#crimes of passion meta

[good-realtor-bad-realtor-dynamic]

the anthrax being sugar all along is the key to dennis' whole character.

dudebros on r/iasip just see the anthrax (aka the façade) and accuse us of just seeing the sugar (aka the truth), but the thing of it is, when you see the sugar, you can also see the implication of anthrax, and that explains everything about the way the world works in dennis' mind.

[normal-thoughts-official]

Putting all my CoP II theories out there before we find out who the killer is tomorrow: a post

So I'm gonna start this by saying that I don't have a definitive theory I'm putting all my money on, this is more a collection of thoughts/leads/evidence as someone who's replayed every chapter as many times as it took to see what happened when you picked each option, and who's really invested in this

First things first: I'm not operating on the assumption that Juliana's killer is necessarily the same one who killed Nadja and Sebastyan, because we have no definitive proof of that and the more I think about it the more I think it makes more sense for them to be different people. I'm also including my theories on the whole Trystan trial thing, which they really should have looked into more deeply from the start to begin with, but anyway

1. Involved Siblings

At this point, I think it's pretty obvious that the only eligible suspects for either of the murders are Lydea, Vasili, Astrid, and the twins. The first three lied about their alibis, and the twins don't have one to begin with. All of them except for Lydea we know for a fact were in the palace by the time of Nadja's murder, and we have no idea where Lydea was. All of them, obviously, had access to the secret passage and the Thorne daggers; Astrid even has a convenient excuse for not having hers (she said she lost it in Tajikistan), but even if it isn't her, it is possible that she didn't lose her dagger but instead had it stolen by one of the other siblings, and doesn't know about it. In that case, I find it worth noting that Lydea is the only one who went out of her way to show that she still has her own dagger, and Vasili wouldn't have been expected to have one anyway; if he's the killer, using it might even be a good move to point the evidence away from him

Finally, we know for a fact that the first three were aware of the location of the cameras in the opera house, and, while we don't know for a fact that the twins do as well, we do know that Emika is perfectly capable of getting inside the surveillance system and get that information should they want to. Last but not least, those are the siblings we always have a chance of watching/asking about, which I think is worth noting. Finally, none of them save for the twins has been the object of a thorough investigation. Also, in the case of Juliana's murder, I think it's safe to say anyone younger than them would have been too young to have dated Juliana OR overpowered her so easily; Marguerite was a minor, and, while we're not sure Patryk was a minor, he was definitely built like a twig at the time, considering that he still is. Plus, by the time Juliana was a teenager, they were both definitely children

With that being said, I think it's safe to rule out the twins in general as well; Kaspar can't have been Nadja's murderer because we know that the murderer escaped through the secret passage, but Kaspar walked straight out of the room holding a bloody garrote like an idiot. He's also generally not smart enough to pull any of this off. And Emika does have an alibi, since we know that they were replying to randos on Twitter by the time of Nadja's murder. Not being Nadja's murderer rules out being Sebastyan's because those were definitely committed by the same person, and they have no motive to kill any of the people involved. I could maybe see Emika killing Juliana if Kaspar was the ex, because they are that insane (the incident with Astrid's ex shows that), but everything so far points to the killer and the ex being the same person. Also, if Kaspar had been Juliana's ex, Emika would never have given Trystan and MC the information about the letters, because it'd give them even more reason to suspect the two of them

That leaves Vasili, Lydea, and Astrid as elligible suspects. I'd like to point out, as a final comment, that Astrid and Vasili both knew that Juliana and Trystan were going to be on the boat the night she was murdered, and that they would be alone, something the killer would obviously have to know in order to kill Juliana. We don't know whether or not Lydea had that information but I don't think it'd have been too hard for her to get that info from the other two, especially considering that Vasili didn't even really want to cover for Trystan anyway and him and Lydea had a good relationship

2. Other possibilities

Other than the siblings, I see two other possibilities for people who could be involved: one of the monarchs, or a 10th sibling who's the illegitimate heir and going on a rampage about it, Veil of Secrets style

3. Juliana's murder

I think it's safe to rule out one of the monarchs being Juliana's ex, because what the fuck, and if the 10th sibling theory is real then Juliana wouldn't have known that whoever she was dating was a Thorne, since she didn't know who the illegitimate child was. That means Juliana's murderer was definitely one of the Three Elligible Siblings. Technically it could still be Sebastyan, but considering his "you've broken my heart every day of my life" line I think evidence points to him having pined desperately for her and not being requited

(Plus, killing her would have been a stupid move for the Act for Heir Equity since he needed her for public support, and the "he killed her out of anger for turning her back on the Act" theory doesn't really hold much water considering he was the one who wanted them to take a break. The e-mail Juliana sent him talking about Trystan also proves that he wasn't the ex, since it was just a few weeks after her angry letter to whoever it was that she hated so much; if the letter had been addressed to Sebastyan, why would she be trading happy e-mails with him gushing about her new love? We know for a fact that they were still on good terms by the time she was writing her ex angry letters; it wouldn't make sense for it to have been him

I see no reason whatsoever why Sebastyan couldn't have just stolen the locket from whoever the ex was because he is creepy about the women he likes [see: the sexy pictures of his ex in his goddamn office]. That would even give them extra motive to kill him, because if Sebastyan took the locket from them, it means he knew who the ex was)

So, we're back to where we begun: Lydea, Astrid, or Vasili. Here's the case for each of them being the ex:

Lydea: frankly, I can't see Lydea being the ex. The image of a jealous possessive person killing someone out of spite, stalking someone, and etc. does not fit her profile at all. Lydea keeps her temper in check no matter what and clearly has a pretty strong sense of honor and duty; and we know that that has been the case since she was a child. The only evidence in favor of Lydea I can think of is that the murderer was wearing the Drakovian Police cloak, but that's just a generic grey cloak anyway; and the fact that she recognized Juliana's locket so quickly, which strikes me as a bit odd for someone who didn't even know her that well, but it isn't exactly hard to believe that she recognized it simply because she's observant and saw Juliana a lot ever since they were kids. She is also too smart to have done such a shit job of burning her letters to her. All in all, she sounds like the least likely candidate

Vasili: the case for Vasili is a bit more substantial, but barely. It's pretty clear that Vasili has a lot more resentment towards Trystan than he lets on, and about his position in the family in general, which is why I think so many people are so deadset on BlameVasili2023. So I could see him being the kind of person who's a creepy bitter stalker without most people expecting it. But Juliana described her ex as being charming, and Vasili barely has any real presence; he seems more neutral than "charming" to me. He also just doesn't sound and act at all like the person we saw in that murder flashback. That means that we have two options here: either Vasili is secretly way more theatrical and sadistic than he lets on, and he's a master manipulator about it, in which case I think he would be able to keep his temper in check long enough to realize that killing Juliana would pretty much ruin any chance of getting the Act to pass; or he isn't all that calculating and good at holding back his temper, in which case I think we would have seen more signs of this incredibly possessive person

It's not impossible, however, especially considering that he knew where Trystan and Juliana would be, and had reasons to be particularly frustrated at her, not only for choosing Trystan but also for leaving Marguerite during her show. It would have been a pretty powerful combination: seeing Juliana with his own sibling, who is also the heir to a throne he will never get, and who is also leaving your little sister that you really care about in a moment that is important to her. Not to mention that she had taken a step back on getting the Act passed. The fact that Trystan is Marguerite's favorite despite all that is just rubbing salt to the wound, too. All in all, pretty decent motive, and we know his temper runs deeper than he lets on, even if he doesn't exactly fit Juliana's killer's profile. Considering his closeness to Bas, it also stands to reason that Bas would know about his relationship with Juliana through him, and resent him less for it than Trystan because he likes Vasili, at least. Vasili is also the only one I can think of that would make sense to say "but I finally found a way we can have everything we always wanted" to Juliana; if the plan had been to get rid of Trystan and get the Act to pass, that would make Vasili the heir, which I assume is something they fantasized about back when they were together. But killing Juliana got in the way of getting the Act to pass, and if Vasili was willing to kill to get it passed, why would he have sat on his ass and done nothing for 8 whole years after that, when the Act was tabled?

Astrid: I think Astrid is definitely the likeliest candidate out of the three. She fits the profile for the killer really well: seeming charming and nice at first (we know how good at manipulating she is, and she can seduce pretty much whoever she wants and definitely has a lot of friends), but really passionate and quick to anger. Trystan even said that the only thing Astrid likes more than falling in love is being angry, and she can definitely hold a grudge and seems vengeful. Juliana's murder was also very personal in general, not to mention theatrical; the bird whistle, the dramatic convo, the super personal murder method (blunt force trauma is pretty passionate, and we know they strangled her, too, which is pretty much the most intimate murder method there is), the relative sloppiness of it. This wasn't the perfect airtight murder plan Lydea would have come up with; so many things could have gone wrong, starting with Trystan waking up from all the drama. And it seems a bit too intense and not calculated enough for Vasili. But Astrid "tantrum" Thorne would definitely have murdered someone exactly how Juliana's murderer did. Plus, she also knew where Trystan and Juliana would be. The only point against her would be that it would have been a little less likely for Bas to know about their relationship, but she could have heard about it from Juliana herself, since they were friends. And I can't really see why she would choose that specific day to kill her, as opposed to any other time, but it could be related to the fact that Juliana was looking into the illegitimate heir. I also think it's worth noting that Astrid was the only one out of the three that had sent letters to Juliana when Trystan and MC went through the stack. Which sounded odd to me, since it was never mentioned that they were particularly close

4. Trystan's trial

I have no doubt in my mind that the one who sent the evidence to the Georgescus, bought off Trystan's lawyer, got the original audio of the "confession" edited, and etc etc etc was Queen Viktoria. We know it had to have been one of the monarchs, since in the book 1 bonus scene we see a Drakovian agent talking to a "Your Majesty" about framing Trystan. And Maksim has no motive whatsoever to want to get rid of Trystan, but boy, does Viktoria

Motive #1: we know for a fact that Queen Viktoria is the de factum leader of Drakovia. Maksim is barely there, and he was only even implied to have participated in official State matters on Trystan's first day back as heir. The whole rest of the time, it was Queen Viktoria and Queen Viktoria only who was calling the shots. She was even the one to preside Trystan's trial and announce Sebastyan's death despite the fact that he's not even her son. And we know from Eveline that Viktoria wanted to be Queen, which is why their arrangement works to begin with. So, Viktoria wants power. She wants to remain in control of the crown, which she will have to relinquish soon once Maksim turns 65. With Lydea as the heir, even if Viktoria handn't been the ruler by name she would definitely be the ruler in practice, because Lydea follows her every order without questioning. Lydea was her favorite, she was disciplined, she was obedient, she was a perfect fit. Trystan, in contrast, had always been a wild card and never seen eye to eye with Viktoria. And no matter what the official Thorne narrative about Trystan is, we know for a fact that Trystan cares. They do have a strong sense of responsibility - to Drakovia, to the people they love, to what they think is right, to people they barely know who got murdered and deserve justice. And we know their politics are progressive; they have talked about misogyny and social inequality and all the laws in Drakovia that they wanted to change, and I have no doubt that they care enough to go through with this. Trystan, as an heir, is Viktoria's worst nightmare, because they're disobedient and have the will and sense of responsibility to see through getting all the reforms Viktoria doesn't want to pass. There is nothing Viktoria wants more than to get rid of them and make sure Lydea inherits the throne instead

Motive #2: She has an illegitimate child. Duh. And we know from that bonus scene conversation that the main reason they wanted to get rid of Trystan is that they knew too much. I can't see anything important enough for Trystan to be able to discover other than Viktoria's illegitimate child. Considering how it is probably close to Juliana's murder, and Trystan was starting to revisit what happened then, it stands to reason that they would be worried about Trystan discovering who she was. Hence the need to neutralize them before Maksim had to relinquish the throne. Which can only mean one thing:

5. The illegitimate child

It has to be Lydea. It would make no sense otherwise

Viktoria has nearly no stakes in making sure no one knows Astrid is illegitimate. Who cares? Illegitimate children are already accepted in Drakovia, and Astrid is the third in line, so, barring Lydea's sudden death, she wouldn't even inherit the throne. And there's no way Viktoria would want her to. Astrid might be the only possible heir that would give Viktoria more grief than Trystan, because she has all the same qualities of being unpredictable and hard to control, without Trystan's sense of responsibility, which makes her harder to manipulate. Plus, she has ties to the mafia, which makes that particular power struggle much harder. If Astrid was the illegitimate child, I think Viktoria would probably shout it from the rooftops to make sure she never lives the nightmare of having Astrid inherit the throne, not go out of her way to make sure Trystan wouldn't be able to hypothetically look into it and find out about it

If it's Lydea, though? Viktoria is fucked. Lydea wouldn't be able to take the throne, which would leave either Trystan or Astrid. Unless the Act for Heir Equity passes, but if it does, Vasili will take the throne, not Lydea. And Vasili has no loyalty whatsoever to Viktoria; he's not even her son. Way I see it, Viktoria's most important interest at the moment is making sure Lydea inherits the throne; that means making sure no one finds out she's illegitimate and that the Act for Heir Equity doesn't pass. That's the only thing that gives her the motive to want to get rid of Trystan, and, possibly, to want to murder Nadja and Sebastyan

6. The current killer

If I'm right about Lydea being the illegitimate child, then what makes the most sense is for the killer to be under Viktoria's orders

I don't think Lydea would kill to make sure no one found out she was the illegitimate child; she doesn't even want the throne. And no one else has any stakes on making sure people don't find out about that. The existence of the illegitimate child has to be important, plot-wise. If it was simply about the Act, there would be no reason for that particular plotline. Plus, as pointed out relentlessly this week's chapter, the Act wasn't going to pass anyway. Whoever the killer is, stopping the Act alone can't be their only motive. But if this is about protecting the secret of the illegitimate heir? Then killing everyone connected to the Act, who also just so happen to have the means to find out about the illegitimate person, is killing two birds with one stone. Plus, Viktoria hates Sebastyan. She even calls him a "stain on the family" if you choose to tell her that she's grieving him. Were it not for the fact that we know from the flashback that Juliana was murdered by her ex, I'd even say that she probably killed all of them: Juliana to get rid of the Act for good, frame Trystan, get rid of a possible future queen with progressive politics, and stop her from looking further into the illegitimate child; Nadja and Sebastyan to make sure the following attempts to get the Act passed (and subsequent looking into the royal line like Juliana did) won't take off

Now. I find it unlikely that Viktoria would kill Nadja and Sebastyan herself, even if she is strong enough for it. If anything, because she can outsource that work, so why wouldn't she? And I don't think she'd want to risk being any closer to any of this than she needs to. Also, I don't think Sebastyan would turn his back to her. Which means she would need to get someone else to do it

I'd love for it to be Lydea, because that'd make a fantastic twist. The killer is the most obvious one, but for the complete opposite reasons than you'd think. It'd also explain Lydea wanting to hide the body, the identation from her ring on Sebastyan's neck (although, really, girl, take the stupid thing off), the remorseful act of placing Sebastyan in a more dignified pose, why Lydea lied about her alibi (twice), why Sebastyan would have turned his back to the killer, the strength and finesse the killer obviously possesses. With Nadja's murder, there was the sloppy attempt to frame Trystan, but there could be an easy explanation for that, which is that she didn't expect Kaspar to fucking show up to steal Trystan's shit. That'd mean she'd have to leave the scene before finishing the job of faking the stab wounds, leaving a sloppier job than usual

Buuut... That doesn't quite fit. For starters, if Viktoria had gotten Lydea to do the kills, why would she take Lydea off the investigation? It'd make much more sense to make her the investigator and lie about it. Plus, Lydea seemed genuinely surprised to see Sebastyan dead, and she seems genuinely invested in finding out who killed him. And if she had killed him under Viktoria's orders in order to protect the secret that she was the illegitimate heir, why would she tell Trystan and MC about the illegitimate child at all?

Even if Viktoria didn't tell her about that (which I don't think she would, because Lydea seems the type to immediately abdicate if she had known her claim wasn't legitimate), that would mean that Lydea really was in Sebastyan's house at the time of the murder, otherwise she wouldn't have gotten that information to begin with. And if Viktoria herself told her about it, why the hell would she want Lydea to share that information? And there is absolutely no way Lydea would have shared it without Viktoria's consent. National security matter and all that shit

So here's my favorite theory as to who she outsourced the job to: Colette

Colette was trailing Sebastyan, so she knew exactly when Sebastyan would be alone and MC and Trystan were conveniently out of the way. Easy enough then to leave the scene later and go after them tearfully telling them that she lost sight of him. In fact, trailing him gives her a wonderful excuse for any evidence they could find against her, since she had a perfectly valid reason to have been following him. We already know that her main allegiance is to the crown; that means Viktoria. And she, apparently, fucking guards the security cameras in the palace alone, so she was probably at the palace, and that'd explain how she didn't see shit about the murder in the surveillance feed. And, of course, Colette has the same training Lydea does, which means she's just as capable of getting the job done cleanly

She's not a Thorne (unless there really is a 10th sibling and it happens to be her), but she wouldn't have to be if she were under Viktoria's orders. Viktoria is too practical to give a shit about giving Colette a Thorne dagger if it were for the greater good or whatever. And let's be real, of course Viktoria knows about the stupid secret passage and its codes. If anything because Trystan probably used to hide in there to avoid their tutors and Lydea would absolutely snitch their room's code if Viktoria asked

But my favorite part of it is that Colette would probably also have her own ulterior motives: namely, getting rid of Lydea

Trystan's return meant that Lydea was no longer heir, which in turn meant that she could take the Captain of the Royal Guard title again. I'm not sure if she was Captain while Trystan was gone, but even if she was, when she took the throne that spot would be vacant again. And considering how closely to the palace Colette works, and how much Lydea trusts her, I think it's likely that Colette would take that spot once Lydea took the throne

It is in both Viktoria's and Colette's best interests that Lydea takes the throne, for different reasons, which means that them working together would have made a lot of sense. And the fact that their motives are different could explain some of the inconsistencies, such as the ring indentation. There's no way whoever the killer is is stupid enough to fucking leave this massive chunky ring on when going out to murder someone, especially considering they'd have put latex gloves on and getting those around a ring that big would be a fucking nightmare. Are these bitches uncapable of taking off a ring? Come on. Please don't insult my intelligence here. But Colette could have put that on with the specific intent to frame Lydea - who wears the ring on her left hand - if she believed that it would be easier to just let her take the fall for the murders than to try and get her to take the throne again. It'd also explain her going behind Lydea's back to give us info. I can also buy Colette rearranging Sebastyan's body out of respect - he was a member of the royal family, after all

The Thorne dagger could be to put us on a wild goose chase after one of the siblings and point us away from Colette/Viktoria. And Juliana's murder would probably be unrelated, which I actually believe it is, because the M.O is completely different. Juliana's murder was obviously a crime of passion (pardon the pun), even if a planned one, while the others were clearly strategic murders. If it's the same person who committed them, then they did it for different reasons

If Viktoria is behind the murders, it'd also explain her handing over the investigation to MC and not Lydea. I have to assume she thought we weren't as competent as Lydea, especially if we were working with Trystan, whom the entire family consistently underestimates. Getting Lydea away from the investigation might have been her way of making sure no one found out. Which obviously backfired, so she needed to change gears, especially if she knew how close MC and Trystan were to uncovering the truth behind Juliana

It's not airtight, but it'd make for an interesting story in my opinion. My main issue with this theory is that, if Viktoria wanted to get rid of Trystan ASAP, why would she have Nadja be murderer on a day when she knew for a fact Trystan had an alibi? Sure, the alibi was herself, which is convenient, but Maksim was also there, and Maksim likes Trystan. They did separate from them a few (minutes?) before the murder, so maybe she was planning to use that window to frame Trystan and wasn't expecting them to have been with MC when they found the body, ruining the "Trystan did it" theory. It could be that she's been scrambling after that, waiting for a good opportunity to get rid of Trystan (again), and she kept MC around because, since they became an unwanted witness, she needed to keep an eye on them, and there's no better way to do that than making sure they report to her

But there are other theories that I think could be interesting/make sense:

ASTRID

Astrid's been my main suspect for most of the book now, both because of the Juliana reasons mentioned ago and because she seems to always be conveniently there to derail the investigation whenever it goes a certain reason. She was the one who pointed us towards Sebastyan; she was the one who was around when we were talking to Olivia; she was the one trying to deflect and/or start drama among her other siblings whenever we were around trying to interrogate them. But now I have a few issues with my own theory:

1- Astrid doesn't give enough of a shit about Sebastyan to rearrange his body

2- Astrid is way too passionate to make such clean murders, especially Sebastyan's; I also don't think Nadja or Bas were close enough to her to be completely caught off guard by her attack the way the scene implied them to be. And if I'm right about Astrid having murdered Juliana, the differences in M.O would point to her not having murdered Nadja and Bas

3- I can't see a convincing motive

Say Astrid is the illegitimate child. I really don't see why she would be willing to kill to keep that information a secret. Maybe if she actually wanted the throne, but let's be serious: why the fuck would she? As is, Astrid has her perfect life. She has all the privilege with none of the responsibilities, and she can more or less do whatever she wants. She's not even interested in having a short talk with her entire family, nevermind spend most of her days in boring as fuck meetings with foreign dignataries having to make a bunch of decisions and fight her mom over it. Astrid doesn't want the throne, she wants to be at brunch in Barcelona with the girlies

My best guess for this one would be that she wanted to keep her status as a legitimate heir; that could track. Status is everything in Astrid's world, and even if becoming illegitimate would still mean she had the same money and privilege, it would kind of be a scandal that would damage her reputation. Maybe she killed Juliana for passion reasons and then found out about her own illegitimacy because of her, then she killed Nadja and Sebastyan to keep that secret when it looked like they would be poking into that information. It does make sense, and accounts for just about everything we've seen in her behavior

I have three issues with this theory: the first is that it's the most boring answer. The second is that I still don't think she is strong or clean enough to commit these murders, or to rearrange Sebastyan's body. The third is that, if Astrid is illegitimate, then I have no fucking clue why anyone in the family would have wanted to summon Trystan so close to Lydea's coronation

Astrid wasn't the one to get the evidence out there, because this was clearly ordered by one of the monarchs, unless Choices forgot that you don't use "your majesty" to refer to princes and princesses. If they did... Then fine, I guess, maybe she could have wanted to make sure Trystan wouldn't go poking around and find out about her, but I don't really see why she would bother with doing that considering that Trystan wasn't even in Drakovia to begin with. If all she wanted was to keep her illegitimacy a secret, then she already had everything sorted out; bringing Trystan back and reopening that whole wound sounds counterproductive

Unless I'm wrong and Astrid does want the throne, for reasons that I really cannot fathom. Then it could be that they called her "your majesty" because this is all part of a huge conspiracy to get her to the throne. I'm still not sure why she would summon Trystan back, but it does sort of explain the inconsistencies in both Nadja's and Sebastyan's murders. Because she could also be trying to frame Lydea. If she did, she could get rid of Trystan (out of psychological pressure, if nothing else) and Lydea if Lydea took the blame for the murders. It would explain the ring indentation on Sebastyan's neck and even the body rearranging if her plan was to point the investigation towards people who actually liked Sebastyan. She doesn't even have to have committed the murders herself, she could have hired someone and given them instructions. But Astrid hasn't really been gunning to turn the investigation towards Lydea; the one she kept pushing into our path was Sebastyan. Also, again, it's just sort of boring

And if it was really Queen Viktoria who tried to frame Trystan in the trial, which I really think is the most logical explanation, then I don't see why she would go through such lengths to protect Astrid's legitimate status. If it's Lydea, then yeah, she'd want to make sure nothing could get in the way of her coronation. But I can't see her going that far to hide Astrid's secret. Again: who cares? She's not even a viable option for the throne currently, and it's not like having bastard children is a massive scandal in Drakovia

If Astrid isn't the illegitimate child and it's Lydea instead... Then I see no motive whatsoever for her to murder Sebastyan and Nadja. Unless, of course, she does want the throne and thought it'd be a good opportunity to frame Lydea and get rid of Trystan. In that case, Juliana's murder, Trystan's summoning, and the subsequent murders are actually kind of unrelated. Which makes sense because there is so many levels of 5D chess going on here. Goddamn it, that works. Fine

But it could be simply that she killed Juliana, has nothing to do with the current murders, but has been hovering around the investigation to make sure we don't find out about Juliana. That would explain why she keeps trying to make us look into Sebastyan; if we believe that he was the ex, then her secret is safe. I think I kind of prefer that one, but I guess it could go either way

VASILI

The main points in favor of BlameVasili2023 are:

Both the ring and the dagger point to a legitimate Thorne being the culprit, and are really dumb moves, so they could have been Vasili's attempt to make sure he wouldn't be a main suspect

He has the most obvious reason to rearrange Sebastyan's body

He definitely seems strong enough to have committed the murders, and clean enough without being as perfect as Lydea to have been pretty good but still leave some clues

This one is lame, but in this week's chapter, if you choose to watch the twins or Astrid, you get +Detective if you guess at the reasons that imply they didn't do it; but if you choose to watch Vasili, you get +Detective if you wonder what could have made him hurt Sebastyan. I'd like to think Choices isn't shortsighted enough to leave such an obvious clue, but they did spoil the story twice in the chapter summaries, so

There is obviously more to him than meets the eye, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he had some big dark secret. I do think he hates Trystan, or at least resents them deeply. Enough to want them away from the throne, even if he doesn't inherit it; at least Lydea is someone he respects

The main points against Vasili are:

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MOTIVE

I could maybe see him killing Sebastyan to do that whole weird "vote for the Act to honor my little brother uwu" shit, but it sounds like a bit of an extreme move when getting rid of Markarov would have worked just as well without killing his own little brother. And if killing Sebastyan sounds like a stretch, then I really see no reason whatsoever for killing Nadja. If Vasili wants the throne, then Nadja working on the Act again was his best bet of getting that to happen; and he could have gotten rid of Trystan after that. It would have been more efficient than killing her, actually. Unless he already had his own plans to get the throne once Lydea became queen, and Trystan being back put those in jeopardy, so he impulsively killed her in an attempt to frame Trystan again. But Sebastyan's murder didn't point to Trystan being the culprit in any way; Vasili would have known by now that Trystan would have been with MC the whole time, thus having an alibi

Unless, of course, Vasili is Juliana's ex, and he killed Sebastyan to protect that secret. Or even to protect that he killed Nadja. But I struggle to see why Sebastyan would snitch on Vasili when he worshipped the ground Vasili walked on to begin with. Maybe it could be that Sebastyan couldn't actually forgive him for killing the woman he loved, or that he had a problem with killing Nadja to get their own goals; but Sebastyan isn't really above playing dirty, as we damn well know. And if it's about Juliana, why wait until now to say something?

Best possibility I can think of right now is that Sebastyan only found out recently that Vasili was Juliana's ex, which was when he discovered the locket in Vasili's things somehow. It would explain why he had it with him without being the ex himself. And if Sebastyan really loved Juliana as much as he was implied to, then that might just be the thing that would get him to turn on Vasili. So Vasili could have killed Juliana out of anger and spite, Nadja to try to get rid of Trystan, and Sebastyan to protect his secret after the aforementioned murders. It would explain the remorse, because he did love Sebastyan, and why he would feel like he had no other reason. And the queen summoning Trystan would be unrelated to that; it just forced his hand in the Nadja murder because he wanted to get rid of Trystan ASAP. It was even Vasili's idea to get Marguerite to have her fashion show, so he could have planned to kill him there all along

God damn it, that's actually kind of airtight. Fuck. I'm gonna be so mad if Vasili did it. I've been saying that I didn't see it for weeks and now suddenly he sounds like a prime suspect. God fucking damn it, fuck

I will however say that I still don't think Vasili fits the profile for Juliana's murder, and if he isn't Juliana's murderer, then he has no reason to kill Sebastyan. Even if Vasili killed Nadja for unrelated reasons, I don't think Sebastyan liked her enough to snitch on him; we already know Sebastyan isn't above a little political murder. So I guess I'm still filing that theory as not the most likely

LYDEA

Best guess for Lydea that isn't that she was under Viktoria's orders is that she does want the throne and lied about it. Not impossible, but I have believed that Lydea never wanted the throne from the start; it's pretty obvious that being Captain is what she enjoys. If she is the illegitimate child, then she could be killing to protect that secret. But then why would she tell MC and Trystan that there was one? As a last ditch attempt to turn them on Astrid, maybe, but that'd be really sloppy. Especially since she didn't have to tell them that the killer was female. She could have pointed them to any one of the siblings she wanted, so why Astrid, whom they never really considered?

Or it could be that it was never about the throne, but to protect Juliana's secret. Anyone looking into the Act would be looking into Juliana's death, and that might point them towards her. But again, I think Lydea is the least likely to be Juliana's ex. If she is, then this whole thing was made on impulse, in a sloppy way (using the Thorne dagger and keeping the ring on, really?) and without much care of the consequences, which is out of character for Lydea. Unless she has a way more impulsive and passionate streak than she lets on, which was what Juliana meant in that letter when she said that they wouldn't expect her to be so creepy and possessive. But it's kind of difficult to hide that you're that impulsive, and I just struggle to buy it for Lydea. Not impossible, though, and character consistency isn't Choices' strongest suit, so I guess that theory is on the run as well

THE 10TH SIBLING

This theory is more crack than anything, not to mention it's basically just Veil of Secrets 2.0, but I don't think one could accuse Choices of being incredibly original. If there is a 10th sibling, my favorite bet is that it's the queen's royal advisor. I could see how being put in that position, ignored by all the other siblings, in a position of subservience, etc etc, would make someone bitter enough to go on a killing rampage. Die hate cry. But if it is the 10th sibling, I think that Choices is gonna pull a "the motive is something we could not have possibly guessed at until the exact moment it is revealed to us out of nowhere" yet again, and I really hope they don't do that, because it's lazy and annoying and disappointing. I can't really see any coherent motive for the 10th sibling right now, since there are many holes in that theory:

Why would she get in the way of the Act for Heir Equity, which would basically put her in equal footing with the others?

Why now, and why these particular victims in this particular way?

Why did Viktoria hide the existence of her when the entire country knows Maksim has three entire illegitimate children? Unless she is older than Trystan (which the advisor seems to be. Also, she has no last name, just saying) and it would be particularly problematic for the firstborn to be a bastard, but sounds kind of like a stretch

There is no clear reason why that would in any way tie with Juliana's murder, which would be pretty disappointing and lazy of them

My best guess: the 10th sibling/royal advisor has been planning to take the throne this whole time, and getting Trystan back was the first step to that plan. She was the one who brought him back, and her lackey called her "your majesty" because they are part of a conspiracy to get her the throne. The plan was always to bring Juliana's murder back to light so they would find out there was an illegitimate child who would inherit the throne. And maybe that could rekindle the interest in the Act for Heir Equity, which had been well and truly dead at that point. But if that's the case, I don't see how killing Nadja and Sebastyan would in any way contribute to that. I could, however, see why she would show remorse over killing Sebastyan; he was, after all, the one closest to her position as a fellow bastard who wanted to change things. All in all, this is the theory that would require us to miss the most pieces of the puzzle, and would mean a lot of the information we got on the other siblings is just pointless. Which, let's be honest, is consistent with how they played Book 1, but I want to believe that this mystery is more interesting than that and the Thorne's involvement is more substantial

In conclusion

I need psychological intervention and the next chapters cannot come out fast enough

If you've read it this far, thank you! If you want to discuss theories, feel free to reblog, reply, or shoot an ask or DM

[gaiuskamilah]

"damocles" being the safe word with trystan and rose.. aside from trystan being the dom in the situation it's also obviously about their character as a whole and their past as heir

[gutsfics]

boy i wonder where i've seen THIS house before.

oh, that's right

it's both John Castle's AND Thomas Hunt's houses, in Red Carpet Diaries. (left is book1ch1, right is book3ch3, screenshots from youtube)

@choicesbookclub

[v-arbellanaris]

i keep promising to post abt my ocs once a day and then i forget to do that bc i keep old man posting. im so sorry

[soarrenbluejay]

Since I’ve been encouraged to actually share my funny little blorbo ideas here’s another one gang;

Danny moves to Gotham on scholarship for engineering, because the Fentons may be infamous but they’re also insanely brilliant and besides both he and Jazz are showing every sign of embarrassed child of a super genius syndrome, so while the bats are keeping a close eye on him Just In Case, duke is also thinking of introducing him to the Our Parents Are Maniacs But Anyway club maybe after the first month or so.

Gotham does not go for standard dorm living bc of his ‘condition’ and lack of wanting to constantly spook/gaslight a roommate. Besides, living with two small children is a dorm sounds like a disaster in action.

So Danny signs up as a mechanic in Crime Alley, buys himself a teeny weensy lil apartment and Makes It Work. He has been all year after showing up with a de aged Dani and Dan in Amnity after all, and that had gone,,, fine? (The entire town, observing how Danny had been getting increasingly more uncomfortable around his godfather prior to the cloning incident, then just dropped off the face of the earth for several months, the first two weeks stuck in Vlad’s basement enduring horrors and the next Too Many desperately fapping around in the Ghost Zone to get everything handled. All the clones live, all 13 of them. Bunch of them are stuck in the Ghost Zone due to constant need for ectoplasm, but eh, plenty of Zone born never leave, so. One, in the future, apprentices under a green warrior lady on Pandora’s suggestion, another is working in the Eternal Library with Ghost Writer, etc etc. so Danny eventually came back to Amnity with one small child under each arm very obviously traumatized by Somethingn with vlad and doesn’t like being alone with him,,, or touched without warning,, and immediately and passionately proclaims the kids his but struggles to explain how or why,, look some very reasonable assumptions are drawn okay. So the town does the very reasonable thing and does the midwestern equivilant of excommunicating Vlad, except it’s a lot more run him out with pitchforks vibes since he’s the Mayor. Anyway)

He is immediately loved, because while non Gothamites are usually more of a pain than they’re worth, everyone in a while someone even from out of town will just fit in so nicely it’s uncanny for everyone involved. Addams family vibes, it’s referred to as ‘making it home’, just personal hc. He is protective of all the kids playing in the parks and street girls that can totally take care of themselves on their corners but find it HILARIOUS when he just tackles a dick like a wild animal full force no warning. He can fix anything it seems, but refuses to work with weapons. Reasonable enough, people get twitchy about gangs sometimes. Danny mentions being not against Hood or anything, but he’s not going to work for him, littles to take care of and all, but had past experience with ‘Dora and that inheritance mess with her brother he was being a real prick about’ so everyone assumes it’s the equivilant of him having Done His Time and being plenty good for a life time and respects it as long as none of that petty midwestern small town hotshots bring any of that shit over here. And they don’t, because said individuals are on the other side of the mortal veil, so happy day.

See I really love deaged!Dan because he’s just a grumpy lil guy. But he’s also killed millions. He’s so protective of his loved ones, but held back by blending in and also being Smol that it comes off more bitey kitten than anything else. Dani, of course, is a terror, so she fits right in with the crowd.

And sorry gang, but a bunch of kids on their own in Gotham in a poor side of the city just isn’t going to get any attention: that’s just business as usual really. What first gets attention on Danny is not his ‘condition’ or being mistaken for a meta (which he legally probs has an argument for even without the gene bc like these bitches don’t know how metaism works anyway so) or alien (I’m 90% sure he’d be covered by the alien protection act by virtue of being half ‘not from earth’), but because Danny despite best efforts is a Weird Guy.

He grew up in what could only be described as a low level villain level and spent most of high school dealing with smack downs and spiritual invasion. He’s never really processed that any of that is not in fact Normal. Also, he’s capable of making Anything if given the insides of a toaster, blender and alarm clock, and could probably rewrite the circuits of the apartment blindfolded and improve them 1000% even if it ABSOLUTELY would not be up to code.

And sure, things slip every once in a while, bits of spectral ice here, small floating incident there, but everyone just Minds Their Buisness ya know? You really gunna mess with the guy that personally ensured that when your car got flattened by a fight with Killer Croc, you were still able to get in to work the next day by some wizardry? Really?

But Gotham is a city so cursed it’s probably in the exponents countwise, so of course there is a) a flourishing community of magic users and assorted supernatural weirdos and b) a whole lot of shit for Mega Overpowered Ghost King Danny to idly pick at day to day in order to help with his protecting other Obsession. Gotham has plenty of heroes, but by god do they need the spiritual equivilant of an electrician/priest.

Still, Danny, as a baby ancient under a facet of Kronos and KING OF THE DEAD is like, way, way out of their scope to be able to grok, so it mostly just comes off as you know, a family of banshees or something. When asked, Danny very haltingly says he was briefly dead but then revived, which neatly explains his Weird Ass aura and makes it SPECTACULARLY AWKWARD to ask further about. So everyone nods politely, and goes back to their lives after double checking no nefarious bullshit was being pulled.

Then, of course, Vlad finally tracks them down. The whole neighborhood is altered in short order because he doesn’t bother trying to hide being a Rich Bitch or how he’s sneering down his nose at people on the sidewalk. Every connects the dots when Danny paniks. Dani and Dan’s daycare are staffed with some extra, very buff set of hands within the hour. Jerry, Hood’s third in command, personally shows up to the garage Danny is working at to talk things out with him bc he knows he does t like the deal with this stuff due to past unspecified circumstances but well, they guys had already started fucking with him, you see. Stole his tires, spray painted the windows, pickpocketed him blind, and when he retreated tipped off the police to the drugs they’d planted in the glove box.

Danny might not have been born in Gotham, but he was one of them. And the Alley takes care of it own.

[jaspvids]

The Diagnosis Of David

Disclaimer: I am by no means a mental health professional. This is just a meta-analysis.

What do we think of when we think of David?

His values of kindness. Optimism. Hope. Conviction. Passion. His drive to do his best every single day. The way he always makes an effort to reach out to others.

But also:

Attachment issues. People pleaser. Rose-colored glasses wearer. And at times, though the fandom doesn’t want to acknowledge it — Selfish. Unstable. Rude. Hypocritical. Kind of a dick.

See this video I made;

He’s complex, so let’s try to unpack him, and figure out what he’s got going on under that floof.

On David’s Childhood

David has been through a number of traumatic events in his childhood, most notably:

Witnessing Jasper fall to his near-death.

Finding Jasper, and being almost mauled by bears during the escape.

Clown school was apparently very bad, given the flashback-like reaction he had when it was mentioned. I’m unsure of his age when this occurred, however.

The fight with Jasper at the cave before they parted ways.

Losing Jasper. He says Cameron told him he was picked up by his parents, but I’m not convinced it’s not just his mind trying to erase painful memories.

As far as what we don’t necessarily see in the show, but can infer, David’s father was either not present or not great. He dreamt Cameron was his real father, as seen below.

And we all know Cameron is an awful father figure to begin with.

Yet, that’s better to David, apparently, than whatever he had at home. Which implies it was likely a pretty bad situation.

This can also be backed up by his attachment to the camp — growing up (and even now) it seems to be more of a home to him than his actual home.

That’s a home that hasn’t ever been mentioned, by the way. Contrary to Gwen, we know absolutely nothing about his family. He hasn’t talked about them once, if I recall correctly.

David is often open with emotions, if not wearing his heart on his sleeve. So why would he never mention his family and home?

We know why.

Even as an adult, he has retained this attachment to Cameron (who has in turn, continued to use this attachment to his benefit). He gets very excited about helping Cameron change in “keep the change” — because he needs to believe people who hurt him can get better. Otherwise, it’s too painful to bear.

The Loss Of Jasper

Part of his childhood, but significant enough to warrant its own section.

Jasper and David had a very interesting relationship. We’ve seen in the past that David was pessimistic, foulmouthed, and hot-tempered, directly compared to an optimistic, peppy, popular Jasper.

But then Jasper saw Cameron’s real self, and David received a modicum of praise for what was likely the first time based on his reaction. And so, they basically did somewhat of a switcheroo.

(David takes on many traits of Jasper after this experience, showing that he does admire him at the end of the day. I believe these traits are the foundation of David’s many masks.)

Despite the whole shebang, further episodes show us that they form a strong bond (or maintain one, we don’t know what happened before the first Jasper and David episode.)

What makes this friendship especially crucial in David’s development is that I believe Jasper was the first person to truly stand up for David.

David is, as we have seen, easily manipulated. Jasper picks up on this, and knowing Cameron’s just trying to use his best friend, tries to take Cameron down.

Jasper essentially died trying to protect David.

If Jasper hadn’t died, I don’t think David would have ended up as gullible and dependent as he is. If he had the more rational and realistic Jasper by his side during the rest of his developmental years, I believe things would have ended up much, much differently.

With Jasper’s death, there seems to be nobody else at camp who knows of Cameron’s crimes, or possibly, doesn’t want to speak out about them. Nobody to stand up for him. Nobody to redirect him.

So there’s nobody to stop the unhealthy-attachment-train from picking up speed.

Cameron And David’s Relationship

Cameron is manipulative and abusive towards David. This even becomes physical:

Despite this, David continues to idolize him as is seen in many cases of abuse. He works his ass off maintaining Cameron’s camp. Cameron’s approval makes or breaks him, because this is the man he sees as a father, unfortunately.

In addition, David is unable to let go of the hope that Cameron can change, because he’s convinced himself that deep down Cameron is still “good”, based on his skewed perception of him. And we all know how that ended.

But as Diane from Bojack Horseman once said —

And that is David’s problem — he wants so much for there to be a “deep down”, that there will be a day where Cameron showers him with praise and throws signed adoption forms at him, etcetera.

He judges Cameron not on who he actually is, but who he wants him to be. And so, the unhealthy attachment remains.

(Which is, of course, incredibly destructive to his mental health.)

Other Things We Know About His Mental Health, From Canon

We know he takes meds.

We know he has (sometimes dissociative) panic attacks.

We know he has been seen to suddenly snap, even to the point of violence.

My Final Conclusion: C-PTSD

(As the trauma has been not just one event, but many over the course of his life, and among other reasons, I believe CPTSD fits better than PTSD.)

David meets much of the criteria, most notably:

Lack of emotional regulation

Dissociation

Flashbacks

Anxiety

Guilt and shame

Distorted perception of abuser

Relationship difficulties

Okay this was long I’m tired good night.

[magnoliasandarson]

golden feathers and gotham

What can be said of the former Robins that has not already been said? Children, given weapons and permission to right wrongs as they saw fit. Little soldiers in an endless crusade for justice.

But you should have seen 'em.

The first, well, he was a showman to the core. He was a performer- all dazzling smiles and extra flips. His adoring audience, those he saved, gained protection forevermore, and (arguably more importantly) hope. He was a hero- and lives were saved behind his little golden cape.

The second, a smaller boy, was a fighter. He was passionate- a force of nature sent to make Batman laugh and villains cower. He ran the rooftops, dropping in on homeless camps and doing bed checks on the street kids. He defended the weak- he grinned boldly in the face of danger (he carried on his predecessor's legacy). He was a protector- and lives were saved behind his little golden cape.

The third, a lanky thing, was a strategist. He was calculating- a whirlwind of snark and careful planning. He largely stuck to the shadows, keeping Batman in check and investigating. He stopped villains on their way to commit crimes- he patrolled the worst parts of Gotham (carrying on his predecessor's legacy). He was a detective- and lives were saved with every glimpse of his little golden cape.

The fourth, a girl strangely enough, was a menace. She was vibrant- a flash of blonde hair and skillful violence. She capitalized on the bright lights of dark alleys and made herself known. She helped victims make their way to clinics and shelters- she destroyed criminal enterprises on whims (carrying on her predecessor's legacy). She was a force- and lives were saved in the shine of her golden cape.

The fifth, another slip of a thing, was potentially demonic. He was a terror- a glint of a blade and caustic remarks. He slunk through the shadows, lingering in the one cast by Batman. The violence left in his path made those who would hurt others tremble. He trussed up meta villains with ease- he collected names from shelters and served justice and vengeance without issue (carrying on his predecessor's legacy). He was an avenging angel- and lives were saved with every soft flutter of his little golden cape.

Each one vanished- replaced and never seen again. A chasm of fear and grief left in their wake felt in every person who found solace in their little golden capes.

But you should have seen 'em.

[artemisia-black]

What do you think happened to Regulus which made him suddenly see sense and brought him the courage to betray someone whom was his, in some sense, his hero?

And can you also tell about your thoughts on Peter changing sides too, while you're at it please?

I LOVE your metas to the point I'd literally marry them, lol 💝

Hahha I’m sure my metas would accept your proposal anon.

What Regulus did was brave. It is brave to write a fuck you note to a murderous cult leader after stealing a part of his soul. But I don’t think he did it because he suddenly came around about muggleborns. In Kreacher’s monologue about him, he comes across as someone very passionate about the cause of pureblood supremacy. He said he wanted to rule over muggles and muggleborns with his whole chest. He also hand painted his family crest above his bed as further commitment to his family pride (he is not a ‘soft’ person he’s far similar to Sirius and Bella then popular fanon characterises him).

In his note, he takes issue with the horcrux (even the act of stealing it to destroy it shows how deeply it effects him). And I think this is his issue. He is disillusioned with Voldy not because he suddenly sees muggleborns as people, but because Voldy is seeking immortality. Therefore he is seeking to rule over them all (purebloods included) for eternity. Also it could be that Horcruxes are seen as too far even by people who have bottles of blood and war crime mood boards as decoration.

Re: Peter, he changes sides because he is a rat escaping a sinking ship. The order was loosing the first war very badly. I don’t think the entire order were fresh out of school, I HC Dorcas as much older (hence Voldy killing her personally). So the DE’s were wiping out really skilled people, let alone these wet behind the ears early 20s somethings.

While I enjoy the HC that he betrayed James out of unrequited love. I think it’s more likely that voldy no longer needing him as a spy for the order (because the war was basically won by this point). And this was a way to bring him completely under his control - that by sacrificing James he would have nowhere to turn and could therefore be used to do dirty work for the rest of his life.

[drconstellation]

Monkey Business with Furfur

This is a 2024 Smut War meta

(NSFW? I tried to keep it reasonably clean, just filled with innuendo.)

Time to dig up some dirty dirt from before the Fall.

Memory problems? Oh, Hell no! There was no way Crowley was going admit to remembering this bit of history between him and Furfur, especially not in front of Aziraphale.

On the surface this incident with Furfur in the dressing room at the Windmill Theater adds weight to the appearance that Crowley has holes in his memory, just like Gabriel does during S2. But a closer look at the language being used during the post-magic show scene actually reveals quite the opposite - something that is - well, I shouldn't say totally unexpected because I've written about it tangentially before - but something that I think will shake up the way we view things between the three of them.

Firstly, lets review what I call the sub-story theme running underneath this section of the episode: King Arthur and Camelot. I talked about it length in my meta Once and Future Royalty. Here's the important paragraphs from that work for this particular meta:

Yes, poor old Furfur. Two's company, three's a crowd, as they say. Now we know we're in Camelot, we need to be reminded of the central tragedy of the Arthurian story, that ultimately led to the golden kingdom's fall. Lady Guinevere, Arthur's queen, famously loved Sir Lancelot, and the two were passionate lovers. It was essentially a love-triangle at the top, with Arthur being jilted, but he wouldn't/couldn't discard his queen. Where do we see this playing out in 1941? Furfur, pleased with himself for catching an angel and a demon in the act of consorting together (with the help of the zombies,) barges into the backstage dressing room, and confronts the lovers with their crime. But who is playing who in the Arthurian love triangle? I would say Furfur is clearly caught in the role of Arthur here. Consider the following exchange:

[See GIFs at top - I will quote relevant script shortly in detail]

Furfur claims a past intimate relationship with Crowley, which Crowley spurns offhandedly. Crowley is playing Guinevere here, jilting Furfur/Arthur, which leaves the demon-smiting Aziraphale standing in for the handsome hero Lancelot (with his French connections, no less), and doesn't he make us weak at the knees when he drops his voice an octave in dominating disgust. (Is it suddenly getting hot in here...?Phew!)

Recently someone posted more images of Furfur's costume, and the sash was shown reversed, where a red crown can clearly be seen under the stag's head, which to me just adds weight to the Furfur=Arthur role.

Next we need to take another look at this line from Furfur:

FURFUR: I was right next to you. We did loads together. You used to jump on me back, little monkey in the waistcoat.

Everyone took this too literally.

Really.

I mean really really.

There are two things - ok, three things - this set of lines tells us.

The first is the most obvious and likely the surface impression - maybe Crowley did turn himself into a monkey. But this is a misdirection to the real information here, so forget that. Put it to one side for the moment, at least.

Secondly, Furfur had a "monkey on his back."

We see by this turn of phrase that he was burdened by a problem, or something he couldn't let go of, and in this situation it clearly looks like a long held bitter feeling towards Crowley and his apparent freedom on Earth.

CROWLEY: Oh, we shan't, this is ridiculous. [leans back and puts hat over his face] FURFUR: No, what's ridiculous is demons like you doing what they please. And somehow still getting on, while demons like me graft for hundreds and hundreds of millennia and never get a sniff of a promotion! Well, not this time. Expect a Legion to come for you first thing tomorrow. Enjoy your last night on Earth.

Thirdly, the whole thing indicates there is a past history of "monkey business" between Furfur and Crowley, before the Fall. This is further emphasized by Furfur's greeting on arrival:

FURFUR: Hmm, well, well, well... What have we here? AZIRAPHALE: Sorry, have we met? FURFUR: Oh, no, you never had the pleasure, but... we have, haven't we? CROWLEY: Have we?

Ohhhh, Crowley. o_0 No, no, no, no, nooooooo..........

Can you see it? Can you see why he would deny knowing Furfur? That they did "loads together?"

Do you know what "monkey business" is an alternative phrase for?

Remember the Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot love triangle?

Do you think Crowley is going to admit this in front of his angel?

Uh huh.

Really. Really really.

An "unreliable narrator" indeed.

[sloowoorants]

Thoughts After Watching Hannibal

About two months ago, I saw some Hannibal fan art on Twitter. It looked pretty cool, and I just so happened to have some free time, so I thought: why not watch the show? It's just a normal crime thriller, right?

I expected the type of show that's relatively light yet still intriguing, filled with sarcastic humor, starring a typical grumpy-but-genius protagonist. (This is vaguely the type of show that I’m generally into: Inside Job, Sherlock, House, Suits, Mr. Robot….)

I was so, so wrong.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, could have prepared me for the bat-shit crazy fever dream of a show that Hannibal is: bizarrely artistic gore, incessant cannibalism puns, completely unpredictable romantic subplots, torturous sex scenes that feel like angry acid trips, a multitude of absolutely unhinged psychiatric conduct, esoteric cryptic dialogue which require five google searches and a whole thesaurus to understand, two lesbian murderers "milking" a guy for his sperm to inherent his family heirloom, long scenes of intense and unabashed eye-sex, clumps of dog fur sticking to sweaty bed sheets…and a literal fucking social worker crawling out of a horse, alive and breathing and everything, covered in whatever acrid substances come from a horse uterus.

I ended up watching all of Hannibal in a week, hastily devouring it in just a few sittings.

In no way am I a professional film analyst or critic, but after having stayed up for nights on end, every single one of them spent under my blanket binging episodes until devilish hours of dawn (and barely comprehending the plot from the sheer speed I was consuming the show at, but also from sleep deprivation), I have cultivated a skull full of thoughts on this blessed masterpiece, and I need to rant about it. Which is exactly what this post is.

I am going to separate this ranty-meta-ish thing (I think a “meta” is what it’s called? I’m not sure, I don’t use Tumblr a lot) into two parts: one, about the representation of morality in the show, and two, about the intimacy between Will and Hannibal. It’s not super well written, my grammar is a bit iffy, but I hope you still enjoy reading this, and remember to take everything I say with a grain of salt. After all, I am just some guy with unrestricted internet access, a keyboard, and a little too much passion for the media I love :)

Part One: Hannibal Lecter’s Morality

Hannibal loves art. There is no episode in the entire show where he doesn’t reference some artistic thing—He plays the piano, he plays the theremin, he frequents the opera, he draws, and he finds peace at the birthplace of the Renaissance, Florence. His love for art is why he kills, he transforms people he considers to be “inferior” and “ugly” and elevates them into art. He is acting out his own sense of justice, creating meaning from the meaningless.

In a way, he must have a certain degree of respect for his victims to do what he does. He could have just killed people and disposed of their body in a dumpster, but that’s not his style. Even if he doesn’t “care” about his victims in a traditional sense, there’s this unique honesty and attentive in his murders. Hannibal cares enough about his victims to make them art. And I’m not just talking about the way he displays their bodies, I’m also talking about his cooking, because a big part of art is also cuisine.

He follows a strict code of his own ethics, it’s almost like he’s acting out his “duty” to kill, to eradicate and transform the lesser “scum” of the world. To be killed by Hannibal is almost an honor, like being killed by God personally, skin to skin. Wouldn’t you feel a sense of divinity and fulfillment if God killed you with his own hands, knowing that he respects you enough to choke you himself, then turn you into an elegant display? Every kill of Hannibal’s is filled with passion – Which poses the question, does he kill out of hatred or not? When I think of violence fueled by hate, I think of sex or race based violence. But that’s not Hannibal. He kills victims he considers to be rude, yes, but is it a humiliation? Is it degradation?

This whole "elevate-swine-into-art" thing is also shown through the way that gore is generally portrayed throughout the show, and not just Hannibal’s murderers. It’s very interesting the way gore pretty in Hannibal. It’s often meticulous. It’s meaningful.

These murders are all aesthetically pleasing. For me, it creates a cognitive dissonance: on one hand, I know that these are painful, brutal murders, one the other, they’re kind of nice to look at, which makes me think—Have I ever for a second, while watching Hannibal, considered the crime scene to be beautiful? Have I ever viewed one of those scenes as art rather than gore? As an artist myself, do I understand Hannibal’s obsession with beauty? And if so, what type of person does that make me?

And I love the way this show makes us really think in Hannibal’s shoes, because of how unconventionally it portrays him as a villain. Usually, shows will provide villains with a backstory, but that doesn’t extend beyond just creating sympathy. In Hannibal, the villain is humanized. We understand him. We empathize. And what does that make of us?

Have I ever, in all seriousness, rooted for Hannibal instead of Jack Crawford? Have I ever thought someone deserved to die in the show? Have I ever looked at what Hannibal was cooking, and thought it looked delicious, despite knowing that its human flesh? Have I ever been annoyed at innocent patients of Hannibal, like Franklyn, because I viewed them from Hannibal’s perspective?

On top of that, Hannibal’s philosophy makes sense. I find myself agreeing to a lot of the things he says.

For example, this dialogue from S2e12 "Tome-Wan", when Will finds Mason Verger and Hannibal in his house, and Hannibal asks Will if he should kill or spare Mason Verger:

HANNIBAL: Murder or mercy?

WILL: There is no mercy. We make mercy, manufacture it in parts that have overgrown our basic reptile brain.

HANNIBAL: Then there is no murder. We make murder, too, it matters only to us. You know too well that you possess all the elements to make murder. Perhaps mercy, too. But murder you understand uncomfortably well.

Does Will only have the capacity for mercy because he has the capacity for murder? Does mercy only have meaning in the context of murder? Is our own compassion a reflection of our violence?

With that said, are the things that I believe to be evil still evil when I throw away my moral believes? Is morality only meaningful in my own perception? And if so, how much am I contributing to evil if I am the one judging it? Do I create the evil that I so adamantly detest? Does deciding what is murder and isn’t not murder require the ability to, and intrinsic understanding of, murder? Can the morality of life and death be so clear cut, separated into different categories?

These are the types of questions that the show makes me ask, which is part of the reason I love the show so much.

I also love how the show puts a dark turn on empathy. Empathy is way too often portrayed as one of the best traits of all time, many claim it to be the most important aspect of mankind, but Will’s empathy is what ends up making him go on a downwards spiral: He is drawn to the darkness because he can understand it. He chose to teach at the FBI academy because he gets to feel like a killer without actually killing.

It made Will miserable, being able to understand killers. It gave him all sorts of guilt and self-hatred and confliction, which was why he was so damn miserable at the start of the show. And on top of that, no one really cared about him, Alana only had a whole “professional curiosity” thing going on (yes, I know that Alana’s character is one-dimensional because Hannibal’s female characters are poorly written, but even with that in mind, I still think that a huge part of Alana’s affection towards Will was in fact just curiosity), Jack was constantly pushing Will past his limits, so the poor dude didn’t have any connections to anyone until he met Hannibal.

And after Hannibal clocks him immediately when they first meet with the whole “your  values and decency are present yet shocked at your associations” situation, Will experiences his first kill: Shooting Garet Jacob Hobbs. Ten. Times. Then he confesses to Hannibal that he liked the feeling of killing him.

But Will can’t let go of his morality, it’s the only thing he’s been able to hold on to this entire time. It’s his lifeline. He holds onto it so dearly because he needs to convince himself that he’s a good person, that he’s not a killer, and that he’s doing the right thing. Yet, he knows that letting that morality go would be so freeing. He wants to. Hannibal helps him let go of it, and we as viewers can’t help but be on Hannibal’s side, because Will’s corruption arc is so gratifying. We like it, deep down we root for it. And what does that say about our relationship with our own morality? Does our morality tie us down? Do we crave to be free?

Will’s killing style is different from Hannibal’s, though. He’s passionate, reactive, and he doesn’t care about the process of killing, or the display body (before you say “the firefly man”, I believe he was imitating Hannibal’s style instead of curating his own), as long as the person is dead. He kills them from a sense of righteousness, like a vigilante justice. Was it wrong for him to find a sense of pleasure in killing Garett Jacob Hobbs? Does finding pleasure in killing corrupt his righteousness? Is it worse to kill out of passion, or kill meticulously? Is Hannibal’s style of killing more respectful? Is Will brutal? Just because Will kills out of a more conventional moral judgement and Hannibal doesn’t, does that make him better than Hannibal?

Another way the show convolutes the concepts of good and evil is using religious symbolism.

For example, from S1e02, “Amuse-Bouche”:

HANNIBAL: Killing must feel good to God too. He does it all the time, and are we not created in His image?

WILL: Did God feel good about killing?

HANNIBAL: He felt powerful.

(Shocking that this line was from the literal second episode. This show got intense so fast.)

And Will’s quote from S3e02, “Primavera”:

WILL: God can't save any of us because it's...inelegant. Elegance is more important than suffering. That's his design.

Is God an artist? Does that justify what He does? Are we only creating taboo out of His works to comfort ourselves? What does it mean to view the world with a purely aesthetic vision?

It’s these quotes that really allow me to see from Hannibal’s perspective: To him, there is no ultimate purpose of the world, there is no end goal to achieve, just the creation of beauty, and that’s terrifying to think about. Even as an atheist, it’s hard to digest the belief that there is no purpose to anything. We spend our entire human lives looking for meaning. But Hannibal doesn’t see it that way. Life and death are just futile processes to create art, and there’s no bigger point behind it. The cycle of life is supposed to be art. In a way, he’s like the God (sounding like Hannibal here), giving people meaning by making them into art, just like how God designates meaning onto every creature he makes.

And the show has a lot of art parallels, not just with Hannibal’s murders. Here are some that I’ve noticed:

(Parallels, in order from left to right, top to bottom: Nude From Back by Picabia compared to a shot of Bedelia from the back, The Persistence of Memory by Dali compared to Will’s clock drawing, Le Double Secret by Magritte compared to how Will saw Hannibal after visual overload from light therapy, Ophelia by Millais compared to Bedelia sinking into the bathtub, Portrait of Pablo Picasso by Juan Gris compared to Will’s hallucination of himself falling apart in a mirror, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan by Ilya Repin compared to the cliff scene.)

I’m not the only one that has noticed these. Here is cool blog that focuses on artistic references in Hannibal, they’ve also noticed some of the ones I noticed: The Art of Hannibal.

Bryan Fuller probably didn’t do these on purpose while directing. But it still unintentionally solidified this theme artistic divinity. So I think Bryan must, to some extent, understand Hannibal’s obsession with making art out of death, because of the way art is subconsciously woven into the show. I don’t know though, just food for thought.

Anyways. Will, at the end of the show, while being cradled in Hannibal’s arms, both of them covered in blood that appears black in the moonlight, says to Hannibal: “It’s beautiful.”

And all that morality fleets and becomes insignificant in the face of aesthetics.

To Hannibal, beauty is moral. To Will, morality is beautiful. Have the lines begun to blur?

Part Two: Hannibal and Wills intimacy

“For [Hannibal and Will], two people who have been wandering their whole lives through a world in which they have not really experienced any viable form of connection with another human being—because they’re two extremely unusual people—and then they meet.”

-Hugh Dancy quote from SDCC 2013

Hannibal loves will. He drew him and Will as Patroclus and Achilles. He was ready to run away with Will in S2. He surrendered himself in S3 just because Will rejected him. And lets not forget the little twitch in his face when Francis attacks will. And when this dialogue happened (S3e12, “The Number of the Beast is 666”):

WILL: Is Hannibal in love with me?

BEDELIA : Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you... ache for him?

It is my belief that Will also loves Hannibal, although I understand that it’s not as agreed upon in the fandom as Hannibal’s love is. I think Will is just a little bit more reserved with affection, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Hannibal.

But one thing is for sure—there is a lot of homoeroticism in the show:

So, whether you think the love is reciprocal or not, the show is still, to put it lightly, really gay.

Hannibal’s love for Will is dark, possessive, powerful. Will is the only one that is capable of understanding Hannibal, and Hannibal was willing to risk literally everything just for Will to connect with him. He goes to extraordinary lengths just to make Will a murderer.

But even throughout Hannibal’s ruthless manipulation, which Will eventually becomes aware of, Will still stays for Hannibal. Because deep down, Will was willing to give up his own innocence to have that connection. Because Hannibal was the only person that could really understand Will too, no one else would be able to accept his dark tendencies.

S2e02, “Sakizuke”:

WILL: I don’t know which is worse. Believing I did it, or believing that you did it and did this to me.

(I remember reading a really good post by endlessly fascinated on how Will was actually being manipulative by saying this quote. I can’t find it though. If someone finds it, please tag me!)

Will eventually grows just as obsessed with Hannibal, as Hannibal is obsessed with him. Proof: telling Jack that he wanted to run away with Hannibal, telling Hannibal that he can’t get him out of his head, and that his inner voice is starting to sound like him him, and the “where would I go?” when Hannibal tells him not to leave his side, and the “one could argue, intimately” when Chiyoh asks him how he knows Hannibal, and the “before you and after you” when Hannibal asked him where the difference between the past and the future come from…I could go on forever. Will has never felt so grounded before, not in the way when he’s with Hannibal, with him, Will can see his own reflection, and he’s never been able to see that before.

And oh, the love language between them is violence. Will tries to kill Hannibal (someone tell me how many times, I forgot), and Hannibal tries to eat Will and a plethora of other fucked up shit. But in my eyes, none of those were out of hatred. Both of them trying to murder each other is out of love, out of acceptance, and out of forgiveness.

S3e06, “Dolce”:

HANNIBAL: You dropped your forgiveness, Will.

HANNIBAL: You forgive how God forgives.

And, S3e03, “Secondo”:

BEDELIA: Betrayal and forgiveness are best seen as something akin to falling in love.

HANNIBAL: You cannot control with respect to whom you fall in love.

No one can control who they love, or who they forgive, which is why Hannibal forgives Will and stabs him in the same breath. He is forgiving, not letting go.

Will forgives Hannibal too. He forgives Hannibal way too many times, throughout all the manipulation of Hannibal. Think about just how much insanity he’s endured: drugged, gutted, encephalitis abused, hypnotized, framed for murder, a serial killer was sent after his family, had his brain literally almost eaten, and despite all that, Will still forgives Hannibal—it was not a conscious decision. We cannot control who we forgive.

If Hannibal is a fallen angel, then Will is God to him. And God is indifferent, sometimes even cruel. Like Hannibal said himself, good and evil has nothing to do with God. Will forgives Hannibal, but that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t want to hurt Hannibal; just like how Hannibal forgave Will, but still gutted him. In that moment, Will forgave indifferently, so he could get back to revenge. They both forgive like blades, they both forgive with pain.

Doesn’t God forgive through punishment? God will forgive you for your sins but you still have to go to hell, right?

Violence is a pillar of stability in their relationship, it’s how they understand each other, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the smile on Will’s gut a permanent reminder of Hannibal’s hurt, and all of Hannibal’s scars a reminder of Will’s hurt.

I see all of their trying to kill each other is affection. Hannibal doesn’t try to eat Will because he hates Will, he tries to eat to immortalize him, to keep Will as part of him forever.

And through that violence, Hannibal helped Will let go of his morality. Will had spent forever trying to repress himself—Molly was a failed attempt to escape into normalcy. Will definitely thought about Hannibal those years Hannibal was in prison.

S3e13, “The Wrath of the Lamb”:

HANNIBAL: When life becomes maddeningly police, think about me. Think about me, Will.

Will definitely missed the hunger, the violence. We can see this though the passionate way he killed the Red Dragon. He probably held Molly’s gentle hands and desperately wanted to feel something more. To feel something dangerous. Something that could simultaneously revive and ruin him. Molly never understood him the way Hannibal did, and he will never love her the way he loves Hannibal.

He did think about Hannibal when life became maddeningly polite. He probably fantasized about what they’ve done, what they could’ve done, and the feeling of freedom when he’s with Hannibal.

And Hannibal waited for him patiently, staying exactly where he was three years ago. And when Will eventually pushed them off a cliff together, Hannibal showed no sign of resistance, and just let them fall.

“I think [Hannibal]’s feeling that embrace and that’s the first thing that he’s feeling, and even as he’s plunging into the Atlantic, he’s first and foremost thinking about the man he’s holding onto and the man who’s holding onto him.”

–Mads Mikkelsen on Hannibal’s thoughts during the final scene

Their violence is something that we as viewers may never comprehend, but we can all understand their intimacy. Isn’t it what we all want, after all, to be seen?

Anyways...

Hannibal is a great show! 10/10, would recommend. Although, the lighting kind of sucks. Bryan, if there is a season four, please make the show brighter, for the love of God.

Thanks for reading this! :)

[bleeding-star-heart]

These tags on a reblog of my Anders analysis are another problem I have with DA:2's writing

#god i have so many feelings about this#cuz i romanced anders my first playthrough#and i hated that our relationship did a 180 as soon as I was like#“im not gonna let you gaslight me into doing war crimes”#was it OOC?#i don't know#I can't say#I haven't studied anders as a character or taken the time to contemplate him enough to speak on it#but i just know it was such a turn off that i started a new game entirely EDIT: I have removed the word "gaslighting" from this meta owing to the fact that technically, Anders isn't gaslighting, because gaslighting is something different. Gaslighting being trying to make someone doubt their perception of reality, among other things. What Anders ACTUALLY does falls under emotional manipulation. I would say to the OP that yes, indeed, this is VERY "out of character", so to speak. Most definitely for JUSTICE, the spirit inhabiting Anders's body. But also for Anders as well. Think about it: emotionally manipulating one's romantic partner is an inherently unjust thing to do. It is not something two people who respect and love each other do. Yet the spirit of Justice is completely silent when it happens. A being that supposedly embodies nothing but Justice simply...allows his host to guilt his lover into doing something they disagree with. He does not protest or try to stop Anders from engaging in a truly toxic form of emotional manipulation. If written properly, Justice should immediately have called Anders out on this. Which should prompt either an apology from Anders or a long, seemingly one-man argument between the two. But that doesn't happen. In fact, Justice only shows up if you, as Anders's rival, manage to turn him AGAINST blowing up the Chantry. And then, only to railroad Anders back into the role of terrorist. This, combined with Justice's general lack of reaction to any injustice or violation of rights that DOESN'T have to do with mages, causes him to become little more than a cheap plot device. Now as to why I don't believe a properly written Anders would do it, either. Anders at this point in the story is a revolutionary, yes. He is passionate about his cause. But he is also MORE than that. And part of that 'more'-and also WHY he's a revolutionary-is that he was a victim of a controlling, emotionally manipulative institution. One that bombards people like him with all kinds of unhealthy messaging. Messages like: the outside world is guaranteed to hate you, your (unchangeable) nature is inherently wrong and sinful. As well as: you can't trust yourself at all, you are one bad day from being a monster, you need to let us control you for your own good. Anders probably saw more than one person like Keili-that girl in the Mage Origin who actively believes she's evil and prays to 'not be a mage'. He probably encountered a lot of mages with varying degrees of religiously based self-loathing. He probably had some himself. And he lived in the Ferelden Circle. He's also a person who not only left a toxic institution, but actively sees and complains about how toxic the institution is. People who've suffered from toxic environments/relationships and RECOGNIZE how toxic those environments/relationships were, tend to value healthy relationships/environments. They try and work on themselves to remove any lingering psychological effects of that toxicity. It is highly likely that Anders would NOT want to repeat the kind of emotional manipulation he and others were subjected to. While he might not agree with Hawke about methods, Anders would not believe guilt to be a good tactic because guilt is one of the very tactics the Chantry used on him! Guilt about being a target for demonic possession, guilt about what the magisters did, guilt about being a mage in general.

Guilting his partner into agreeing with him, is, essentially, him doing what the Chantry did to him. And if the writers had put any thought into his character, they would have realized that too. And thus, if they were smart, or and simply give the player the option to permanently decline the quest with no negative consequences. The other option is to lean into that, and purposefully make it a character flaw, that he's too blinded by trauma to see that. But the writers did NOT have the time to be able to successfully pull that off. Thus, yeah. They make Anders, who suffered from religious based emotional manipulation...into someone who emotionally manipulates his partners. Which is yet another thing done in the name of a less-than-stellar ending and plot beat. EDIT: I have removed the word "gaslighting" from my part of this meta owing to the fact that technically, Anders isn't gaslighting Hawke, because gaslighting is something different. Gaslighting being trying to make someone doubt their perception of reality, among other things. What Anders ACTUALLY does falls under emotional manipulation. Which I still don't believe a properly written Anders OR Justice would do, for the reasons stated above.

[gaiuskamilah]

metas/analyses/essays

updated 2024/09/06 - some of these are less structured and more spur of the moment, others more structured and evidently more thought out. it's probably easy to see which is which.

BLADES OF LIGHT AND SHADOW

blades of light and shadow and race-coding

kade and aerin

shadow nia

blades 2 epilogue and the gospel of luke 23:34

blades of light and shadow and motherhood

dinvali-kilvali, orc matriarchy, and power systems

BLOODBOUND

[on-going series] Bloodbound and the Politics of Dominance and Submission [also available on ao3]

bloodbound 2 tapestry analysis

bloodbound and the rejection of christ

jewish influence on bloodbound and the subversion of the vampire trope

vladimir nabokov's lolita and adrian, kamilah, gaius

robert frost's stopping by the woods on a snowy evening and gaius augustine

lily and the shadow den

gaius, history, memory, and the book 2 museum finale

CRIMES OF PASSION

thornecest and the institution of the family

the thornes, sibling incest, societal alienation, and solipsism

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

the love interests as foils to the mc

IT LIVES

danni and parker and their designated symbols

QUEEN B

my opinion on poppy

RIDE OR DIE

ride-or-die, the mirror, and the narrative foil trope

VEIL OF SECRETS

veil of secrets and liberal politics

[ariaste]

Hello hello! If it’s all right with you, I would like to vent for a moment: Back in the day, I used to be really into BBC Sherlock. I know it was bad, but it was “Be Gay (solve) Crimes” and I couldn’t resit. One of my favorite parts of the fandom was reading fan metas. I enjoyed reading your ridiculously long meta! I am not very clever and I enjoy reading people noticing things that I can’t. It’s fun watching people passionately pick up clues and put them together.

I don’t think I’m the only one getting superwholock flashbacks lately. Sherlock also tried an unreliable narrator in S4 and it was an absolute shit show. People thought thought the finale was fake, it was so bad. TBH, the entire show was a dumpster fire that thought it was more clever than it was. Moffat was a good writer for single episodes for DW, but a garbage show runner. And they called us crazy for picking up what they were putting down.

But Good Omens gives me a spark of hope. It is unashamedly queer, fun, drinks its respecting women juice, and, unlike moffatiss, I think Neil and the crew may actually be clever enough to pull something big off. I adore the Discworld series and Sir Terry, and I have faith Neil will to do right by him.

Good Omens is restoring my faith in nerdy queer fiction and reminding me why I love fandom so much. Please keep up the crackhead theories. I love them 💕

Thank you, that's very kind!

(Ended up writing a very long reply about the response to my essay and also about queerness in media. Idk why i am writing such long posts these days SORRY LOL. Anyway I'm putting it all beneath the cut so I can tag it without clogging people's dash or the tag pages)

It does make me sigh a little when I see people scornfully comparing my long essay to The Johnlock Conspiracy or saying that they're having Sherlock flashbacks, because the both the contexts of the shows and the methodology of the theorizing are VERY different. To my mind, a more direct comparison of methodology would be the Gravity Falls fandom's "Stan Has A Secret Twin" theory. Writers and showrunners DO like being sneaky and clever from time to time, and many of them are much better at it than Moffat is.

But whether or not my theory is right or not is... kind of irrelevant to me? I wasn't out to force anyone to agree with me, AND writing it was a really fun way to spend a weekend, AND I'm proud of the work I did and the story I told, AND it felt good to have a satisfying workout at the Brain Gym. So even if I'm proven utterly and completely wrong, I won't feel like I wasted my time. :)

Good Omens is a great show, and I am SO HAPPY to see it (and other shows!) embracing queerness, sharing the fans' enthusiasm for the story, and honoring and respecting the fans' love rather than punishing them for it. As more and more time goes on, I think we're going to see more and more shows like that, because some of the people who grew up reading tumblr discourse are going to be showrunners themselves one day, and they'll have learned serious lessons about what it feels like when the audience is met with love rather than disgust and disdain. In fact, we're ALREADY seeing more shows like that than we had 10 years ago! There is so much canonical queerness on-screen these days that the me of 10-15 years ago is ASTONISHED and feels wealthy beyond counting. Of course, there is so much further to go, but man... when i was a kid, we had to walk uphill in the snow both ways just to see two dudes making sustained emotional eye contact, and we were grateful for it. (Jokes but also.... kind of real tho)

We've seen the exact same thing happen in scifi/fantasy publishing in the last seven or eight years, too! (Went off on a long tangent about Queerness In Media from an insider perspective, continuing below a cut so I don't clutter everyone's dash)

Even as recently as 2013--ten years ago--you might not have even been able to get your book published if it was openly gay. Hell, you might not have been able to get an agent to represent it, even. It would have been labeled "unmarketable" and passed over; if it DID get published, the queerness would have been camouflaged and downplayed and hidden in the marketing as much as possible--you wouldn't have known by looking at the cover that it was queer, you wouldn't have been able to tell by reading the back cover that it was queer. In literally 2016, seven years ago, a few months before I got my first book deal, I remember having a conversation with a friend and being very very worried that if I wrote books as queer as I wanted them to be, I would be "pigeonholed" as "ONLY writing Gay Books", that I would be passed over for any of the publisher's marketing budget and publicity efforts, that I would be sidelined and ignored... In 2016, I thought I was facing a choice of writing stories with more "mainstream appeal" OR writing the books I wanted to write and potentially undermining the rest of my career.

That didn't happen, thankfully, because in the next couple years there was this incredible explosion of queer scifi/fantasy. You see, ten to fifteen years ago, a truly stunning percentage of my colleagues -- writers, editors, publicists -- were writing and reading fanfic, and they carried their tastes and story-hungers with them as they grew up and got Real Adult Jobs at publishing companies. And suddenly, as if out of nowhere, a lot of us came of age all at once and there was this absolutely enormous wave of queer SFF that in my opinion has brought us into a new golden age of the genre: The Locked Tomb series by Tamsyn Muir, The Chorus of Dragons series by Jenn Lyons, She Who Became the Sun by Shelley Parker Chan, Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie, The Tensorate series by Neon Yang, Priory of the Orange Tree by Samantha Shannon, Light from Uncommon Stars by Ryka Aoki, The City in the Middle of the Night by Charlie Jane Anders, the Birdverse books by RB Lemberg, The Traitor Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickenson, The Jasmine Throne by Tasha Suri, Reforged by Seth Haddon, The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps by Kai Ashante Wilson, Ocean's Echo by Everina Maxwell, The Fifth Season by NK Jemisin -- and these only the ones I could remember off the top of my head in 30 seconds, and I have a flavor of ADHD that makes my brain go blank when people ask me to think of specific examples of things! It is harder for me to think of a SFF book published in the last 7 years that ISN'T queer.

And then almost exactly a year ago, my book A Taste of Gold and Iron came out with THIS COVER:

Which. Is not so much a step forward in openly queer SFF as it is a fucking gauntlet thrown down in challenge. I cannot impress upon you strongly enough how much I would not have gotten this cover 10 years ago, and that's if the book was even accepted for publication in the first place. This cover SCREAMS gay fantasy romance. There is no attempt to hide it or camouflage it. It is advertising exactly what it is, right up front.

I got the absolute privilege and honor of having this cover--and I do consider it an incredible honor--because of the work that all my colleagues put in with their own work. Each queer book that got published wedged the door a little wider for the next one, and then a little wider still for the next one, until finally someone could get their foot in the door and squeeze across the threshold, which opened it a little wider again. So when I look at this image, I don't just see a beautiful cover that I am delighted to have on my books--I see an entire history of slow, steady progress by so many incredible writers who risked damaging their careers just to drag us to a point where a book as gay as this one could get a cover as gay as that one and STILL get the full and enthusiastic support of both the publisher and the audience. And the most incredible honor and the most humbling privilege out of all of this is the fact that the success of this book meant that the door was wedged open another little bit, that I got to contribute in this small way to the efforts of everyone who came before me, so that ones who come after us will find the door flung wide -- or that there's no door left at all to block the way, because we've collectively torn it down.

So yes, @eyona, I think that having your faith restored little by little is a very good thing, and I am delighted that Good Omens is doing that for all of us. And what's even better is that even if Good Omens doesn't play out exactly how we want it to, that's... kind of okay? Because there is always the next one, and at the very very least, Good Omens is wedging the door open further so that the next one can have an easier time of it. We don't have to walk uphill in the snow both ways just to get a moment of emotionally charged eye contact anymore. We don't have to starve anymore, not like we used to back in the bad old days. And that alone is a wonderful thing. :D

[krisnb485]

Finally managed to come up with something regarding Lucius, Gibeon and the Six Heroes in the My Hero Academia AU. Here's the rant I made on the Likodot server:

Ok so Lucius and Gibeon were best friends (they were gay for each other but Lucius was married and he already had a kid so damnit). They met during college, and when Lucius found out he had one of those "meta abilities", he remembered his college friend Gibeon who had a passion for science and mechanic, so he called him and convinced him to try and help with all the crime that was recently happening due to meta abilities. And thus, Lucius became one of the first heroes to ever exist, and Gibeon was his sidekick who provided him with the very first prototypes of Hero Gear to have ever been created. This ofc made them a target for All For One, who tried offering them some quirks in exchange for being his minions. But they refused, and so they became some of the first members of the resistance against AFO. Lucius tried using his soul absorption quirk to receive the aid of six of the strongest fighters in the resistance, known as the Six Heroes. But even with the power of those souls who offered their lifes to Lucius in order to stand a chance, he failed miserably and died to AFO's hands. Though something else happened; the souls of the Six Heroes that were still stored inside Lucius' body had so much willpower they broke free of his body and ran off to somewhere else. It is said that their quirks were inherited by certain families that contain inside their bodies the remnants of the Six Heroes' souls.

To take back those souls, honor his dead friend and take over the world as his kingdom to make it better, Gibeon made a vow with All For One. He would get a lifespan extending quirk and aid from the doctor guy that makes the Nomus (I don't remember what he was called), in exchange for having to give the control to AFO once he manages to take over the world.

And that's how Gibeon's quest for the Six Heroes begins. He manipulates his daughter to arrange a marriage with a certain man, and keeps arranging marriages in order to get a kid with a quirk capable of affecting souls like Lucius' quirk, and that's how Amethio is born, with a quirk capable of absorbing soul energy by physical touch to manipulate it in the form of ghostly flames. With the Doctor's help and once he gets the souls/quirks of the Six Heroes, he'll try kidnapping Liko to mix her quirk with Amethio's and use him as a recipient to be able to wield the power of the Six Heroes, and with that power, he'll reign supreme over the world and make it peaceful and unchanging, like he thinks Lucius would've wanted.

I honestly don't know if this is cringy or if there's any plot inconsistencies in this. Sorry if I'm doing anything wrong regarding the timeline or the original series' lore I'm currently doing a rewatch and I'm very far from being caught up with the anime and manga. But afaik, I think I did a good job with this and I'm proud of it. Roy's quirk is sorted out and Amethio's too; we only gotta think about the Rising Volt Tacklers and the other Explorer admins and what their quirks would be. After that, I should be able to do a summarize doc on everything regarding the AU and actually get working on writing the fic.

[qcellbit]

I just wanna say that as a Brazilian, your meta post made me realize something I myself hadn't realized related to the elections arc.

When the elections started, the Brazilian CCs always wanted one of them to be the president. That's why all (minus pac) of them were candidates, it was a part of the strategy. But they never did that simply because they wanted to be the center of everything, because they wanted to steal the spotlight (and to clarify, I myself never thought that) or anything. Your post made me realize that they wanted it because the QSMP is one of the few international recognitions Brazil is having. They wanted it because the QSMP might as well be the first time Brazilians have some spotlight.

Because, sure. Think of international media. What is the first thing that would come to your mind about Brazil? We have the spotlight on football, yes. But other than that? The movie Rio, which is a good one. But are there any other famous international media connected to Brazil? José Carioca, from Disney? The character that Disney can't even get to pronounce it correctly and keeps pronouncing it as if it was a Spanish name?

How many people still thought Brazilians spoke Spanish before the QSMP? How many people didn't know anything about Brazil before the QSMP, even our hermanos, who are neighbor countries? (the vice versa also works here)

Sure, the QSMP isn't as big as say, Disney, but IT IS big! And for lots of us this is the first time Brazil and Brazilians have some actual importance and stand out.

And the CCs do it in a... empowering way, kind of? There is some actual critique to be made ofc, about how some of the CCs never lived in a favela and how they approached it, but it's also true that the favela in the QSMP is seen in such a positive place? It's a place for a lot of meet ups, it's where people hang out and have fun. And it's a type of place that irl is so marginalized, that people make sure to stay far from it because they see it as just the place where violence, crimes, drugs, etc happen, which comes from a place of elitism and racism. And to see this type of place being shown in a positive light is sort of endearing?

It's why the Brazilians made sure to make a festa junina in the QSMP. Because they wanted to show our culture, and no other piece of international media had ever did something related to festa junina before. We *never* had that sort of representation before.

It's why Forever makes sure that his presidential skin has a Brazilian flag. It's why the Brazilian community is so passionate about this project (tho I DO agree that there is toxic people in the community- but it's a matter of proportion. the bigger the community is the more you'll see toxic people) and want to do and be important to the QSMP as a whole. Because we never had the opportunity before, we never had something like that.

yeah oh my god. this is all an incredibly important well thought out expansion of my own post and i encourage everyone to read it at least twice because it hits the nail on the head and expresses exactly what i was trying to get at when commenting on the qsmp's cultural significance for underrepresented cultures.