consult demonologists, Ed and Lorraine Warren, to help them get rid of the evil entity haunting them.

The Conjuring Trailer :

The Conjuring 2 :

Peggy, a single mother of four children, seeks the help of occult investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren when she and her children witness strange, paranormal events in their house

The Conjuring 2 Trailer :

My Opinion :

The Conjuring was the start of an incredible series of horrors that beat any other horror to the ground. It is absolutely fantastic and I basically worship these films. James Wan is my favourite director and he never ceases to amaze me.

Paranormal horror is my favourite and as someone who actually believes in the paranormal and who has had paranormal experiences, I can confirm that The Conjuring is much more realistic than any other paranormal films, which just makes it extra spooky.

The actors, camera angles, music, sfx makeup and storyline is just - chefs kiss -. I've been waiting for the 3rd one for so long, but they keep extending the release date. (R. I. P)

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

2. Annabelle

(all of them)

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

Annabelle :

John and Mia Form are attacked by a Satan worshipping couple, who uses their doll as a conduit to make their life miserable. This unleashes a string of paranormal events in the Forms' residence.

Annabelle Trailer :

Annabelle Creation :

Samuel and Elle embed their daughter's spirit into a doll, only to realise it is a demon. Years later, they open their home to a nun and six orphan girls, one of whom finds the doll.

Annabelle Creation Trailer :

Annabelle Comes Home :

Judy and her babysitter are left alone in her house after her parents leave to investigate a case. However, an unexpected guest sets Annabelle free, unleashing demonic activity in the house.

Annabelle Comes Home Trailer :

My Opinion :

Another great film series that was birthed form The Conjuring. Definitely less realistic, with many more jumpscares and spooky characters, which is appreciated in the horror world. Many people find dolls far more creepy than ghosts, myself included, so that's another perfect aspect that adds to the suspense.

I prefer Annabelle 3 over the others, mainly because I found that one to be more scary overall, even though Daniela is an idiot and she makes me so frustrated 😂

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

3. Saw

(all of them)

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

For the totally unindoctrinated, the Saw movie franchise revolves around the Jigsaw Killer (a.k.a. John Kramer), who tortures victims he believes are complacent or guilty, in order to make them appreciate their time on Earth.

All Saw Trailers :

Obviously I'm not going to list every Saw movie, because there are 7 (Jigsaw aka number 8, does NOT count. It is a disgrace).

My Opinion :

A classic for horror and gore lovers of all kinds. Of course I need to list this as number 3. I simply adore these movies. I even have the DVD set, so I am definitely a long term fan haha.

The obstacles and creativity regarding Saw as a whole needed a lot of thought put into it, plus it has a happy little side note of "make sure you don't cause harm to others in life and don't take anything for granted" which some may have not even noticed while being overwhelmed by the amount of fake blood.

Yes, a lot of characters are annoying, but that just makes us enjoy seeing them tortured even more (shh it's not real). Some of the blood doesn't look very realistic, the sfx can lack attention, BUT... It's still great and I can overlook these few flaws to appreciate the movies to the max.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

4. Blair Witch

(2016)

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀 ⦁ ════════╗

A young man and his friends venture into the Black Hills Forest in Maryland to uncover the mystery surrounding his missing sister. Many believe her disappearance 17 years earlier is connected to the legend of the Blair Witch.

At first the group is hopeful, especially when two locals act as guides through the dark and winding woods. As the night wears on, a visit from a menacing presence soon makes them realize that the legend is all too real, and more sinister than they could have ever imagined.

Blair Witch Trailer :

My Opinion :

I love the camerawork. Not because it's perfect, because it's the opposite. It's a documentary style and this makes it feel more realistic, as if you are within the film yourself. I enjoy how they skip to the action at just the right time after a mild buildup.

The visuals are great as well and there were definitely some parts where I was disgusted and claustrophobic, which is good to experience while enjoying these types of films.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

5. Under The Skin

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

Disguising itself as a human female, an extraterrestrial drives around Scotland attempting to lure unsuspecting men into her van. Once there, she seduces and sends them into another dimension where they are nothing more than meat.

Under The Skin Trailer :

My Opinion :

I would classify this as horror, but many won't. Either way, this is an amazingly artistic film with beautiful imagery and silent awe. It definitely makes you feel the suspense in a calming manner and it has some really dark moments. Without reading the description, one might be confused as to what is going on, but how art is supposed to be interpretated is by the imagination of individuals.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

6. Veronica

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

During a solar eclipse, young Verónica and her friends want to summon the spirit of Verónica's father using an Ouija board. However, during the session she loses consciousness and soon it becomes clear that evil demons have arrived.

Veronica Trailer :

My Opinion :

A Spanish masterpiece, to put it simply. It's hard to find proper horrors like this in English. I really enjoyed this one and I watched it subbed not dubbed, because I feel like voiceovers tend to ruin the art of the original film. The buildup is perfect and unlike many horrors, it barely shows you the face of the "monster". That leaves it to the imagination, which in general makes it far more scary.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

7. Underwater

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

Disaster strikes more than six miles below the ocean surface when water crashes through the walls of a drilling station. Led by their captain, the survivors realize that their only hope is to walk across the sea floor to reach the main part of the facility. But they soon find themselves in a fight for their lives when they come under attack from mysterious and deadly creatures that no one has ever seen.

Underwater Trailer :

My Opinion :

This movie was released quite recently and I didn't know what to expect. I was definitely blown away by how good it was. Being trapped underwater gives most people a sense of anxiety. Add being trapped underwater and being hunted by creepy sea monsters and you've got yourself a good horror. Kristen Stewarts general anxious personality definitely suits this film well.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

8. Split

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

Kevin, who is suffering from dissociative identity disorder and has 23 alter egos, kidnaps three teenagers. They must figure out his friendly personas before he unleashes his 24th personality.

Split Trailer :

https://youtu.be/84TouqfIsiI

My Opinion :

An incredible film with phenomenal acting on the part of James McAvoy. You can get lost within his character and almost feel as if you are the character itself. Suspense is built up slowly and the climax of the film is released rapidly. People I know who do not enjoy horror, love this film themselves, which is saying something. It's definitely one of the best modern films that draws you in from the start. 

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

9. A Quiet Place

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

A family struggles for survival in a world where most humans have been killed by blind but noise-sensitive creatures. They are forced to communicate in sign language to keep the creatures at bay.

A Quiet Place Trailer :

https://youtu.be/WR7cc5t7tv8

My Opinion :

As you can tell by now, I love anything alien related. This film has some of the most amazing looking aliens I've seen, I was honestly in awe by how great they looked. Another silent film, but in a different sense to the previous one. Instead of being the hunter, this family is being hunted and this adds more to the fear factor.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

10. Unfriended - Dark Web

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

When a teen finds a laptop with a cache of hidden files, he and his friend discover that the previous owner has access to the dark web and is watching over them.

Unfriended - Dark Web Trailer :

https://youtu.be/XenTM_C9fxM

My Opinion :

A modern take on horror. Involving the actual dangers of the dark web and the use of technology and turning it into a horror was a magnificent idea. It definitely had me at the edge of my seat.

Due to another film type that is not often explored (thus being that most of the movie is equal to what it would be like to look at your computer and video chat), it makes it different and therefore more compelling than the usual videography styles.

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

⦁

⦁

⦁

╔════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╗

Thank you for reading, if you've made it this far! Feel free to share your top 10 in the comment section, I am definitely interested in your opinions and finding new movies to watch myself. Any questions are also welcome.

Until next time, take care and stay spooky!

╚════════ ⦁💀⦁ ════════╝

[silverinia]

I came for Baranski, I stayed for Baranski - a quick Christmas On The Square review someone* actually asked for

(* thank you, anon)

Disclaimer: I am in no way a professional of any sorts when it comes to film and I'm not a journalist either. The last movie review I've written was probably for a school assignment in eighth grade. I didn't do research for this and I've watched the movie exactly one time, so this is just for fun.

It was a Sunday, Sunday the 22nd of November, nearing the end of the train wreck of a year that is 2020. I woke up on an air mattress around seven am, my head aching, my throat itching with pyrosis and light nausea, it was still dark outside behind the closed blinds in front of the windows, when I slowly realised where I was, one of my best girlfriends sleeping next to me in her bed. I had crashed at her place after a warm, fuzzy evening of mulled wine, tacky Christmas movies I would never watch alone (Christmas Chronicles and Holiday Calendar, which I quite honestly didn't enjoy at all, but the company made it fun anyway), doing our nails, wearing the fun kind of face masks for a change and smoking too many cigarettes, as the soft pain in my head informed me right now. She woke up an hour later and the morning went by with coffee and reheated pizza for breakfast, when we decided to watch another movie and I realised that it was THE Sunday I'd been waiting for through Zoom interviews and Dolly Parton twitter memes and the infamous wig gate that will be briefly discussed in the following, and so we clicked on the small icon in the Netflix menu that said "Christmas On The Square".

And oh boy, was it a ride.

To start off, I should mention that I have a hard time watching most modern day American Christmas movies, as I noticed quite vividly again when I watched the two aforementioned Netflix productions last night. The character development is always foreseeable to say the least, the plot lines are plain clichés hunting each other like they're the kids in The Hunger Games, and the writing is generally so bad that you can join the actors in reciting the entire scripts on your first watch. I watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas once a year while I'm gift wrapping and pause every fifteen minutes to shamelessly stare at forties Christine Baranski (I think we should all turn away from the birth of Jesus and instead count our years based on Christine Baranski's date of birth) in flamboyant nightgowns and short Christmas themed dresses, looking so fabulous that every interpreter of Santa Baby ever could only dream of it, I watch Love Actually at least five times a year to lust over Hugh Grant, cry with Emma Thompson and miss Alan Rickman, I enjoy Bridget Jones, which I would definitely consider a Christmas movie, and that's it. That's my yearly Christmas time entertainment routine and I can barely tolerate anything beyond, because I'm still traumatised from the time when I was around five years old and on a holiday family visit where had to sit through National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, the dumbest movie I have ever seen (my apologies if you like it but also, who hurt you?), with my cousins. I hated it. I hated every minute of it. And it scarred me for life.

But this was a Christine Baranski movie, I knew she was going to play the lead and so I was pretty much as excited about this as I could. And the fact that Dolly Parton wrote the whole thing didn't hurt either. As I said earlier to my friend I was watching it with, I have the pop cultural taste of a fifty year old gay man, a quality I am most proud of, and this simply ticked off all my boxes.

I expected something similar to a Mamma Mia experience that wouldn't cause me to crave packing my bags, give Covid the finger and run off to Greece. Light-hearted entertainment, easy to stomach, uplifting music and so little plot that the simplicity feels like a creative choice. That's what my pained, hungover brain knew it could cope with and that's not what I got.

The movie started and I was immediately in the zone. I saw Christine Baranski's name in the front credits (an experience that never fails to make me scream "Yass Queen" at the screen, regardless of where I am and who I'm with, as if I'm the sobering result that pops out of the package when you order Jonathan Van Ness on Wish), the setting was wonderfully corny (I grew up watching Gilmore Girls once a week, so give me warm fairy lights and a gazebo and I'm perfectly happy) and as my friend wondered whether Dolly Parton, in her exaggerated homeless attire that didn't make her look shabby at all, was green-screened into the setting because she stood out so much (which she was because the background dancers were dancing in slow motion, but to be fair, we were probably still a little too drunk to notice that from the start) and I told her I thought that it was just the natural glow someone who's Dolly Parton simply carries with them everywhere they go, I was happy. This was the movie I was prepared for. A movie in which the most problematic thing would be stereotypical characters and the wig they hid Christine's real, flawlessly handmade by God herself hair under.

And then, around five minutes in, Christine Baranski's childhood love interest was revealed as she pressed her perfect pointy nose against the window of his shop and sang about her unrequited love.

And suddenly, things started taking turns at a pace I was still way too sleep-deprived for.

Suddenly, in the middle of my general amazement at seeing Christine Baranski do literally anything and laughing loud at her impeccable comedic delivery, there were unresolved daddy issues, hanging prominently at the wall in her marvellously designed house (she literally says "Daddy" at one point and I couldn't help but think that only someone with her vocal skills could keep from making it sound cringe-worthily kinky). One moment, I was clutching my chest above my heart while she was bonding with little bartender Violet and munching on pretzels while downing some whiskey in that elegant way only Christine Baranski can bond with ten year olds who had it rough, eat pretzels and down whiskey, and the next she felt responsible for said girl's mother's death (which she kinda was too, but I'm not the boss of her). I was still busy making fun of how the very annoyingly, but when you're snacking on pizza with extra cheese at nine in the morning also highly funny, slow talking pastor's name was Christian, and suddenly there was a cancer scare.

It was a lot, a hasty sprint from major issue to major issue with a hint of comedic relief every now and then, and it didn't get any less until the very, rather poorly resolved, end.

The entire, constant up and down was followed by the movie's peak of suspense, the near death of precious Violet, something I couldn't even get too invested in because I was still so busy worrying about Christine's MRT results (I was truly fucking worried), not to mention that I hadn't even started to really process the sudden revelation of the love child and how it had affected her character's actions until this point. Was her constant tendency of pushing people away, as we've seen most clearly with her angel in training assistant who's name I cannot recall right now, the result of her broken trust in her father who practically ripped her son away from her after she had just given birth to him? Was it a result of her never getting the closure she needed with plaid flannel wearing Carl she was clearly still in love with? Maybe both? And what of the many issues was it that made her so incredibly shaken up when Violet blamed herself for her mother's death? Was it 'just' due to the fact that the closed pharmacy was on her, or was there more to it? Was it because she had grown up without a mother herself? Or did I miss a major piece of information because I was momentarily distracted, dumbfoundedly staring at Christine's very blue eyes? No time to ponder on that, little Silverinia, because here comes unconscious Violet in an ambulance, WEE WOO WEE WOO WEE WOO!

I'm not going to go in depth about what plot lines I thought were especially carelessly handled and why, real standouts were the sudden forgiveness towards her father who had still acted like a shitty asshole even though he might have had his reasons, because giving the baby up for adoption just wasn't his choice to make, and the fact that I kind of didn't buy how quickly Regina managed to forgive herself, especially for Violet's mother's passing, considering how deeply her tall, slim, dare I say angelic and entrancing figure was buried beneath the weight of all her issues. It felt rushed and incomplete, but that's as detailed as it gets because my major point is something else.

I think this movie made the great mistake of trying to be more than your average, flat, happy ending Christmas movie. I think no one involved thought it was possible to make it a big hit if the only real plot would've been great Dolly Parton music, fun ensemble dance choreographies, Christine Baranski's outstanding acting skills, fun settings and costumes and a redemption arch with as little plot as it could possibly take to make Christine likable to those who aren't already lost forever in the rabbit hole of being obsessed with her (poor fuckers, can't relate). They didn't notice that with the legends that were involved, they could've easily gone the Mamma Mia way. And I think that's why they tried to include heavier plot lines than most creators would've chosen, experiencing loss at an early age, struggling to find closure, dealing with sickness, teenage pregnancy, parents forcing their choices on their children when they affect their childrens' lives first, adoption, and the fear of losing your kid.

It was a lot and I don't want to say that it didn't work because my friend was crying, like, pretty hard and I questioned my entire existence all through the movie in not the worst way, and I did enjoy it a lot while watching. The "grief is love with nowhere to go" line was a real standout, for example, where the attempt of complexity DID work. It positively gave me fleabag season two, "I don't know what to do with it now, with all the love I have for her." - "I'll take it. It sounds lovely. You have to give it to me." feels, and that's about the biggest praise I can come up with. BUT (and this is written in capital letters because it's the big but) I'm also totally convinced that I wouldn't have enjoyed it if they hadn't cast Christine Baranski for the lead role. In my humble opinion, the hasty, not really at all resolved plot of this movie only worked because Christine Baranski is just a fantastic actress. She quirks a mocking eyebrow and you laugh. She parts her perfectly painted red lips and you immediately hang on them because you don't want to miss a single breath she, a literal goddess, graces us mere peasants of people with. She smiles and you're happy. She laughs and even while she's still laughing, you can't wait to hear her do it again. Her eyes fill with tears and you feel goosebumps on your arms, her voice slightly trembles, a breath hitches in her throat and you feel your heart shattering to pieces. As Chuck Lorre once said, this woman could read you the phone book and you would end up laughing tears because she just gets the job done. She knows what she's doing, she's an absolute pro in her game, and it doesn't matter, not even a little bit, what she's working with, because the work she eventually delivers with it is always at a minimum of 200%. I forced my friend to watch this movie with me because I adore this woman, and I felt for this movie because I felt for her. It wasn't the plot that sadly brutally overestimated itself, it wasn't the songs that I obviously enjoyed, nor the comedic elements that truly made me laugh a lot, it was all her. I came for Baranski, and I stayed for Baranski. This woman can do anything. She can even look graceful in a terrible wig job.

(side note / unpopular opinion: I actually didn't think the wig was all too bad. It wasn't good, actually far from good, but for me, nothing can match the awful wig game of Mamma Mia 2. I loathed that wig, I absolutely cannot stand it. So this didn't feel all that terrible. It definitely wasn't the most problematic part about the movie.)

I enjoyed watching this. It was a nice distraction from all the bullshit in the world. Watching it today was the first thing this year that actually brought me something close to excitement about the holiday season, even though everything will be very different and probably not quite as jolly this year. But it just gave me good vibes and as someone who did not watch this as a film reviewer, that's the biggest part of what leads me to enjoy a movie.

Will I watch this again? For sure. Will I enjoy it when I'm not hungover, having freshly done nails and munching delicious pizza for breakfast? Probably not as much, but it'll still have Christine Baranski in it. Would I recommend watching this? If you share my obsession with Queen B, one hundo. If you don't, probably not.

[harry-leroy]

OK. I've got to ask--Henry VI? I think you're the first person I've met who claims those as their favorite Shakespeare. I'll admit that I've read and seen a fair bit of Shakespeare, but I'm not familiar with them at all. What's the appeal? Why do you love them? Sell them to me. ;)

Oh boy, here we go :))))) (Thank you for giving me permission to scream - I also think I’m the only person I’ve ever met who has those as their favorite Shakespeare plays). Also, as we’ve talked opera - I think these plays could make a great Wagnerian style opera cycle. 

First off, little disclaimer: I’m not a medievalist, so I can’t say that I’ve definitely got the best interpretation of the Wars of the Roses and the history that the H6 cycle covers. I know I do not - so you may read these plays and have totally different interpretations, and that’s great! This will kind of be how I came to love the plays and why they were (and still are) exciting for me to read. 

I will admit, these plays are a bit of a minefield (as my Shakespeare professor said during a lecture on the histories and I don’t think I’ll ever forget that descriptor). Some of these scenes are not as well written, and many of them are almost irrelevant to telling a tight-knit story, so things get cut. Sometimes 1H6 is just cut entirely from productions, and I might venture to say that it is probably the least performed Shakespeare play. We get lines like “O, were mine eyeballs into bullets turn’d, / That I in a rage might shoot them at your faces” (1H6.4.4.79-80), which I might say is nearly on par with “a little touch of Harry in the night” from Henry V. But despite the unevenness, there is so much from these plays that are meaningful, heartbreaking, and that continue to fascinate me. There’s so much about power and leadership that we can learn from these plays - and perhaps that’s why I took an interest in 1990s British politics because there are actually some very interesting similarities happening - but also a lot we can learn about empathy, hope, and love. 

These plays have a lot of fascinating key players - it would honestly be a privilege to play any of them - and most (if not all) of these key players have some claim to power, just in the family lines they were born into. And this conflict is one that’s been building up since Richard II. With the Wars of the Roses we have a man who is unwilling, and sometimes unable to lead because of various circumstances, some of which having to do with his mental health, which was generally poor, and some of which have to do with the various times he was dethroned, captured, etc. - and I say unable for lack of a better word. Essentially, politics in these plays are caving in, and at a very rapid pace. There’s a hole at the center of government and people are ambitious to fill it. We also have a lot of people who could potentially fill that role, people who on principle, have a lot of political enemies. The nobles in these plays are having to assure that they themselves are in power or that their ally is in power, otherwise it is their livelihood at stake. 

We have Henry VI, who was made king at nine months old after the untimely death of his father, the famous Henry V, and basically has people swarming him since birth claiming that they’re working in his best interest. He’s a bit of a self-preservationist to start, but by the end we see a man completely transformed by the horrors of war and ruthless politics. I also think he might be the only Shakespeare character who gets his entire life played out on stage. We see him at every stage of his life, which makes his descent all the more bitter. (One cannot help but see the broken man he is at forty-nine and be forced to remember the spritely, kind boy he was at ten). He’s a man who clings closely to God in an environment where God seems to be absent. He desires peace, if nothing else, and he wants to achieve this by talking things through. He’s an excellent orator (one only needs to look at the “Ay Margaret; my heart is drown’d with grief” monologue from 2H6, but there are countless other examples), but there’s a point where even he realizes that his talking will achieve nothing, and his alternative is heartbreaking. 

We have his wife, Queen Margaret, otherwise known as Margaret of Anjou, or the “she-wolf of France”. I advertise her as “if you like Lady Macbeth, you’ll love Margaret of Anjou”. Sometimes Shakespeare can portray her as wanting power for herself, but I genuinely think she wanted a good life for her husband and her child, otherwise the alternative is begging at her uncle’s feet for protection in France (her uncle was Charles VII of France) while separated from her husband, having her or a member of her immediate family be killed, or worse. I think it’s important to remember with Margaret that historically she came from a family where women took power if their husbands were unable to. Her assumption of power in these plays is something that’s natural to her, even if it’s not reflected very well in Shakespeare’s language. You also see some fantastically thrilling monologues from Margaret as well, especially her molehill speech (one of two molehill speeches in 3H6, totally different in nature - the other one is from a heartbroken and forlorn Henry after the Battle of Towton) - Margaret’s monologue has got the energy of a hungry cat holding a mouse by the tail. 

Also Henry and Margaret have a fascinating relationship. Because they’re so different in how they resolve conflicts, they grow somewhat disenchanted with each other at times, and can actually be mean to one another, despite their love. My favorite scene might be at the start of 3H6, where Margaret has come in with their seven year old son, Edward, and starts berating Henry for giving the line of succession to the Yorkists. What strikes me there is that we have a little boy having to choose between staying with his mom, or going with his dad - it’s something very domestic, and I think the emotional accessibility of that scene is what makes it memorable. It’s not about politics for me at that moment, it’s about a boy having to choose between his very estranged parents. Here’s a little taste from 1.1. in 3H6 - lines 255-261: 

QUEEN MARGARET: Come son, let’s away. / Our army is ready; come, we’ll after them. 

KING HENRY: Stay, gentle Margaret, and hear me speak. 

QUEEN MARGARET: Thou hast spoke too much already. Get thee gone. 

KING HENRY: Gentle son Edward, thou wilt stay with me? 

QUEEN MARGARET: Ay, to be murdered by his enemies. 

We also have Richard, Duke of York, who is Henry’s cousin and leader of the Yorkist faction. If you’re at all familiar with 1990s British politics, as I have grown close to over the past month, York reminds me very much of Michael Heseltine (filthy rich and constantly vying for power) - and I would love to stage some kind of modern H6 cycle production just so I could make that connection. York’s father is one of the three traitors executed by Henry V at the start of H5, leaving him an orphan at four years old (historically). He is also Aumerle’s (from R2) nephew, and so when Aumerle dies at the Battle of Agincourt, little four year old Richard inherits both his father’s money and titles, and his uncle’s money and titles, making him the second richest nobleman in England behind the King. All this information is historical and doesn’t really show up in the play, but I think that kind of background would give a man some entitlement. He’s also next in line for the throne if something were to happen to Henry (until Henry has a son), so he feels it is his duty as heir to the throne to protect Henry (or in better words, he feels that he should be running the show) - Margaret feels that it is her duty to protect Henry as she is his wife and mother of Edward of Westminster, the Lancastrian heir, and so you can see where these two are going to disagree. 

More fascinating are York’s sons, Edward, George, and Richard. Edward is this (for lack of better words) “hip” eighteen year old who comes and shreds things up at the Battle of Towton - becoming Edward IV in the process and chasing Henry off the throne. He is incredibly problematic, but I might venture to say that he’s the least problematic of the trio of York brothers. George of Clarence is (also for lack of better words) “a hot mess” and feels entitled to power, even though he may not readily give his motivations for it. I think he just wants it, and so he actually ends up switching sides mid-3H6 because he would actually be in a better position in government with those new allies. And finally, we have Richard of Gloucester (future Richard III), and in 3H6, you just get to see him sparkle. It puzzles me a bit how people can just jump into Richard III without getting any of the lead up that Shakespeare gave in the H6 cycle, and I think 3H6 is the perfect play to see that. I think it clears up a lot of his motivation, which Shakespeare didn’t get perfectly either, because there are some ableist things going on with these plays. He’s just as bloodthirsty, just as cynical, but in this play, he wins out the day. 

These are just a few of the main characters. We’ve also got Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (known to history as “The Kingmaker”), who is this incredibly powerful nobleman who is wicked skilled in battle and seems to have a lot of luck in that area (until he doesn’t). We’ve got Clifford, who is just as bloodthirsty as Richard III (if not more so). We’ve also got Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester - Henry’s uncle and quite unpopular with his fellow noblemen, and Eleanor Cobham, his wife who gets caught in the act of witchcraft. (Talk to my lovely friend @nuingiliath if you want to hear about Humphrey or Eleanor). Joan of Arc also makes an appearance in 1H6, and often she’s the only reason that 1H6 gets performed. 

There are so many ways to latch onto this cycle, and it can be for the huge arcs that these characters go on, or it can be for the very small reasons, like in the first scene of 3H6, like I mentioned earlier. It’s very much akin to Titus Andronicus in the language (I did a bit of research a while ago about the use of animal-focused language in Shakespeare’s plays, and the H6 cycle and Titus Andronicus lead the charts just in terms of frequency of people being referred to metaphorically as animals- they’re also chronological neighbors, all written very early in Shakespeare’s career). Also, these plays held a huge amount of weight at the time they were written - the effects of the Wars of the Roses were still pressing over the political climate of the 1590s. 

I think these plays are great to read just in being able to contextualize the histories as a whole - you get to know how things fared after Henry V (spoiler: not well), and you also get the lead up to Richard III. The ghosts in Richard’s dream make sense after reading the H6 cycle - because those ghosts lived in the H6 cycle, and (spoiler: Richard wronged them in the H6 cycle). They were also the first of Shakespeare’s history plays, so you read subsequent histories plays that make subtle references to the H6 cycle, and I think you can take so much more out of the rest of the histories plays once you’ve read these. 

I hope this was a little informative, and perhaps persuaded you to check them out! 

Productions I recommend (you can click on the bold titles and it’ll take you to where you can access these productions): 

Shakespeare’s Globe at Barnet (2013) // Graham Butler (Henry VI), Mary Doherty (Margaret of Anjou), Brendan O’Hea (Richard, Duke of York), Simon Harrison (Richard of Gloucester) - filmed at Barnet, location of the Battle of Barnet, where Warwick was killed in 1471. 

ESC Production (1990) // Paul Brennen (Henry VI), June Watson (Margaret of Anjou), Barry Stanton (Richard, Duke of York), Andrew Jarvis (Richard of Gloucester) - a more modern production, one cast put together all seven major Plantagenet history plays (1H6 and 2H6 are combined into one play - a normal practice). Sometimes this footage can be a bit fuzzy, but I loved this production. 

The Hollow Crown Season 2 // Tom Sturridge (Henry VI), Sophie Okonedo (Margaret of Anjou), Adrian Dunbar (Richard, Duke of York), Benedict Cumberbatch (Richard of Gloucester) - done in a film-like style, also with some pretty big name actors as you can see. Season 1 stars Ben Whishaw as Richard II, Jeremy Irons as Henry IV, Simon Russell Beale as Falstaff, and Tom Hiddleston as Hal/Henry V. (also available on iTunes) 

RSC Wars of the Roses (1965) // David Warner (Henry VI), Peggy Ashcroft (Margaret of Anjou), Donald Sinden (Richard, Duke of York), Ian Holm (Richard of Gloucester) - black and white film, done in parts on YouTube. 

BBC Henry VI Plays (1983) // Peter Benson (Henry VI), Julia Foster (Margaret of Anjou), Bernard Hill (Richard, Duke of York), Ron Cook (Richard of Gloucester) - features my favorite filmed performance of Edward IV (played by Brian Protheroe), and my favorite filmed performance of Warwick (played by Mark Wing-Davey). 

Also if you ever get to see Rosa Joshi’s production of an all female H6 cycle... *like every time I see photos my immediate reaction is *heart eyes* I haven’t seen it yet, but my amazing friend and fellow Shakespearean @princess-of-france has - I’m sure she’d love to talk more about it sometime! I’ll leave a picture I found on the internet... 

Also tagging @suits-of-woe because we could cry about these plays all day. 

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Hello! I'm pretty sure I saw you mention a while ago that you were disappointed by confessions of the fox, would you mind explaining why? I've seen mostly good things about it myself. If I misremembered then I'm sorry and I hope you have a good day :))

I think this is one of my less popular opinions. And I understand - we so rarely get historical fiction with trans folk as the titular character (indeed, we rarely get any fiction what that). So I get people’s desire to laud it. 

For me though? It fundamentally didn’t work as a book. As a story.  

Let me count the ways. (Apologies in advance for the length of this.)

First: If you’re trans-ing someone who was historically cis instead of seeking to find a real, historical trans or gender-nonconforming person, I have questions. 

Most of the questions can be summed up as: Why? 

I struggle with historical fiction that takes a cis person and re-imagines them as trans as if there aren’t already literal historical, real trans people out there whose stories can be told. It smacks as (unintended, well meaning) erasure of lived experiences. 

Jack Sheppard, to the best of our knowledge, was a cis dude. There were trans folk in London in the 1710s and ‘20s. You might have to dig a bit for them, but they’re there. Because trans folk have always been there. 

Second: Characterisation 

This is more personal taste, but I found Jack and his girlfriend Bess to be inexcusably boring. How a trans, thief and gaolbreaker in 1720s gin-soaked London can be written as boring is anyone’s guess. But he was. 

Jack had no real personality and I found his story to be uninteresting. Oh, he’s the world’s best thief and gaolbreaker, that’s nice. But on its own it isn’t enough.

He had few to no faults. Childhood trauma isn’t a personality. Nor is being trans. And the author relies heavily on gender + occupation (thief-ness) to equal personality. So it falls very flat.  

Bess, his girlfriend, is a mixed-race sex worker from the Fens (even though actual real-Bess was from Edgeware). She seems to only exist to demonstrate that Jack is good at sex. She also veers a little into the Mystical Woman of Colour Healer Who Aids The White Person on their Journey of Self Discovery trope. 

Neither Bess nor Jack undergo any real change in the book. They exist in a weird stasis and experience no development, despite living through some harrowing things. They’re wooden dolls who move through the story without really engaging with, or being influenced by, the things around them. 

The other “main” character is a modern Academic who “found” this supposed “manuscript” of Jack’s life and is annotating it. His story unfolds in the foot notes and it’s just so messy if not a bit contrived. It didn’t make sense. I think the author was trying to convey that the Academic was in a sort of dystopian future, but if that’s the case it didn’t work. And if that’s not the case, the entire inclusion of the Academic’s story served only to annoy and take me out of the reading experience. 

E.g. There’s a scene where the Academic is being taken to task by the Dean for playing stupid games on his phone during office hours and like honey, lapsed-historian/academic here, trust me the Dean doesn’t give a fuck what you do during your office hours so long as you’re in your office and students can come bother you about their poor marks. 

The manuscript is supposedly being sought after by this pharmaceutical company for nefarious reasons that never struck me as being entirely realistic/believable. Also, the university was spying on this non-tenured, slightly useless Academic as if he somehow mattered? Which made zero sense. Anyway, it was stupid and should have been ripped out of the final version. OR changed substantially. 

Jonathan Wild, the thief taker (main antagonist to Jack), is probably the only interesting person. 

Third: Lack of Follow Through, or, the Fabulism Was Not Used Well 

The book tries to blend in some fabulism to the world by giving Jack the ability to “hear” the thoughts of inanimate objects. This could have been fun and gone to some interesting places, but it failed to deliver. 

I personally found the shoe-horning in of “capitalism commodifies everything” to be sloppy and heavy handed. It was done with little grace and didn’t sit right given that we are dealing with the early modern period. Yes, you can use the past to critique our modern woes, but do it intelligently. Don’t slap modern points of view and understandings of things onto the past and expect them to make sense. 

Anyway, Jack spends the book hearing inanimate objects talk to him, asking him to “free” them, or something. And uh .. .it doesn’t go anywhere interesting after that. 

Also the correlation one can draw from these objects to, you know, slaves, is uncomfortable. Especially as it’s the cargo of the EIC ships that Jack hears. I don’t think it’s intended in any sort of malicious way, but the allusion is there and I always found it to be distinctly uncomfortable. 

Fourth: Misuse of Marxist Theory, or, More Heavy Handed Moralizing that Annoyed the Dear Reader because it wasn’t subtle and, more importantly, it wasn’t done intelligently. 

So, the author is an academic - studies 18th century lit. Which is readily apparent as his Academic (self-insert) character is, I believe, supposed to be a historian and uh ... you can tell that the author doesn’t know enough to wing that. E.g. How he interprets some of the laws and customs of the time. Instead of understanding the social, economic and, most importantly, environmental issues that gave birth to laws like “the corporation of the city of London owns the streets so you can’t muckrake” he chooses to understand them through a very 21st century lens (and a Marxist one at that. I know I’m perhaps a bit uncool for this, but I find the application of Marxist theory to the early modern period to be ... not useful). 

Do you know why, mid/late 17th century London passed these municipal laws? Because of the god damn fucking plague you numb nut. You absolute buffoon. It had nothing to do with “oh the City/government is evil and wants to own you” it had to do with the fact that no one cleaned the goddamn street. So the city took over doing it. 

Prior to this, in London, you were supposed to keep the street in front of your building clear of waste, debris, refuse etc. No one did this, of course. I live where it’s cold and snows a lot and people can barely shovel the 2 sq ft of sidewalk in front of their driveway in the winter. I dread the idea of an average homeowner being expected to keep the street clear and clean. 

Anyway, guess what dirty streets attract? Vermin. Guess what comes with vermin? Plague. Guess what happened in 1665/66? The great plague of London! 

17th century England might not have understood germ theory, but they did understand correlation. (Also, the population of London was doubling at the back half of the 17th century and streets needed to be reliably cleared for through-traffic reasons etc. etc.) 

ugh, sorry, that one in particular drove me up the wall. Not everything is a capitalist conspiracy. Especially when we’re talking about municipal by-laws from the 17th century. 

And I understand the temptation to read a lot of modern interpretation of words like “corporation” and “company” onto bodies that used these same words in 17th and 18th centuries. But the weight, meaning and connotation of “the worshipful company of merchant adventurers” is different from, I don’t know, “the tech company google” or whatever. The early 18th century is when we start seeing the birth of the stock market, of “venture companies” (i.e. merchant adventure companies), of a lot of the language and proto-iterations of what will grow to be economic institutions of our time. But it doesn’t mean they’re the same and that difference is important. Because Jack Sheppard is a man living in 1720 he’s not going to be having our modern 21st century critiques of capitalism because his engagement with the economic systems of his time would have been radically different to our own experiences. 

Fifth:  Unbelievable Top Surgery & Recovery 

So, Jack gets top surgery. In 1720s fever-ridden London. While quarantining in a brothel. 

And he lived! No infection! No tearing! He was up and about in a matter of days. I don’t remember if his nipples survived the operation or not but somehow Jack did. Without anesthetics! Or you know, any concept of hygiene. 

His Mystical Girlfriend Who Exists to Show How Good Jack is at Sex is also somehow Magically Very Literate and also Magically a Surgeon? and performs this surgery on Jack in the middle of a plague. 

The entire ordeal was so poorly handled in terms of believability that I literally set the book down and said “what the fucking fuck” to the empty room then drank wine before finishing the chapter. 

An aside, it is funny thinking about the quarantine chapters at this point. I read COTF when it first came out a few years ago. Sweet summer children, we none of us had any idea how to write quarantine scenes. 

That reminds me: the entire quarantine thing was presented as the government trying to control movement and take away people’s rights etc. instead of a very normal, typical response that cities had been enacting since 1350. Samuel Pepys, who lived through the 1665/66 epidemic, barely even notes the restrictions. He’s like just “hmmm I’d love to go to the pub but I also don’t want to die. so. *shrug*” 

At the time of the author’s writing, most of us in the western world had no idea how normal and day-to-day disease was for our ancestors and yes, sometimes there would be crackdowns to try and curb it if an epidemic hit. That was part and parcel of life. So again, Jack and Bess wouldn’t be like “ooooh we’re 21st century slightly libertarian lefitsts who think the government is doing this to control us and for nefarious purposes”. Much more likely, they would have been like Pepys and viewed it as nuisance, albeit a necessary one. 

Sixth: Overall Lack of Realism 

I think I’ve noted the big moments where I was like “no one in the early 18th century would think that I’m pretty certain”. This isn’t to say people didn’t grouse, complain about London government (and the king etc.), critique or question the world they lived in. They absolutely did! Regularly. With great verve and gusto, if the broadsheets are anything to go by. But their critiques, their complaints, suggestions for bettering life, are not the same as ours. Because how could they be? They lived in a different world, were responding to specific things, grew up hearing and believing certain things etc. 

Jack, aside from having minimal to no character, really did read like a modern slightly-libertarian leftist who was plunked into a novel that takes place three hundred years ago. 

In addition to unrealistic political views, his understanding of body, gender, sexuality and identity also read as incredibly modern. Now this is harder, because we have so few extant sources from that time on those who lived non-gender conforming lives, and from their point of view, so yes creative imagining and interpretation is the rule of the day for writing that. 

But, we do know how in general the average person engaged and understood gender and sexuality and that would, naturally, inform anyone whose experience was different. And that base line of “probably what a typical cis Englishman or woman felt about their body and identity” wasn’t present. At all. 

Indeed, gender engagement at that time was interesting. The concept of the body, the role of the physical body, how it was interpreted is absolutely fascinating and the author could have done some really cool things with that. But he didn’t. He went for slapping a modern interpretation onto the past. 

At this point, write a dystopian novel and make Jack a fictional character. That probably would have gone over better, for me at least. The conceit can remain the same: It’s the year 4056 and an Academic found a manuscript from the year 3045 when the Dystopia Was a Thing - and go from there. 

--- 

I think part of what made this very popular and why people seem so taken with it is that it reads smart. It reads like someone who has immersed themselves in that world etc. because of the slang and language used. 

Yet, for me, as someone who has studied this period extensively, especially queerness in London in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, it read flat and unrealistic. 

I was initially very enthused when I started it. There are some posts to that effect on my blog. But it very quickly went south. It tries very hard to be Radical and Smart and Subversive and Critiquing Everything and so I think it fails at the fundamental thing it should be doing: telling a good story. 

(Note: The book does try and address racism in London at this time. It also felt a bit forced. And Jack seemed to have no prejudices or preconceived notions about Indian and Black folk which isn’t realistic. Like, it might make him #Problematic but my dude, you’re writing a man born in 1702. He’s going to have some iffy views. That can be challenged! Absolutely. But they still would have existed.) 

---

Thank you for the ask! I again apologize for the length of the reply. 

[cutegirlmayra]

Thank you for answering my question about Amy's crush on Sonic. I agree with your explanation on why her crush is a key part of her character. I noticed that your post mentioned a scene possibly not being delivered well in the English version. Do you think there is some type of values dissonance going on between Japan and the West when it comes to how Amy's crush is written overall? I've heard that Amy's crush and her character in general has a more positive reception in Japan than in the West.

Mmmm… Yeah.

Also, you’re very welcome :) my pleasure!

It all started with Sonic X’s English script.

Honestly, in Japan, Amy is seen as a normal girl common to her anime trope. She’s also widely loved and stated to be ‘Endearing’ in the japan’s culture, especially with her Japanese values such as loyalty.

 Originally, America branded her to be a ‘comedy’ character which has since backfired. (Sadly, a lot of their direction has been to popular tropes of that era, instead of developing characters further beyond.)

SEGA’s standard is to keep moving towards the future, stay with the times, when they should be thinking about timelessness, and staying ahead of the game.

In conclusion, my personal, humble opinion is that they dated themselves to where they’re ‘iconic personalities’ don’t work well in our modern society anymore.

Amy went from this:

Japan: A devoted lover who is overjoyed to see her hero after so long and being worried sick about him while he was fighting the good fight.

To this:

America: Overly dramatic, clingy lover who just wants to be noticed by the man she craves, still loyal and true, but with a comedic sense that has been mostly lost to our time and modern era. Now we interpret this as “Stalkerish” or “Codependent”. Which are definitely more negative than “hopelessly in love with the main hero” or “Desperately longing for main hero.” Grease and other classics like It’s A Wonderful Life or Princess Bride. But these movies have an edge in classic timelessness in that they don’t treat their supporting leads as simply ‘Comedic’ and instead, the girls have full arcs that end up ending with getting the guy in the end.

What makes other game companies pretty successful is there sense of having timeless characters that grow as audiences do as well.

Sonic’s primary audience should be the young adults that have grown up with him, and through those young adults then the younger generation will follow in pursuit. (A.k.a How Nintendo now markets is a good example of knowing ones brand, and advertising to your target market well.) However, as I see how Sonic’s marketing team runs things, I’m afraid they continue to try and pull younger audiences, and this could work if the material was taken more seriously with professionalism. But we’re reduced to memes which will date the product even further back then it already was.

Their catering to a particular side of the fandom as well helped somewhat in their small success with Sonic Forces, but it’s the young adults they should really consider and hiring those who understand the modern medium. They were going for, “Yeah! Kids love angst!” but they didn’t seem to grasp what the modern concept of ‘Angst’ was. It was like your grandfather trying to re-envision and explain modern kid culture when he clearly has no idea where the century is. They don’t understand where to go, and I hope they’ve found some solutions with younger blood in the talent pool such as Sonic Mania creators, new Animation team that worked on Sonic Mania Adventures and the Team Sonic Racing shorts. These new talents are not only huge fans, but understand perfectly the Sonic recipe which the corporation has been failing to grasp and been falling on their outdated degrees.

I know this sounds kinda harsh, please don’t see it that way. This is something I have observed and looked into. I’m sure many have different research results and/or perspectives, so please find your own information and decide what you feel has or hasn’t happened.

As for me, the Sonic branch has a good start with Sonic Mania and Sonic Forces. It’s trying to emulate the same tactics as Nintendo but aren’t true rivals anymore (and just aren’t Nintendo either. That brand doesn’t work with their formula), so I would suggest to their stockholders to stop trying to make fast money like Hollywood tends to push but to allow true creative geniuses to approach with on-brand ideas that can help bring a modern format that also respects and keeps the traditional Sonic alive and kicking once more, take the professional advice from the original Sonic Team who are the true masters of this brand and name, and give up pride for reinvention and dedicate their time to fresh ideas that blend the already established Sonic into a beautiful fusion that resonates with Fans faithfully and remains strong to modern audiences as well.

Don’t abandon what you did right, or the lore of the whole of Sonic’s universe, but simply allow real Sonic fans with real talents and creative minds to come in, train them, but let them also go off to give Sonic a real resurrection in the mode and format he was made to be in. Sonic’s a punk of the 1990s, it’s time to make him smooth rebel in defense of the ‘save the planet’ type formula with a rocker’s attitude. And for gameplay? Let those who actually know how to make a Sonic game make them. Sonic Team needs support again.

Anyway, this is long. Yes, Amy is mistranslated to where America has rebranded her. Japan hasn’t really done enough to correct this, but a good example of how lost Japan is to what America has done is when a Fan asked her creator– “Why did you design Classic Amy in the clothes she was wearing? Was it to make her a tomboy and tough?” which is what America tried to re-re-rebrand her as.

Then he famously (to me, anyway) laughed in the microphone and answered in Japanese, “I thought she was cute. Isn’t she cute?” to which the audience seemed confused.

Then he went on to explain Amy’s true character, which was the most honest reaction to not understanding why the audience was so iffy in their reaction.

This scene was honestly heartbreaking to me, seeing her own creator feeling the need to explain his character because of poor translation errors, not just between cultures, but because Writers completely went off the original material.

He went on to say Amy was designed as a love interest for Sonic, but as her mind is always on Sonic, his mind is always on what’s next, the adventure. So he created someone who would work for Sonic’s lifestyle, always happily chasing after him as he happily chases after the next challenge or danger to his world.

He asked, “Now isn’t that more interesting?” to which the audience continued to be confused.

I have the video somewhere in my favorites list, hold on one moment please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nzxRoIX4QU&t=1561s - THIS TOOK FOREVER TO FIND. Go to 38:40 or so, and I’d also like to state that Sonic Boom 2013 Q&A is a really good panel to watch overall. There are a lot of good Q&A’s and I like them because the creators answer you directly, you know?

This is also just one of the videos with him being interviewed, there are many others, like the one about the clothes and whatnot. But they’re so old and I had such a hard time finding this one again that I’ll let you do your own digging on those ones XD

It’s sad cause you can hear a fan go, “Why are there so many Amy questions?” And the boy with the camera say, “Oh, cause he’s the guy who created her.” It’s really sad to hear that, you know?

Anyway, enjoy the video ;)b

[yeniayofnymeria]

Arya Stark and Black Swan

(I don't know who the picture belongs to, I found it a long time ago.)

Hello/Selam,

In fact, as you know, Arya is one of the biggest five of GRRM. She has a key role in the books. The problem is that it's hard to predict exactly what this role is. I've been trying to piece together her puzzle pieces for years. The result I have achieved so far; Arya is on the side of the ice in the Battle of Ice and Fire alongside FM / Great Other ... Most people see this story as a classic good-bad battle, but I don't. The reason I think so is GRRM's statements.

Men are still capable of great heroism. But I don’t necessarily think there are heroes. That’s something that’s very much in my books: I believe in great characters. We’re all capable of doing great things, and of doing bad things. We have the angels and the demons inside of us, and our lives are a succession of choices…[Woodrow Wilson] was a racist who tried to end war. Now, does one cancel out the other? Well, they don’t cancel out the other. You can’t make him a hero or a villain. He was both. And we’re all both. - GRRM

...

Much as I admire Tolkien, and I do admire Tolkien — he’s been a huge influence on me, and his Lord of the Rings is the mountain that leans over every other fantasy written since and shaped all of modern fantasy — there are things about it, the whole concept of the Dark Lord, and good guys battling bad guys, Good versus Evil, while brilliantly handled in Tolkien, in the hands of many Tolkien successors, it has become kind of a cartoon. We don’t need any more Dark Lords, we don’t need any more, “Here are the good guys, they’re in white, there are the bad guys, they’re in black. And also, they’re really ugly, the bad guys.” - GRRM

So I don't see the side of ice and fire pure good and pure bad. They're both. Just like the Stark and Lannister war. So I don't see any problem putting Arya on the ice. After all, she's a Stark, and the Stark family is portrayed as "ice."

Lets continue.

The post was created using multiple topics(I combined them.): u/DutchArya 's https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/146440-arya-the-singing-bird-stark/ post and u/Arya1100's https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/7vw332/spoilers_extended_black_swans_and_arya_stark_an/ post.

It's an old theory(of theirs), but it's been a year or so. I wanted to resurrect. I just added a few things. And I commented in my own words.

Black Swan Theory

The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight**.** The term is based on an ancient saying that presumed black swans did not exist – a saying that became reinterpreted to teach a different lesson after black swans were discovered in the wild.

The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:

The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.

The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).

The psychological biases that blind people, both individually and collectively, to uncertainty and to a rare event's massive role in historical affairs.

Unlike the earlier and broader "black swan problem" in philosophy (i.e. the problem of induction), Taleb's "black swan theory" refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers**, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences:**xxi More technically, in the scientific monograph 'Silent Risk', Taleb mathematically defines the black swan problem as "stemming from the use of degenerate metaprobability" - From wikizeroo.org

Black Swan in summary = A term used to refer to an unexpectedly large event, effect, event.

Arya Stark is thought to have a connection with the Black Swan... This is both a “theory i'm issue I mentioned above and a kind of ugly duckling that turns into a beautiful swan.

Black Swan

Arya felt as though the lake were calling her. She wanted to leap into those placid blue waters, to feel clean again, to swim and splash and bask in the sun. But she dare not take off her clothes where the others could see...

From up here, she could see a small wooded island off to the northeast. Thirty yards from shore, three black swans were gliding over the water, so serene . . . no one had told them that war had come, and they cared nothing for burning towns and butchered men. She stared at them with yearning. Part of her wanted to be a swan the other part wanted to eat one. - (Arya, A Clash of Kings)

The important thing in this quote is that he sees “3 BLACK SWAN as I mentioned above. In fact, the Europeans did not know Black Swan until the 1697s, and I think that this is the basis of the theory that I mentioned first. So, in essence, these animals are a very rare species. Considering that the ASOIAF universe is a kind of a different version of Europe... In other words, the author added a ��black swan" instead of the common white swan.

In the next book (book 3) Arya meets some of the Brotherhood and Lady Ravella Smallwood. She treats Arya well, washes and dresses her.

It was even worse than before; Lady Smallwood insisted that Arya take another bath, and cut and comb her hair besides; the dress she put her in this time was sort of lilac-colored, and decorated with little baby pearls. The only good thing about it was that it was so delicate that no one could expect her to ride in it. So the next morning as they broke their fast, Lady Smallwood gave her breeches, belt, and tunic to wear, and a brown doeskin jerkin dotted with iron studs. "They were my son's things," she said. "He died when he was seven."

"I'm sorry, my lady." Arya suddenly felt bad for her, and ashamed. "I'm sorry I tore the acorn dress too. It was pretty."

"Yes, child. And so are you. Be brave."

This woman from House Swan. Their sigil is so interesting 

Battling swans black and white and so is the House of Black and White and that is where Arya is being reborn at every dark moon.

In the books Black and White was often touted as the struggle for darkness and light; therefore, we may interpret the question of swans as the struggle between dark and light parts of Arya or some kind of foreshadowing, which expresses an "enemy" in the future. In another comment 3 black swans; 3 can not be predicted to affect the story, may also express the great effect.

Water Dance

Arya stands on her toes, on one leg. This is indeed reminiscent of ballet. Ballet dancers learn to stand upright, on the tip of their toes, often on one leg. It's explicitly linked to the water dancing. So, "water dancing" = "ballet" and Swan Lake is a ballet that also has narrative similarities to Arya's story.

Ned stopped and looked at her. "Arya, what are you doing?"

"Syrio says a water dancer can stand on one toe for hours." Her hands flailed at the air to steady herself.

Ned had to smile. "Which toe?" he teased.

"Any toe." - (Eddard V, aGoT)

Later on, Arya wishes she could dance on water. This is what the Swan ballet dancers do!

Skinny as they were, her legs were strong and springy and growing longer every day. She was glad of that. A water dancer needs good legs. Blind Beth was no water dancer, but she would not be Beth forever. - The Blind Girl, ADWD

...

She was not far from the Gate as the crows flies, but for girls with feet instead of wings, the way was longer. - Mercy, Winds

Ugly Duck and Beautiful Swan

You all know the story of the ugly duckling. The swan, which started life as an ugly duck, is considered by all to be ugly and excluded. But one day something happens that when the ugly duck grows up, it turns into a beautiful swan and amazes everyone.

Readers think that the swan motif is also one aspect of it, which I'm sure everyone who reads the books carefully noticed it.

Arya considered herself ugly from the very beginning, and Sansa and Jeyne mocked her long face and subjected them to “Horse-faced” insults. According to Arya, her mother told her; if she wore beautiful dresses like Sansa and combed her hair, she could have been as beautiful as her sister.

But Jon and Ned always said she was beautiful; his father stated that she resembled his sister Lyanna, who is said to be a very beautiful girl. On the other hand, as she grew up during her adventure (such as Lady Smallwood), some began to emphasize that she was “beautiful.. For example, we have recently seen The Gentle Man said to her face is beautiful.

There is also a reference link to the swan and beauty in the series.

Arianne touched the pin that clasped [Balon’s] cloak, with its quarreling swans. “I have always been fond of swans. No other bird is half so beautiful, this side of the Summer Isles.”

“Your peacocks might dispute that,” said Ser Balon.

“They might,” said Arianne, “but peacocks are vain, proud creatures, strutting about in all those gaudy colors. Give me a swan serene in white or beautiful in black.” - The Watcher, ADwD

Thank you for read.