#completely unrealistic fantasy bullshit

[mildew-mop]

Bluey is such an unrealistic show. I'm fine with them being dogs but like?? They love each other?? It depicts parents who care about their children?? Unironically one of the most unrealistic pieces of media I have ever seen in my entire life. Sometimes, I get upset watching it. Like they use words referring to other characters as family members but also are kind to each other???? I cannot physically find a way to contort my brain into seeing these characters as "family" like its so fucking unrealistic and bizarre to watch. Its pure fucking fantasy.

[dailyadventureprompts]

So, I mostly just need some advice. I want to introduce stuff like the combat wheelchair into campaigns I run and play in, but some players say it’s “unrealistic” for stuff like that to be in a campaign because “why wouldn’t you just get greater restoration or regenerate casted on you or something”. I know that’s a bunch of bull crap, but I’m not sure what to say to convince them.

Heavy Topics: Disability in Fantasy

I'm going to start this off with saying that people with a lot more education and experience than me have written quite a lot about the inclusion of disabilities in d&d, and I encourage you to seek out their testimonials.

Next, you don't need to convince anybody about introducing things in your campaigns, especially when that introduction is specifically to highlight inclusion and diversity . They're YOUR campaigns, and people that cry "realism" when it comes to matters of inclusion are almost always covering up for their own prejudice.

Now what I can do with expert efficiency is address the bullshit claims that people try to use to support their prejudice, how it doesn't line up with the mechanics of the game, and how it doesn't line up with good storytelling.

TLDR: Disability is a fact of life, and so it is a fact of stories. In trying to brush it aside by saying " oh magic could fix everything" we also brush aside the lived experiences of millions of people, equally deserving as seeing themselves as characters in the fantasy epics we tell. Purely form a storytelling and world building perspective, it's also far more interesting to see how people adapt to challenges then it is to make those challenges simply not exist or be easily fixed by author fiat.

First lets talk over the mechanical issue: In vanilla d&d there's no way to restore lost limbs short of the regeneration spell, which is 7th level and thus requires a 14th level character to cast. 14th level characters are thin on the ground, meaning that your average person would have to undertake an arduous journey to find such a caster willing to perform this working , to say nothing of finding one willing to perform the service for any payment a commoner could provide.

Likewise, regeneration specifies that it's SEVERED limbs that are restored: rules as written it doesn't fix neurological damage, birth defects, or congenial traits. As someone who's needed glasses from youth onwards, I find it hilarious that a flimsy pair of lenses can fix what high level divine magic ( possibly even the wish spell) cannot, but that's more a matter of the designers thinking more about the lives of adventurers than the worldbuilding implicit in their rules.

Turning to 3rd party material and homebrew, we enter into some very interesting territory. There's much back and forth about magic that "fixes" disability outright and where I fall on the discussion tends to land on the idea that said magic lets the character overcome many of the hurdles of their impediment but doesn't negate it completely. Here's some pop culture examples:

Toph from ATLA is always go be the go to for disability representation in media: She's blind, but uses her earthbending powers to be able to sense vibrations in contact with the ground allowing her to "see". In a badly written show, this would totally negate Toph's disability, but thankfully ATLA is written by people who know what they're doing so instead Toph's blindness provides just as many novel drawbacks as it does advantages. Toph can detect things happening on the other side of walls and doors, but is vulnerable to projectiles that don't touch the ground. She can sense if people are lying, but can't read printed text. Force her onto a small, isolated platform or into water and you cut off her ability to see just as much as a fully sighted character in pitch black darkness.

Edward Elric from fullmetal Alchemist is missing an arm and a leg, and uses a pair of integrated robotic "automail" prosthesis which seem to give him all the functionality of a regular set of limbs. That said, any utility the automail provides is matched with whole host of downsides, ranging from their lack of touch, their weight causing discomfort, and the expense of having them in the first place. What's most pressing is that these limbs are mechanical and prone to malfunciton from overuse, requiring Edward to see a specific technician to get them fixed. When they break ( which is often) or simply require refitting, Edward needs to travel days or weeks out of his way and then suffer through a painful process of reattachment in order to get the use of his limbs back.

Professor Xavier from the Xmen is paraplegic, but in many depictions has some kind of hoverchair that lets him go out into the field and navigate difficult terrain without the aid of others or other mobility devices. While certainly an upgrade over a totally mundane wheelchair it again doesn't completely compensate for his inability to walk or his vulnerability should the chair be damaged or taken away from him.

With these examples in mind, we can look at how different 3rd party resources can model various forms of accommodation, giving characters with disabilities the utility they need to go out adventuring, without removing their disability in the first place.

The "combat wheelchair" is a great example of this, giving characters unique options while at the same time making them atleast partially reliant on a somewhat cumbersome object. In terms of logistics, it's not much different than having a centaur in the party and the fact that most dungeons aren't wheelchair accessible just means the party has to do maybe one or two more platforming problem solving challenges.

In my own time running steampunk games I’ve usually instituted a “misfire” rule onto most technology, including the ubiquitous mechanical limbs. A natural 1 using that limb means that the limb is suffering a malfunction, and until the malfunction is fixed, another natural 1 will break it. It’s an easy way to get across that these marvellous contraptions aren't perfect yet.

Now lets talk storytelling:

Upfront I'm going to say that I don't consider myself disabled,I have some mental health hurdles that I have to navigate on the regular, but my body works at a solid 6/10 most days. 

I think there’s a lot potential in examining disability in stories, and not just in the “overcoming adversity” inspiration porn sort of way. The loss of a limb can represent a sacrifice and the toll of war, prejudice against disfigurement can drive a character down a dark path, sometimes there’s no greater thematic reasoning behind it and a character is living with disability because that’s a thing regular people live with. What I will say is that disability introduces vulnerability, a theme that power fantasy games like d&d don’t often deal with as their centeral arc is about characters getting stronger and stronger and stronger until they can challenge the gods. 

Vulnerability runs counter to that desire for strength, but it makes a better story because what a character does with vulnerability makes them a more interesting character: Do they rely on others? Close themselves off? Come to terms with their weakness or strive to overcome it? These are all fascinating questions that you wouldn’t get to ask with a character that was 100% able bodied, well adjusted, and socially accepted.

It’s not a stretch to say that people who have regressive political views are terrified of vulnerability. that’s why the right-wing chuds are so vehemently opposed to the idea that someone with a disability could be a hero. To them, adversity is all about the superior overcoming the inferior, and the thought of someone with weakness or disadvantages, someone they consider “inferior” triumphing against someone stronger is a direct challenge to their place inside their own worldview.

Finally I’m going to leave you with something relating to vulnerability to consider from my own campaigns:

In my home games when someone fails their death saving throws, I generally don’t kill them, killing them cuts the narrative short and I want to see how things play out. Instead I give them an offer: do they pass on into death, or do they let me take something from them? 90% of the time they chose the latter option and I make things interesting. What happens to the master archer who can’t string a bow anymore, or the fame hungry bard who’s scars distract from their performance? What price will the wizard pay to regain the use of her eyes?  Forcing players to confront these questions takes a lot of tact, and a lot of trust, but always yields better stories but given enough time to develop.

Art

[tubular-wave-jpg]

I try to keep this blog more or less clean of all sorts of discourse related bullshit, but I have noticed a pattern recently and I want to rant about it. Long ass bitching ahead.

With women demanding more realistic characters in games and other media, there is now a push for them to be not just really realistic but also adhering to femininity and do things in such ways that real women would, or else you'd have to accept coomshit designs. Hear me out. Like the whole "would not it be more empowering for a woman to OUTSMART A MAN, instead of fighting an entire army when she is half their size??" when men do not give a fuck if their self-insert characters pull unrealistic schemes out of their asses and save the day. The implications of characters are different, I get it, with male one being a clear power fantasy. A lot of female ones are treated like some sort of marketing scheme. And at this point saying that "well, it is a movie, of course it is going to be unrealistic!" brings in the other side of the fictional people discourse which argues that if a woman can kill entire army made up of 2943 lions and 1745 men, because movies and such are unrealistic, then you should also accept a toddler faced, tits size of mountains anime girls moaning their way through battles, because it is a fantasy too, despite the implications of these characters are completely different (again). So I (maybe other people too) would find themselves in this weird limbo. It is infuriating how people do not understand the difference, between a fierce, smart and strong (actually, not hollywood marketing strong) female character, male power fantasy with quadrillion muscles and a coombait girl character.

People, especially women, are tired of these mind games, thought experiments and juggling random opinions to be both peak equality (Media holds men to unrealistic standards too! This buff man is LITERALLY THE SAME as this loli coomer oc!), peak ethics etc. It is not policing to notice that there are certain bias towards and objectification of women in media, deterring women from noticing these patterns is. And when you dare saying you think character looks unrealistic, you are bombarded by grown ass women too, who, in their cosplays and makeup, claim that they are actually JUST LIKE THEM!11!! and you are "body shaming".

The issue in my eyes is their determination to claim that there is no such thing as porn addiction (up until dicks stop working, then cue crying about how OF girls were master manipulators and exploited them financially) and porn in general affecting people, their perceptions of women and it leaking into entertainment industry.

[demoisverysexy]

Conservative chuds on twitter: "see, the problem with dei and diversity in films is that its unrealistic and breaks the immersion! What, you think that black people and queer people existed in ancient rome or greece or medieval europe? Or women in fantasy or sci fi? Its woke bullshit, and completely ahistorical."

Ubisoft: *releases an Assassins Creed game, a series known for over the top historical fantasy bullshit, set in Japan and starring Yasuke, the famous black samurai retainer whos existsnce is attested and celebrated in japan*

Conservative chuds: "See, the problem with dei and diversity in video games is that its completely unrealistic-"

To be clear I know that there totally were black and queer people throughout history and whatnot I just find this particularly blatant example of conservative stupidity funny and mind boggling

[chouchen]

sorry but that weird ask you got is grating on my nerves

first, your art is fantastic. i love seeing found family stuff with diluc because he’s effectively alone in life. he deserves to have some happiness in fan art at least if we won’t get it in canon lmao (also your art style is just phenomenal, i love the way you draw the characters)

also because his entire blood family is dead, is he just never supposed to have a family of any sort again?😂 what kind of bullshit were they on when they wrote that ask

that person said “non-blood related caregiver-caretaker relationships usually don't work”

sooooo adoptive families? kids taken in by family friends after disasters? foster families? step parents? this anon really just sent a message to diss non-blood relatives and invalidate so much of the population, and for what? do they think kaeya was treated poorly by crepus just because he wasn’t blood related? because by all we know, kaeya was treated fantastically when he lived with the ragnvindrs

“i’ve tried to recreate the found family trope for years”

why? found family is found family. you can’t recreate it and use the same name. do they not care about people finding comfort in one another? is that not cool with them? displaced individuals soothing each other? bonding over shared traumas with a stranger? tell me you’ve never seen any kind of fantasy, adventure-based media without telling me

no person is a monolith and acting like the only way to be safe and healthy is to be a monolith is unrealistic and damaging. humans are meant to be connected. acting like “non-blood related caregivers” can’t act as perfectly good caregivers and completely fulfill their duties and raise completely healthy children is so offensive

i agree with all of this and i have nothing to add

also thank you ! ^^

[xmanicpanicx]

The events in your story must be believable...

No, I don’t mean curb your imagination and never write fantasy, sci-fi, or any other sort of speculative fiction. No, I don’t mean avoid writing the type of romance so many of us wish we could experience in real life. What I mean is that what happens in your story must be believable within the context of the story. When I was a creative writing student in university, I disagreed with many of my professors’ rigid rules, but one piece of advice I always agreed with was this one. 

Somebody in class would write a story, a few of us (or more) would call bullshit on the sequence of events, and they would reply, “But this actually happened!” 

Honestly, it doesn’t matter if what you’re writing about actually happened. It’s a cliché, but truth really is often stranger than fiction, and it can be interesting to hear those anecdotes when you’re talking to someone in real life. However, when you’re reading a novel or even just a short story, it doesn’t work the same way. The events of the story have to follow some sort of internal logic. Here are some antitheses to a story’s internal logic.

1) Character inconsistency. Characters should be complex, and they often change over the course of the story, but if, out of nowhere, a character does a complete 180 with no possible motivation for those actions, readers will be thrown. Many great plot twists come from characters turning out not to be who we thought they were, but remember that characters should be like real people rather than plot devices, three-dimensional rather than flat. Their actions have to make sense; there must be a reason for their actions beyond moving the plot forward because you, the author, want or need it to move forward. 

2) Unrealistic consequences. This is one of my personal least-favorite things to see in a story: when a character makes a huge (and often very damaging) decision, and there is hardly any fallout. I’ve seen it most often when the main character gets away with things that no one would ever be able to get away with so cleanly, but the main character can because they’re supposedly special. (Hint: they’re not.) People don’t forgive hurtful actions easily, and, except in the world of the extremely rich and powerful, egregiously bad decisions don’t go unpunished. Even if the reader identifies with the main character (and, naturally, we want things to go well for characters we identify with, just as we want them to go well for ourselves), this is not satisfying. It feels like something is missing, because it is.

3) Deus ex machina. This is Latin for “God out of the machine,” and it refers to “a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence” (I got this part from Wikipedia. Don’t judge me! They sum it up well!), as if God or a higher power of some sort just popped in out of nowhere fixed everything for the characters on a whim. Real-life instances of deus ex machina are cool to hear about precisely because they’re so unbelievable, yet they really did happen, and it just adds to the mystery of the universe. In fiction, deus ex machina is just anticlimactic. There’s nothing rewarding about reading your way through a character(s)’ mammoth struggles and having none of it pay off or come to anything because an external factor, which has never appeared in the story before, suddenly enters and ties things up neatly. If you must use deus ex machina, do it sparingly and with small events rather than the main conflict or showdown of the story.

Any one of the above, and especially a combination of them, will lead to more plot holes than a reader can willingly accept. These shortcuts aren’t worth the substance they remove from what could be a great story.

[danlous]

I think some people are being very stubborn about their hc and have a kneejerk reaction every time someone mentions race in period dramas. There are a lot of regions where the population in Europe is white. Just white. Do they even know where Auvergne is on the map of France? It's in the center of the country, slightly toward the south. It's landlocked. It's an agricultural region. And today in the 21st century, it's overwhelmingly white. I know, because I live there. I live in one of those little villages in the country, like Lestat's. I know because I have been stared at and ridiculed as a child enough times for being a dark skinned Muslim in a population that is completely white. I was and still am the only drop of melanin among their pasty faces on a range of 30km. And that's today, in the 21st century. And people are trying to tell me that yeah Nicky could have been plausibly black at the time? In this region, in the backwaters of France? And belong to a prosperous local family? That's bullshit. Of course there were poc in Europe in the past! It's obvious. But the proportion was so much smaller than it is today, and even today, France is majorly a white, catholic country. Had Lestat been from a village close to Marseille or Bordeaux or any other big port with economical ties all over the world, I would have jumped at the idea of having a non-white Nicky! In fact it would have been the perfect opportunity to explore the diversity that was found in those cities in the French Kingdom, the economical connection with the Maghreb and the transatlantic slave trade. If Nicky & Lestat were from Paris or Ile de France, again, a very cosmopolitan place, it would have been something I'd like to see. But they're from backwater France. I won't be gaslighted this part of the country isn't and hasn't been white, not with all the shit I had to endure over the years from their small minded everyone-must-be-french brains.

Nicky and Lestat's story is a perfect vehicle to explore class disparities at the end of the French Monarchy and the tensions that brought the French Revolution in the first place.

Thank you for sharing your experience, this is really important and interesting! I also come from a region in countryside with practically exclusively white people, which was very alienating as a child so i feel you

I think in iwtv's case there are several sides to the Nicki's casting that are all different questions, a) what is technically possible b) what is realistic/likely c) what people would like d) what is the best choice narratively and e) what are the writers actually going to do. I think the show is most likely going to keep Nicki as white (assuming they don't change his story so that he came from more metropolitan area different than Lestat). As you say, the population in that region was/is almost entirely white, but in history there are examples where even overwhelmingly homogenously white places has had some people of color, even if it's extremely rare. It's technically possible that Nicki would've been that one very rare person of the color in that region. I could imagine for example a backstory where his (white) father was born there, traveled to a bigger city, became an international merchant, had a child with some woman from a french colony, and chose to return home. It would maybe be very unlikely but technically possible. Some people may feel it would be unrealistic, but then again we can ask does 'realism' need to matter in a fantasy horror show, why would people of color existing in very white places somehow be more unbelievable than the existence vampires and witches and demons?

Then many people are understandably just headcanoning their favorite characters' races and there's nothing wrong with that, like i've myself headcanoning that Armand is a romani until proven otherwise lol, i know that probably won't be canon but it would make me so happy. Then the question 'should nicki's character stay white, what is the best and most compelling choice narratively speaking' i think is very complicated and doesn't have one right answer. Yesterday and today i've seen quite literally every possible opinion about this subject! When i made that poorly phrased mildly controversial post i thought it would make more sense not to change Nicki's race, but after reading people's comments who disagreed with me i get it isn't that simple and Nicki being a poc could actually be an interesting narrative choice if well-written. Like you I'm still leaning towards Nicki being white, but i can see how it would be cool if he wasn't

[elrondhalfelven]

oooh 🔥 24 🔥

24. topic that brings up the most rancid discourse

ok. it’s whether thanos truly loves gamora and the fallout and conclusions people draw from that.

firstly, i understand why it’s a topic people feel so strongly about. i completely understand that and i don’t want to negate anyone’s experiences or the impact this particular thread of the narrative has on audiences.

that being said, making it so black and white as it has been in recent years is a disservice to both thanos and gamora as characters. it’s so much more than he’s terrible and ruined her life/she’s a victim out to bring him down. for a lot of reasons. gamora loves him. maybe not the healthiest no, but in their own way it’s there. he brought her up the only way he was capable of. he cares about her in his own way. is it healthy? no! it’s called complexity. it’s a story, not a guidebook. because it’s also a sci-fi/fantasy. he’s in love with death. he can’t love gamora because he’s in love with death. yes, the abstract concept of death. if he was capable of love, he would almost certainly love gamora the most. I dunno. there’s this whole tidbit of the most unrealistic comic sci fi fantasy bullshit that just happens to form the fundamental pillar on which their dynamic rests on and it’s bizarrely ignored by wider fandom. ignoring that is ignoring a huge chunk of thanos’ character and the affect that has on his relationship with gamora.

i understand a lot of this is pushback from the mcu’s particular portrayal of it but also if you’re coming into the comics (especially ones prior to the mcu/ones that ignore synergy) you can’t just come in expecting black and white and get mad when other people want to explore the grey that’s there. it’s so much more interesting when it’s grey.

it’s also not a kid’s story so i’m not particularly interested in it being tidy and clear cut. go to something else for that. sorry not sorry.

[fasterthanmydemons]

I didn't like that Pietro died but how is it poor writing? Like don't get me wrong the MCU has done plenty of poor writing (Steve's ending I'm looking at you) but I don't see how Pietro's death is an example of that. Plot armor is far worse writing in my opinion xD And people... CAN actually live through dire situations irl but Pietro already did so when he was 10 when his parents were killed. Had he survived sacrificing himself... yeah that would have been some thick plot armor

{out of breath} Well, I guess there are a lot of different definitions people might have for "poor writing." And you are entitled to your opinion, so please don't think I'm like... coming at you with this post, heh. I'll just explain why I think it's poor writing from my point of view. Below the cut for length.

To me, poor writing is anything that's so unrealistic or OOC that it takes me right out of the fantasy/story of what I'm watching. Or it's something so outlandish that it's almost silly or it's not in keeping with what the character would do. Or if things are omitted or blatantly ignored because they're inconvenient to the plot (such as powers that would fix everything in two seconds). Or if it feels forced, rushed, or like the writers are railroading you with what they want whether it makes sense or not. All or any of those to me is poor writing, just different facets of it. It's when you write something for the characters that's easy, quick, simple, or otherwise just better for you or less work for you than writing something that actually makes sense.

Just... to throw this out there... I 100% agree with you about Steve's ending. That was total bullshit and one of the top worst examples of writing in the entire MCU.

In Pietro's case, his death was a major deviation from the comics. Pietro in the comics lived for years past the point of MCU Pietro dying. There was a lot of potential that was lost there, and it was totally for OOC reasons. One reason was that they wanted the MCU's version of Scarlet Witch to suffer so she could eventually take on that persona. They didn't need to kill off Pietro to do that, since she becomes the Scarlet Witch in the comics too, with her brother very much alive. Instead of keeping him alive and doing something more complex with him to contribute to her necessary suffering as the Scarlet Witch, they decided hey, let's just kill him off.

The reason this was such an easy decision for them was because the actor who played Pietro was not really interested (or so he said) in doing superhero movies. I'm not... really sure what he meant by that, since he'd played a superhero before Pietro (in Kick-Ass) and he was I think recast as another superhero in the MCU later on? So? But anyway, at the time he agreed to play Pietro if he was only in one movie. I mean, he was at the very end of CA:TWS, but no more than one full movie. So they just decided to kill him off. I guess that works, but the obvious out of character reason makes his death feel forced and unnecessary to me.

IF... they were going to just kill him off for OOC reasons, they should have at least made sure to treat his death as something MAJOR. While the moment of his death was poignant, that was it, and he was never shown again. No funeral. No memorial. No grieving shown from Wanda at all... until WandaVision how many movies/shows later? His death was major, especially for Wanda's character arc. The aftermath of it should have been handled far better than it was. The complete lack of mention of him afterward, in my opinion, negated a good amount of the impact and significance of his death. It was like winding up a pitch really dramatically, to then just gently place the ball on the ground. All that buildup and significance... and then nothing. Very poor writing, specifically very poor framing of the end of a main character's arc. Like I said, Pietro plays a much longer and bigger role in the comics, so they took a detailed, meaty character and tried to write a six-word-sentence story with him. That's how it felt... clunky, rushed, and poorly written.

Then we get to how and why he died... and it just starts getting silly in my opinion. Earlier in the movie they had him able to observe bullets flying right in front of his face as if they were in super slo-mo. So.... why... couldn't he just knock each of the jet's bullets off their trajectory? Or... grab something else to deflect them with? He had the time, presumably. But no, he decides to just... run in the way of bullets... HUGE, military grade, armor-piercing rounds from a JET, no less... instead of blocking them with something other than his body or grabbing Clint and Costel and pulling them out of harm's way. That second one especially seemed like a good option spur of the moment, and Pietro does have increased strength as part of his powers, so it was doable. But no, the writers were like we'll just have him run at stuff and die. Okay... that's... okay. *eye roll* I feel like they could have given him the same heroic death, but had it make a lot more sense with some more brainstorming and better writing.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the condition of his body was completely inaccurate to the types of rounds that would have come out of that jet. He should have been a lot more uh... destroyed. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he wasn't, but it's completely unrealistic to an almost laughable degree. They even go so far as to show not only entry wounds on Pietro but exit wounds as well. Meaning... the bullets went THROUGH him. So if they went through him... would they not just hit Clint and Costel anyway? But nope, we're just going to ignore that completely and they're fine. Again, it's sloppy and unrealistic.

I just think that Pietro's death could have been handled better, it could have made more sense, it could have been streamlined into something more impactful to the overall story and for Wanda's character arc, and it could have been meshed into Pietro's overall story a bit better. To save these two "kids" from Hydra, have them with this redemption arc, have Pietro portrayed as this nice guy with some genuine heroic qualities... we all were rooting for him. We all wanted him, after everything he'd suffered along with Wanda, to have that freedom and better treatment afterward. And instead it was just like... boom, dead. No closure. No further mention. it felt like the writers were just wiping their hands of him and moving on. It came out of nowhere, and I think for a lot of us in the audience, that felt very hollow and unfulfilling considering our hopes for him as a character and how they'd been built up for us by the rest of the movie.

As someone who has struggled with the construction of character arcs and plot arcs in epic fantasy novels, I've had to really think about having everything make sense. Not only for the characters themselves, but to the readers. You have to think not only about what you want to do with your characters, but also what the expectations of the audience are, and how to balance something disappointing or that just isn't what they wanted for the character with what you need to do to move your plot forward. You can't always make the audience/readers happy, but something that will really infuriate them is if, not only did they not get what they wanted for this character, but on top of that it feels forced or rushed or OOC. You end up turning your audience/readers completely off if you don't handle their disappointment carefully, and in my opinion, the disappointment that was Pietro's death for all of us was not handled well.

And this was a huge rant, haha, but I think this is an interesting topic to discuss! =)

[isnt-it-too-dreamy]

makes me think of crazy ex gf which is such a weird show bc on the one hand i like the concept of what they tried to do with it, like i LOVE it, bc rebecca's struggles are extremely real and relatable to me to the point where many plot beats were "triggering" to witness, and instead of saying there's no way for such a person to get better they showed that there is, and the solution that what she needs is a relationship to herself and to enjoy being herself and doing things she likes instead of always running away from herself by turning herself into an object to be enjoyed by others and fixating on men/a fantasy of fulfillment that's unattainable, is so realistic and literally honestly seriously what i'm doing in my real life rn to solve the same lifelong fixation pattern.

but on the other hand, the WAY they did it was fucking wack. it's the same case of the show falling too much in love with itself imo, too much in love with its own characters. to the point of not writing characters out that should have left rebecca's world bc she blew it! it's absolute bullshit that she doesn't lose any of her friends as a consequence of her actions. like speaking of someone who's been there myself, lol. not everybody will forgive you for acting out like that no matter how much insight they may have into the deep psychological distress and pain you're suffering! and the worst of all is that fake-ass setup in the end where THREE guys (that really shouldn't!!) have simultaneous interest in being in a romantic relationship with rebecca...bc the plot demands it. like yeah i get why from a storyline perspective but it's dummmbbbb and fake and stagey and not in a good way. for one, greg should not have come back--but what pisses me off the most is josh. josh should HATE rebecca, it's utterly unrealistic for him to have a romantic interest in her AGAIN after ALL THAT. their relationship should have ended when he told her to stay away from him. as cruel as that is, but it's realistic.

it would have been completely sufficient for the ending imo if maybe nathaniel would still want to be rebecca's bf and for her to reach the same conclusion. but i'm not even sure about that. best thing would have been a completely new guy. i don't get the need for the other two bc you could have brought the same point across by her simply reflecting on the past.

and don't even get me started on that last episode with that weird-ass gathering situation of all the important characters literally acting as an audience...as if everybody is so fucking interested in rebecca announcing her new bf lmao. it's so over the top. all of that could have been done in a much more subtle way. her progress could have revealed itself to her in a believable "real life" situation. instead we got...whatever the hell that was. good for her that she likes theater but wasn't it kinda the point that life isn't like that?

[sarcastic-salem]

Not gonna lie, I really hate all of this dark academia shit. When I was a kid my family had really high expectations of me going to college. Because of shit like Gilmore Girls, I ended up romanticizing the idea of going to college and had really unrealistic expectations.

Cause aside from the quaint small town bullshit, Gilmore Girls is kind of realistic. Go ahead and look up how many students get into Ivy League universities because they’re legacy students or had the right social connections. A legacy student is someone who is the child of a previous graduate.

The nepotism you see in Gilmore Girls is completely realistic.

Getting back on topic, I ended up with this fantasy that college was gonna be some French castle type shit filled with famous, accomplished professors.

Then when I did get into college it turned out to be a glorified high school and my motivation was completely crushed.

And, like, it bothers me that not only are the characters in dark academia some of the most boring, pretentious assholes ever written but also how many other people go off to college with these same expectations. It bothers me that this genre has hijacked free thinking and intellectualism, making it seem like its something you’re only entitled to if you get into Harvard.

Its really kind of insulting to assume that just cause you aren’t an Ivy League student or have never even graduated from college that you have some totally ignorant idiot.

Granted, I’m still learning new things every day no matter how I hate hearing about them.

Anyway, this is just a totally stupid rant. There’s no real point to it🤷🏻

[unpopularly-opinionated]

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t care enough about LOTR to have an opinion as to whether black elves or what the fuck ever should or should not exist in Middle Earth, but this post is about something more general that applies to more than just LOTR, but it’s the most recent example of this kind of BS.

Whenever I see people arguing over the ‘realistic’ probability that something or someone does or does not exist in a world, there’s always some absolute CLOWN that comes out and says: “Oh sure, it’s unrealistic for this FICTIONAL FANTASY WORLD to have X, Y, and Z bullshit that I’m trying to force into it”, implying that because the piece of work is purely fictional, that arguing over what is or isn’t realistic is somehow irrelevant because it’s all make believe BS anyways, and that right there is what makes your opinion completely invalid.

All you’re doing by making this argument is acknowledging that you have very little understanding of the source material at all, and quite honestly, you probably don’t know very much about reading in general because if you did, you’d know that pretty much every fantasy, or sci-fi, or really any piece of fiction ever sets up rules that their fictional worlds follow. These might be hard rules, they might be soft rules. There might be a million rules, or there might be two rules. Either way, at the end of the day, there are always rules. These rules are what define what is or isn’t ‘realistic’ in this fictional world, and when you dismiss these rules as “just fictional fantasy”, you’re expressing either your complete lack of genuine care for the material, in which case your opinion means less than shit because why the fuck should we listen to someone who doesn’t even appreciate the material? OR you’re expressing your lack of understanding, or disregard of said-rules, in which case your opinion means less than shit because why the fuck should we listen to someone who doesn’t even LIKE the material?

Mind you, I’ve made no mention whatsoever as to whether these rules might help or hurt your argument, because that’s a different topic from what this post is about. If you actually utilize the rules in your argument to build your case, then you might actually have some weight behind your words. But if you’re just ignoring the rules and baselessly saying “No I’m right because this is a fantasy world so ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE” then you’re not worth having a reasonable conversation with on this particular subject matter since you’ve plainly expressed how little care you actually have for it.

The TL;DR here is that if you dismiss any arguments about a movie, show, book, etc. on the grounds that “it’s just a fictional world”, you’re not worth speaking to, nor do you belong in the conversation to begin with.

[mxmercuri]

“working” feels impossible right now. producing content at all, including tweets, feels impossible. the fact that anyone has to work in this crisis is complete and utter bullshit and i wish we could all muster up the energy to be more outraged (Mars in Sag soon come).

but really i wish more of us would take dreaming seriously. come up with the most ridiculous fantasy you can come up with, leave out Capitalism’s version of “working” and take it even further. be unrealistic for once. the rules don’t have to apply in your mind.

there is a space between your mind and reality where things can and do change. but you have to be willing to go there, first. you have to be willing to question and break these unspoken rules that were never created with your best interest in mind, first.

and honestly, you have to be willing to conjure up so many different alternatives before the pragmatic solutions become visible to you anyway. so survive the moment, yes. but prepare for the moment to pass so you don’t get stuck recreating old shit.

it won’t happen all at once. sometimes you may not even realize it’s happening. but we can’t do this forever. change is the language of the universe, and there will always be a time and a season for all things.

[jayoctodot]

The Silent Patient vs The Maidens

I will start by saying that I understand the appeal of these novels as page-turners. They are easy to read and if you want a twisty reveal at the end, you will probably be entertained and satisfied. That being said, I am SO CONFUSED by the near-universal adoration of The Silent Patient and the reasonably positive reception of The Maidens. The weaknesses of the two are strikingly similar, as well, which doesn’t give me much hope of seeing improvement from this guy, though I am intrigued to see whether he keeps repeating the same (apparently successful!!) patterns. These books were at least super fun to hate.

(For context, I read The Maidens for a bookclub I'm in, because several of the members had read and loved The Silent Patient, and one of them gave me a copy of the latter to read on my own time. I loathed The Maidens and then read The SP for comparative purposes. And because I'm a masochist, apparently.)

SPOILER WARNING! Do not read on unless you've finished both books (or unless you care not for spoilers). Sorry if it gets a bit shouty.

Here are the similar weaknesses I noticed in both:

PSEUDO-PSYCHOLOGY

-> Weirdly similar “group therapy” scenes early on where a cartoonishly unstable patient arrives late, disrupts the meeting by throwing something into the middle of the circle, and is asked to join the group after the therapist(s) speechify on the importance of boundaries (HA! None of these therapists would know an appropriate boundary if it kicked them in the ass) and debate whether to “allow” the patient to join. Both scenes are so transparent in their design to establish the credibility/legitimacy of the narrators as therapists, but instead both Theo and Mariana come off as super patronizing. The protagonists are less and less believable as therapists at the stories progress (though at least Theo’s incompetence is explained away by the “twist” at the end; Mariana, on the other hand, is confronted in the opening pages of the novel by a patient who has self-harmed PRETTY extensively, and rather than ensure he get proper medical attention, she essentially throws him a first aid kit and tosses him out the door so she can pour herself a glass of wine and call her niece... and it devolves from there).

-> Ongoing insistence throughout the narrative that one’s childhood trauma entirely explains the warped/dysfunctional way a character behaves or views the world, which is why the books go out of their way to give EVERY potentially violent character a traumatic childhood; when Theo insists that no one ever became an abuser who hadn’t been abused themselves, I wanted to throw the book across the room. (That is a MYTH, SIR. GET OUT OF HERE WITH YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOLOGY.)

-> Female murderers whose pathology boils down to “history of depression” and “traumatized by a male loved one/family member.” Because, as we all know, depression + abuse = murderer!

-> The “therapy” depicted in both books is laughable and so so unrealistic, mostly because neither narrators function as therapists so much as incompetent detectives, obsessively pursuing a case they have no place pursuing (or skill to pursue - both just happen across every clue mostly by way of clunky conversation with all the people who can provide precisely the snippet of info to send them along to the next person, and the next… until all is revealed in a tired, cliched “twist”). Their constant Psych 101 asides were so tiresome and weirdly dated (also, the constant harping on countertransference got so ridiculous that at one point during "therapy" Theo literally attributes his headache and a particular emotion he feels to Alicia, as though the contents of her head are being broadcast directly into his mind... and I'm PRETTY SURE that's not how it works???)

CHARACTERS

-> Psychotherapist narrators with abusive fathers and pretensions of being Sherlock Holmes, which results in both characters crossing ALL KINDS of ethical lines as they invade the personal lives of everyone even tangentially connected to their cases (and, in Theo's case, violate all kinds of patient confidentiality. Yeah, yeah, by the end, that's the least of his offenses, but before you get there, it's baffling that NO ONE is calling him out on this).

-> All female characters are either elderly with hilariously bad advice, monstrous hulking brutes, or beautiful bitches (except for ~MARIANA~, who is Bella Swan-esque in her unawareness of her own attractiveness, despite multiple men trying to get with her almost immediately after meeting her. I'm so tired of beautiful female characters being oblivious to their own hotness. Are we meant to believe all mirrors and male attention have escaped their notice? If it’s to make them “relatable,” this tactic really fails with me).

-> All characters of color are shallow, cartoonish side characters, and most of them are depicted as unsympathetic minor antagonists (the Sikh Chief Inspector in The Maidens continuously drinks tea from an ever-present thermos, and his only other notable characteristic is his instant dislike of Mariana, whom he VERY RIGHTLY warns to stay out of the investigation that she is VERY MUCH compromising… the Caribbean manager of the Grove is universally disliked by her staff for enforcing stricter safety regulations at the bafflingly poorly run mental institution, because HOW DARE SHE. There's a very clear vibe that we're supposed to dislike these characters and share the protagonists' indignation, but honestly Sangha/Stephanie were completely in the right for trying to shut down their wildly inappropriate investigations).

-> "Working class" characters (or basically anyone excluded from the comfortably upper-crust, educated main cadre of characters) are few and far between in both stories, but when they show up, he depicts them as such caricatures. We got Elsie the pathologically lying housekeeper in the Maidens, who is enticed to share her bullshit with cake, and then a TOOTHLESS LEPRECHAUN DEALING DRUGS UNDER A BRIDGE in the SP. I kid you not, a man described as having the body of a child, the face of Father Time, and no front teeth, emerges from beneath a bridge and offers to sell Theo some "grass." I was dyinggg.

-> There are no characters to root for. Anywhere. Partly because they’re all so thinly drawn — and because we’re clearly supposed to view almost ALL of them as potential suspects, so they’re ALL weird, creepy, or incompetent in some way.

-> The flimsiest of flimsy motives, both for the narrators and the murderers. Theo fully would have gotten away with his involvement in the murder if he hadn't gone out of his way to work at the Grove and "treat" Alicia and his justification for doing so is pretty weak; his rapid descent into stalking and murder fantasy and his random ass decision to "expose" Alicia's husband as a cheater with a spur-of-the-moment home invasion and staged attempted homicide is ONLY justified if the reader hand waves it away as WELP, HE'S CRAZY, I GUESS (after all, he DID have an abusive father and a history of mental illness, and in Michaelides novels, that's ALL YOU NEED to become a violent psycho). I guess we're lucky Mariana didn't also start dropping bodies (because the logic of his fictional universe says she should definitely be a murderer by now... maybe that'll be his Maidens sequel?). But she especially had NO reason to randomly turn detective - and she kept trying to justify it by saying she needed to re-enter the world or that Sebastian would want her to (??), even though she had no background in criminal psychology... or even a particular fondness for mysteries (really, I would've accepted ANYTHING to explain her dogged obsession with the case. WHY were Sebastian and Zoe so certain she would insert herself into the investigation just because one of Zoe's friends was the first victim? WHY?). As for Zoe and Alicia, their motives are mere suggestions: they were both abused and manipulated, and voila! Slippery slope to murder.

WRITING STYLE

-> Incessant allusions to Greek tragedy and myth, apparently to provide a sophisticated gloss over the bare-bones writing style, which opts more for telling than showing and frequently indulges in hilariously bizarre analogies. Credit where credit is due — the references to Greek myth are less clunky in the SP, and I liked learning about the Alcestis play/myth, which I hadn’t heard of before - but OMG the entire characterization of Fosca, who we are meant to believe is a professor of Greek tragedy at one of the most respected universities on the planet, is just absurd. His "lecture" on the liminal in Greek tragedy is essentially the Wikipedia page on the Eleusinian Mysteries capped off with some Hallmark-card carpe diem crap. The lecture hall responds with raucous applause, clearly never having heard such vague genius bullshit before.

-> Super clunky and amateurish narrative device of interludes written by another character; Sebastian’s letter reads like a mashup of Dexter monologues and Clarice’s memory of the screaming sheep, but by FAR the worse offender is Alicia’s diary, where we’re supposed to believe she painstakingly recorded ENTIRE CONVERSATIONS, BEAT-BY-BEAT DIALOGUE, even when she’s just been DRUGGED TO THE GILLS with morphine and has mere moments of consciousness left… and even before that, she literally takes the time to write “He's trying the windows and doors! ...Someone’s inside! Someone’s inside the house! ETC ETC” when she thinks her stalker has broken in downstairs. WHO DOES THAT?)

-> Speaking of dialogue, the dialogue is so bad. Based on his bio, Michaelides got a degree in screenwriting, which makes his terrible dialogue even more baffling.

-> HILARIOUSLY rendered voyeur scenes where the narrators spy on couples having sex. Such unintentionally awkward descriptions. First we had Kathy’s climax sounds through the trees and then the bowler hat carefully placed on a tombstone before the gatekeeper plows a student. Again, I died.

PLOT/"TWIST"

-> The CONSTANT red herrings make for such an exhausting read. Michaelides drops anvils with almost every character that are so obviously meant to designate them as suspects in our minds. There is absolutely no subtlety in his misdirections.

-> The “crossover” scene between the SP and The Maidens makes no sense - when in the timeline does Mariana’s story overlap with Theo’s? They confer just before Theo starts working at the Grove, obviously (though Mariana appears to be the one who alerts Theo to the job opening there? Whereas in the SP, Theo has been obsessively tracking Alicia since the murder and had already planned to apply to work there?), but then are we supposed to believe that while Theo has been psychotically pursuing his warped quest to “help” Alicia, he’s also been diligently treating Zoe, so invested in her case that he repeatedly reaches out to Mariana to get her to visit Zoe and even writes Mariana a lengthy letter to convince her to do so??? And then a couple days after The Maidens ends, Theo is arrested???

-> But the thing I really did hate the most is how Michaelides treats his female murderers (who are both also victims themselves) as mere means to deploy a “twist”; there’s no moment spared to encourage our sympathy for Zoe, who was groomed and manipulated by the only trusted father figure in her life, and even after spending a decent amount of time getting to know Alicia via her ridiculous diary, where it’s so apparent that she’s been demeaned, objectified, manipulated, gaslit, and/or used by EVERY man in her life, she’s sent packing to spend the rest of her days in a coma… HOW much more satisfying would it have been for her to succeed in exposing Theo and reclaiming her voice? But no, she basically rolls over when he comes to finish her off (SPEAKING OF — ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THERE ARE NO SECURITY CAMERAS IN THIS INSTITUTE FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE????), writes one last diary entry, and drifts off forever. And then a couple pages of nothing later, the story is over. GOODNIGHT, ALICIA!

Both books kept me rolling throughout (by which I mean eye-rolling but also rotfl). Maybe I will check out his next effort — I’m morbidly curious what he’ll turn out. It does leave me wondering whether I should give up on thriller novels entirely, though. Are many of the weaknesses of these novels just characteristic of the genre? Maybe I'm just holding these books to unfair standards? I'm mostly only familiar with thriller films — many of which I think are amazing — but maybe you can get away with more in a film than you can in a novel.

...I really only intended to write a handful of bullet points, but more and more kept coming to mind as I wrote, to the point where subheadings became necessary. Whoopsie.

[amateurasstrologer]

BY REQUEST # 10 SATURN (IN THE HOUSES)

Alright y’all, let’s set the record straight about Saturn.

First: tell me a word more powerful than “no” - you can’t. That shit is unmovable. And that’s Saturn operating in your life. Saturn is a fortress - it’s the boundaries you need to respect if you want to get your life right and really work your shit out. Saturn tells you “no” - this mf wants to stop you from getting caught up in a bunch of bullshit and guide you towards getting your life right.

Saturn is structure and form. This planet is a prompt. Anyone who‘s ever tried to make anything, have a conversation, you already know: completely open ended shit gets old. We need direction, questions, structure. Those really juicy, really specific ideas and direct questions that seem to crack your brain right open and let your creativity spill out onto the sidewalk? Saturn, people.

Now, yes, too much structure can end up feeling like a foot on a neck. And this is where that "Saturn is limitations” idea comes into play. Yes, Saturn is working with limits, but they’re not meant to stifle you or make you turn and run in the opposite direction. Too much rigidity is too much rigidity - Saturn is meant to give you just enough gravity to hold your life together, not to stop you from being able to move entirely. Saturn taken too far always ends in traditional thinking, rigidity, and cracks in the foundation. Saturn wants to keep shit stable, but too much stability doesn’t leave enough room for change.

Still, the more we want to hate Saturn for being a crusty dick of a planet, the more we’re fooling ourselves into thinking that we don’t need any stability and beauty in our lives. Yes, bitches, beauty. When it’s operating right, Saturn helps you organize your shit into something meaningful - something beautiful and real - so your life can stop looking like a gross mess and tone the fuck up.

Saturn rules Capricorn. Why? Because Capricorn takes Sag’s ideas and philosophies and turns that shit into something real, something livable, something sharable. And, of course, it’s no wonder that Jupiter rules Sag - the relationship between Jupiter and Saturn is the same as the relationship between Sag and Capricorn: Jupiter helps you to mature, cooperate, and open up your mind to new ideas. Saturn helps you take that maturation and creativity and turn it into something real - Salty Saturn gives you a prompt, some walls to work within, so maturing doesn’t feel so scary and confusing. Saturn is your expectations - it helps you focus your development.

It’s not enough to think about it and talk about it, at some point, you gotta be about it. That’s where Saturn comes in to help you take those ideas, desires, fantasies and turn them into something real. Saturn isn’t a fake bitch, and that’s really why it gets a bad rap. This mf is serving you harsh truth, tough love realness every day of the week. When you’re ready to become an actual person in the world instead of continuing to live out your favorite delusion, call Saturn. Let this wonderful planet give you some structure and tell you “no, stop it,” before you get completely out of control and total yourself.

As always, particulars for the party people:

SATURN IN THE FIRST (1) fortifies your self-image so you can actually figure out how your individual life fits within the bigger picture. You got a message and you are ready to preach it, baby. Always working to get feelings and actions in alignment, unshakably strong sense of purpose. When you don’t respect the “no”: 100% crazy, allowing rigid-ass values and outdated beliefs to define your self-worth, fear of failure gets you lying to yourself to make it.

SATURN IN THE SECOND (2) fortifies your understanding of the past so you can actually organize, structure, and utilize that shit. Personal circumstances have collective meaning, always making your past experiences relevant, past experiences as the foundation for present direction and success. When you don’t respect the “no”: crushed under an inescapable sense of destiny, can’t make sense of anything that’s happened to you, repressing any meaningful feelings in exchange for getting caught up some fake shit.

SATURN IN THE THIRD (3) fortifies your fucking brain so you can actually approach your surroundings in a practical and organized way. Smart as shit, open minded, ready to understand and discuss anything. When you don’t respect the “no”: mental rigidity, imposing your narrow-ass point of view on your environment, fucked around and imprisoned yourself in traditional thinking and/or living in total chaos.

SATURN IN THE FOURTH (4) fortifies your inner-life so you can actually develop a genuine identity and form a rock-solid connection with yourself. Able to take deep, ambiguous feelings and direct that shit into fantastic works of art, projects, and/or true self-understanding. When you don’t respect the “no”: never letting anyone but all the wrong people in, Academy Award for Living a Total-Ass Lie, over-attached to social norms and superficial personality standards.

SATURN IN THE FIFTH (5) fortifies your self-expression so you can actually influence and inspire the people around you. Reserved, receptive, magnetic, understanding, charming. When you don’t respect the “no”: can’t express a genuine feeling to save your life, forcing yourself into traditional roles to save yourself from the struggle of creating and living an authentic life, completely unrealistic self-perception.

SATURN IN THE SIXTH (6) fortifies your focus on self-improvement so you can actually get yourself into a better, more stable place. Never met a change you couldn’t counter and conquer, practical guidance and support available on demand. When you don’t respect the “no”: locked yourself into an unchangeable position, unwilling to acknowledge the truth in other people’s experiences, clinging to the past like a leech.

SATURN IN THE SEVENTH (7) fortifies your approach to relationships so you can actually experience the transformative power of genuine relationships (with anything or anyone). Seriously responsible, supportive, constructive, and a complete joy to be around. When you don’t respect the “no”: passivity to the point of identity listed as Total Loss, zero accountability for how your actions affect other people, choosing fear-based relationships like it’s your damn job.

SATURN IN TH EIGHTH (8) fortifies your social awareness so you can actually manage and organize collective resources and feelings. Physically feeling and articulating collective emotions, source of inspiration and comfort for everyone around you, genius level ability to take care of fucking business. When you don’t respect the “no”: the most unhealthy power dynamics, making people rely on you and then resenting them for it, letting yourself get pushed around by circumstances, getting your victim on.

SATURN IN THE NINTH (9) fortifies your ability to focus on what matters to you so you can actually find some deeper meaning in life. Got the support you need to develop a rock-solid understanding of your experiences, effectively share what you’ve learned, and come up with entirely new beliefs and value systems that let you live a freer, happier life. When you don’t respect the “no”: never trusting your own decisions ever, living in perpetual confusion, infinite disappointment because you decided on unlivable values, beliefs and ideals.

SATURN IN THE TENTH (10) fortifies your perspective on social roles so you can actually influence and sustain relationships. Utilizing defined roles to express personal feelings, breaking down the existing order of things in favor of more effective, productive standards, got the power to bring people together. When you don’t respect the “no”: using outdated values to justifying staying in relationships and roles that are actually unfulfilling, acting like you know when you 100% do not know, totally unwilling to acknowledge alternative approaches.

SATURN IN THE ELEVENTH (11) fortifies your management abilities so you can actually organize and direct people, places, things (and your own life) like a boss bitch. Practical, realistic approaches to any crisis, equip with an arsenal of creative solutions ready to unload, displaying spiritual values through tangible actions. When you don’t respect the “no”: uses outdated values and beliefs to justify inaction, refuses to rise to the occasion, always convincing yourself any productive, quality of life improving actions will be useless.

SATURN IN THE TWELFTH (12) fortifies your subconscious so you can actually shatter all forms of traditional conditioning and embody spiritual values. No tolerance for fake shit. When you don’t respect the “no”: fucked around and isolated yourself from everyone, permanently barred yourself from living in reality, permanently cock-blocking yourself, denial level: unbreakable.

Does all this shit feel familiar? Good. It should. Everyone experiences all of these phases at different points. Where Saturn hangs in your Natal just lets you know which phase is going to be the most prevalent throughout your life.

Happy charting, bitches.

XO BULLSHIT FREE ASTROLOGY

[mauesartetc]

If you were in charge of writing Hazbin or Helluva, what would you change and what would you keep the same?

I kinda answered this back in January, so I'll try not to repeat too much. Basically, I'd flesh out Hazbin's worldbuilding so the setting feels meatier than a basic red city with eyes and pentagrams strewn around. Not only do the designs feel lazy, but we have next to no info on how this society works. If you're making your fantasy world nearly identical to our own (but with demons), why can't you just tell a friggin' slice of life story in the world of the living?

As for Helluva, now that we're much farther into the season, I maintain that the characters should have some actual consequences for their actions, as well as more agency. They should drive the plot, not vice versa. They should feel like real people, not marionettes for the writers to play with.

Moxxie, stop allowing Blitzo to berate you. Octavia, leave Stolas in that fun house. Stella, divorce him. Loona, ditch Blitzo on the beach and stay with the succubi. Blitzo, tell Stolas to start treating you with respect. All of you, stop being such damn unrealistic pushovers.

Regarding Episode 6 specifically, I thought the interrogation scene with the two agents was funny and cute, but their environment doesn't reflect the claim of no one taking their work seriously. Their headquarters is in a skyscraper, they can access countless weapons, and we can safely assume these dozens of agents are getting paid somehow. Clearly, someone takes them seriously enough to foot the bill for all this.

The animation in the trip-out sequences was great, but it would've made more sense if they explored why Blitzo wants so badly to be a father to Loona, and why Moxxie is overly attached to Millie (like Blitzo mentions before they start hallucinating). These are conflicts we've seen more prominently throughout the show, rather than Blitzo's newly-revealed fear of... dying alone? I think? And Moxxie's need to... I guess stand up for himself? I don't even remember at the moment; that's how irrelevant these "truths" were to the characters' actual experiences.

Also, Blitzo's assertion that he's hard on Moxxie because he cares seems like such bullshit. There's a difference between tough love and verbal abuse, and I invite readers to revisit Murder Family to see which one best fits Blitzo's behavior.

But the big "fuck you, show" moment was the kiss between Blitzo and Stolas. Up to that point, Blitzo had shown no signs of legitimately caring about Stolas; he was just sleeping with him for the grimoire. But now I guess he loves him, completely out of nowhere. And Stolas treats him like a sex object, so why are we supposed to root for this relationship, again?

Oh, and um, Blitzo... If you really care about Stolas, you might warn him about the hit man who tried to kill him last episode instead of shoving your tongue down his throat. Striker's still out there and very much a threat, and it's weird that the writers are pretending he isn't.

This episode should have opened with Blitzo banging on Stolas' door and yelling frantically that he's in danger. Really, the whole thing could've concerned evacuating Stolas and his family to a safe house, and Blitzo having some relationship-building moments with both Stolas and Stella (who has every right to be angry about her husband's cheating, though hiring someone to kill him is a tad extreme). There'd even be some suspense as Stella contacts Striker in secret, letting him know exactly where they are. But while she waits for him to show up and airs her feelings to both Stolas and Blitzo, might they patch things up somewhat? Might Stolas actually apologize? Might Stella have a change of heart?

But yeah, as I recently mentioned, here's the best thing that could happen at the end of the season: Blitzo dumps Stolas, and the gang starts a journey through the rings of Hell to find some other way to get to the surface, taking on odd jobs as they go. Next season, they might even reexamine why they feel the need to get revenge for others, and how these motivations fuel their search for a transportation method.

Let's be real, though. Season 2 will just give us more Stolitz fan service. It's so disheartening to think about what we could've had.