#gives us such a sense of community and belonging because that's what we should be doing!!! that feeling shouldn't be as rare as it is!!!

[love-has-a-way-ofgrowingbackward]

stargazing is very deeply underrated

[fatliberation]

If its ok to ask; how do you feel about fat kinks? I havent seen any fat acceptance blogs talk abt it. /genq

I know it's a sore spot for a lot of fat liberationists (and yes, I'm quite familiar with why so please do not take to my inbox), I think people are scared to talk about it. personally, I think it is crucial that people with fat kinks are able to access fat liberation spaces so long as they leave the kink at the door. I say this not only because the majority of them are fat people, but because that community is steeped in a deep shame and feeling of brokenness for taking delight in fatness and/or weight gain, which perpetuates rampant fatphobia. and fat liberation is what will heal those wounds. I don't understand it when fat activists tell kinksters/fetishists/feedists, whatever you want to call them to stay out of the fat liberation movement. because what is the alternative? do you want them against the movement? that doesn't make sense at all. I think people are so uncomfortable, disgusted, or afraid of this community they don't understand, that they just wish they wouldn't exist. they aren't going away. kink is akin to sexuality, to identity, to queerness. I think what people really mean when they say feedists should stay out of fat lib is, "kink should stay within spaces designated for kink." we aren't talking about kink when it comes to who can belong in a movement, we are talking about people. it is wrong to equate every person who has a kink or a fetish to a predator. it causes very real harm to those people, because they internalize that message that their kink makes them a bad person who is inherently worthless, who has to hide. if feedists aren't welcome in fat liberation, they aren't welcome anywhere.

I think that people who love fat people, love feeding people, love their own fat bodies, who see their fattest selves as their most satisfying selves, would be natural allies to this movement once they find their way to it and feel safe and accepted here. I want to make it absolutely clear that ANYONE is welcome on this blog as long as they aren't harassing or harming anyone. so many of my followers and biggest supporters are kink blogs. some of my closest friends and fat liberationist allies are feedists. I know feedists who are way more educated and passionate about fat lib and body politics than most people I've met. I don’t wish for anyone to feel alienated on my blog - especially fellow fat folks and fellow fat allies. we are 100% FAT POSITIVE AND SEX POSITIVE on this blog, babey‼️

In fact I feel really glad when I see fat kink/feedism blogs engaging with my content bc it means that person is putting the work in to understand systemic fatphobia, how to be an ally to fat people (if they aren't fat themselves), but also healing their community through education and acceptance. and HOT TAKE, BUT: when it does happen?? when feedists aren't shrouded in internalized fatphobia, shame, and isolation, and instead start embracing this innate, powerful appreciation for fatness, it's literally so fucking beautiful? and so very queer?

choosing to gain weight on purpose as an act of self creation. because it feels Right for you. gaining weight to affirm the relationship you have with your body. getting fatter because you feel so much of your identity (even gender presentation!) is attached to your fat body. feeling sexiest when you're fat. someone else worshipping that about you. giving unlimited permission to nourish yourself and/or others - and taking carnal delight in it. releasing food rules and food guilt through centering pleasure. food and fatness as an erotic and sensory experience. finding feedist partners who also have this ingrained love of fatness that can't be replicated, partners who are willing and eager to support and adore your fat body, NOT merely tolerate it. reclaiming tropes used against you through kink, and turning a loving gaze inward. saying "fuck you" to the system and choosing to take up more space in a world that consistently tries to shrink you. never denying yourself pleasure even though everyone is telling you you don't deserve it. feedism is such an interesting facet of the endless spectrum of human sexuality and I think that once people in that community find liberation and heal their relationship to the kink, it can be one of the most radical forms of self acceptance and exercising complete bodily autonomy.

I already know that a love letter to feedism coming from a fat lib blog is gonna piss people off. I'm going to lose a lot of followers, I'm going to get a lot of hate. but. kink in general is SO demonized and SO misunderstood and as liberationists we should also be open to sexual liberation. so much of this discomfort around feedism comes from a lack of education and understanding about kink in general. feedism doesn't = fatphobia in the same way that bdsm doesn't = misogyny or abuse. quite the contrary, if practiced ethically, with informed consent. every community has assholes. especially when those communities are small, ostracized, and so young that there are next to zero resources for self acceptance, safety, education, and accountability. in fact, the assholes are the ones that you're going to SEE because every respectful person is staying away and out of your business. if you've been harassed by someone with a fat kink, that is so shitty and I'm sorry that happened to you. I know it happens a lot. try to remember that what you experienced was abuse, not kink.

what consenting individuals choose to do with their bodies is entirely their business and there is nothing wrong with kink. (and I will not stand for sex-negative, puritan bullshit in my inbox, thank you very much.)

reminder: fat pleasure is fat liberation.

[vidavalor]

Art Does Not Solely Belong to the Artist

For my fellow Good Omens people:

I don't usually write about real-world stuff on this blog but the current stuff is unavoidable and relevant and I write to process things so the result is some thoughts on the horrible mess:

From the moment that art sees the light of day, it does not belong to the artist. It belongs to the world. From the moment that even just one other person sees a work of art, it is no longer just the domain of the artist. The work of art now has a life of its own and it now belongs, collectively, to every person who engages with it.

Everyone who views a work of art comes at it from their own unique perspective. They bring their own background knowledge, their own experiences, their own fears and dreams. If they connect with a work of art, it can be a very personal experience and, in some cases, transformative. People who engage with art can sometimes see that art become part of the fabric of their lives in many ways. They might make art of their own related to the work or use aspects of it, consciously or unconsciously, as a tool to process struggles within their own lives. The work of art might be tied to memories and to new friends they've made from engaging with it. They might view the community built around the work of art as a place of happiness and solace in an uncertain world.

All of these things make it difficult when it becomes evident that the artist's behavior is not in line with what attracted many good people to engage with his work.

It can be a lot to learn that a monster made the thing that brought you joy. It can be a lot to learn that a monster made art that you love but that is so completely antithetical to their own words and deeds outside of the art that the hypocrisy makes your blood boil. It can be a lot to keep that anger and disappointment from turning into cynicism. Letting it is not a great idea-- that is just letting the monster get you, too, in a way, and helping darkness to spread.

Do not cede the stories you love to darkness; they belong to you, too, and to all of us. Do not let any bleak, horrible people behind the stories you love take from you what belongs to you.

It does not actually matter that his name is on the book or the tv show in question; it belongs to all of those who helped make it and to all of those who read and view it. It evolved independently into the product of all who engage with it and of all who engage with one another as a result. Good Omens is not a just a book or a tv show anymore; it's a community of people who have read and viewed Good Omens. People who have made art inspired by its themes and found new friends around the world as a result of engaging with its story. Those experiences are our own and do not need to be denied just because of the repugnant acts of one of the many people involved with the story.

As a rape survivor, I can tell you that two things can co-exist: you can acknowledge and be horrified by the pain suffered by victims of the monster and you can also still enjoy the community of people who came together over a sense of positive connection made by art that was originally made, in part, by that monster. Both can-- and should-- be done. Despairing over the darkness of the world does nothing. Countering that darkness with every bit of love you have is what can actually make the world better. Staying in this community and continuing to be a part of it with the big, open, lovely hearts it is known for would be the best way to be a force for good.

You do not need to give up Good Omens to be supportive of his victims. In fact, I can't think of anything less effective-- that is only allowing the blast radius of his predatory behavior to spread. What would actually be helpful is to believe his victims and, as a community, come together for SA survivors in every way we can think of. The book and the show and this community do not belong to one creep of a guy-- they belong to all of us. There's no reason for us to go because this is our home.

Good Omens isn't just him; it belongs to the late Terry Pratchett, Michael Sheen, David Tennant, the hundreds of people it takes to make the show, and all of us who have made our own art and made new friends as a result of it. It is not okay to diminish the suffering of human beings or to place the fate of a fictional story above them but it is also very much okay to not give up on that story and its community entirely because of the actions of just one of the many people involved with it.

With any luck, there will be some justice in the real world for his very real, very disturbing behavior. That is obviously what is most important here.

As for the show? He is one, very replaceable creep, who didn't even write half of S2 himself. (Not to mention half the book.) It takes many people to make a tv show and S3 is an already-planned last season that just needs to be steered into port. It'll be fine.

In the meantime, it's fine to still love what we love-- because it's ours, too. Make your fan art. Finish your meta and your fic. Be silly and laugh and have fun. Giving up what makes you happy because of one, heinous asshole is not taking the moral high ground-- it is helping darkness win by destroying a community space that positively serves many, a lot of whom are survivors themselves.

Calls to dump Good Omens entirely are empty, performative outrage that serves no actual, practical purpose for improving anyone's lives. It's an attempt to put everyone who works on the show out of a job and to force the cancelation of prominent, trans-friendly media, and to help along any of that would not do anything to hold him accountable, nor is it respecting his victims. If you want to honor their suffering, don't help him and the gross bigots who exposed him spread more pain of any kind. Believe the victims and let law enforcement and the studios deal with the justice. There are much more productive, much more effective ways to respect his victims and one is to not let their suffering be the reason why you give up a source of your own positive connection and joy.

[squash1]

THREES THREES THREES:

Oh hello. I want to talk about the stylistic/textual role of Threes in The Raven Cycle.

Threes – as a general concept and as a number – are a major symbol and motif in the series. Maggie tells us that threes are important from the very first book: from Maura’s favorite saying being “good things come in threes” to Persephone telling Adam that “things are always growing to three or shrinking to three,” threes are discussed at length in the text of the narrative. Maggie also shows us that threes are important as a motif/symbol for important aspects of the story: three Raven Boys, three Fox Way women, three Lynch brothers, three main ley lines, three sleepers, etc. Threes are, textually, incredibly significant in The Raven Cycle, and we know this because we are shown AND told it throughout the entirety of the books. 

We all know the significance that is given to threes in the story itself, but what I want to talk about is the usage of a thrice-repeated word or short phrase (going forward I’m referring to this as “Threes” or “a Three”) as one of Maggie’s writing signatures (across the series, there are 65 Threes). This creates a meta level to threes being an important aspect of The Raven Cycle universe. A classic example of a Three (one of my favorites, in fact) is from The Dream Thieves: 

“As they walked, a sudden rush of wind hurled low across the grass, bringing with it the scent of moving water and rocks hidden in the shadows, and Blue thrilled again and again with the knowledge that magic was real, magic was real, magic was real.” (TDT, 12)

In a way, the Threes join the intradiegetic (what is happening within the narrative itself) with the extradiegetic (what the narration is communicating solely to the reader). The reader and characters are told explicitly that the number three is significant, important, notable, and powerful. In using Threes as a writing signature after giving the reader that information, the Threes are designed to signal to the reader that this line, this moment, is important.    

So the question is: What Are The Threes Trying to Tell the Reader??? 

Amazing question. 

In my recent TRC reread, I was already keeping track of Threes, because I was curious to see how many times they appeared. And then my sister, who was also rereading, said something interesting (after reading this Three from The Raven Boys):  

“He was full of so many wants, too many to prioritize, and so they all felt desperate. To not have to work so many hours, to get into a good college, to look right in a tie, to not still be hungry after eating the thin sandwich he’d brought to work, to drive the shiny Audi that Gansey had stopped to look at with him once after school, to go home, to have hit his father himself, to own an apartment with granite countertops and a television bigger than Gansey’s desk, to belong somewhere, to go home, to go home, to go home.” (TRB, 370)

My sister said: “Adam’s like Dorothy.” And then she said: “Wait. Do you think the Threes are like a spell? Or… a wish?”

Which was……. Interesting. 

What I have determined, after completing my reread and spending way too much time analyzing this, is that a Three is either a wish, a hope, a longing, a prayer – or, alternately, a warning, a curse, a negative promise. 

In either sense, Threes are a foreshadowing of what is to come – whether it be good or bad. Threes exist to signal to the reader that they should be paying close attention to whatever is being said or observed.

Threes in….. Everything Else: 

Before we get too far into TRC Threes, let’s talk about the precedent for three being an important number in art, math, storytelling, etc. I found some interesting information about how three is a satisfying number for the brain: 

Grouping things in threes leverages the power of repetition to aid memory; denote emotional intensity or importance; and ease persuasion (research by Shu & Carlson (2014) found that three positive claims is the most effective for persuasion).

Three is the smallest number that the brain can still recognize as a pattern, and the brain loves pattern and repetition. This is true in visual art – having three main compositional figures to create a pleasing image – and also in storytelling and narrative. Using threes for repetition in storytelling is a very common occurrence. 

Some classic examples of repetitive threes are Shakespeare’s “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” or Lincoln's “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” In each of these examples, a repetition of three is used to create pleasing auditory rhythm. There is something inherently memorable about literary Threes. 

Perhaps the most interesting information I found while digging into the precedent for threes is about the rule of threes in folktales. This information happens to come from Wikipedia (side note: Wikipedia is a modern tool of collective consciousness and we should utilize it more). This page describes how in its most basic form, the rule of threes in storytelling is just beginning, middle, and end. Because this is such a common convention, writers tend to “create triplets or structures in three parts.” It then talks more directly about the use of threes in folktales: 

“Vladimir Propp in his Morphology of the Folk Tale, concluded that any of the elements in a folktale could be negated twice so that it would repeat thrice.”

This is especially interesting to me. The idea that an element of a folktale “could be negated twice so that it would repeat thrice” shows up prominently in the plot of The Raven Cycle – a book that is heavily influenced by folktale motifs – but also in so many of the folktales/fairytales we all know. A classic example of this would be Goldilocks and the Three Bears – Goldilocks must try porridge that is too hot, too cold, and then, finally, just right. The journey of these three actions is satisfying to the brain because it is a complete pattern: the third and final result of “just right” porridge is only satisfying because of the two “not right” porridges that preceded it. 

Getting back to Stiefvater Threes:

For anyone who’s seen The West Wing (and even those who haven’t), here’s a good way to explain what I think the Threes are doing. You know that thing they do during a The West Wing “walk and talk” where two characters will be throwing information and little quips back and forth at each other rapid-fire, and then suddenly, they will both stop walking, and the camera will stop moving, and they’ll say a line that contains really important information that you need to know to understand the storyline of that episode? That’s what Maggie’s Threes are doing for the reader. That’s what 6:21 is doing for the characters. It’s intentional: the writers/directors/actors/camera operators on The West Wing know that they’re throwing a lot of information at you, and know that they need to get you to pay attention to the most important parts somehow, so they do it by forcing the viewer to lean in and listen. It changes the focus and energy of the scene from something with momentum to something that pauses, and therefore makes you pause. 

The Threes compel the reader to pause and consider the information being delivered as more important than they might consider it if it was not written as a Three. “Maura’s expression was dark” does not read the same as “Maura’s expression was dark, dark, dark.” And in a text where characters directly state the magical importance of threes, compounded by three as an overarching motif, there is clear intention and meaning behind these written Threes.

In the context of TRC, Threes act as a fourth-wall break.

They are essentially a way to poke the reader and say: “Are you paying attention? Because you should be.” 

These Threes use a symbolic motif – the rule of three – that is already heavily discussed in the text – to get the reader to pick up on the internal motivations of the character who is “wishing” their Three or the narration which is using a Three to foreshadow some important aspect of the plot. 

The Threes are like the literary equivalent of a record scratch. It stops you in your tracks, breaking the established rhythm and making you take notice of what is being said in a new way. 

Let’s Look at Some More Threes (but just a few don’t worry)!

1. We get a classic Three, and a very Gansey Three, right after the group comes out of Cabeswater: 

“‘What about that thing in the tree?’ Blue asked. ‘Was that a hallucination? A dream?’ 

Glendower. It was Glendower. Glendower. Glendower” (TRB, 231).

Finding Glendower is one of Gansey’s core wishes, one of his core longings. Although this line is a literal answer to Blue’s question – he saw Glendower in the tree – in making it a Three, Maggie has given it added weight and meaning. It is prayer-like in its intention. It is almost an incantation: by saying it in Three, Gansey wishes it into being.

2. In The Raven Boys, after Gansey has bribed Pinter to keep Ronan at Aglionby and has learned that Noah has been dead the whole time they’ve known him, we are given this Three: 

“The Pig exploded off the line. Damn Ronan. Gansey punched his way through the gears, fast, fast, fast” (TRB, 311). 

This moment foreshadows what directly follows: a distinct lack of fast as the Camaro breaks down and Gansey is held at gunpoint by Whelk. This Three is not a prayer, but a warning, and an indicator to the reader that something important is about to happen. Had Gansey not been trying to go so “fast fast fast,” the car might not have broken down; because the Three incanted it, disaster follows. 

3. To return to a Three I have already mentioned, but follows the typical Three structure: 

“...to go home, to go home, to go home” (TRB, 370). 

In this scene, Adam’s wish is less about actually wanting to return to his literal home, because his house was never really a home for him. Adam’s wish/longing is for a home that he could return to, that he would want to return to. He is longing for a place/feeling/experience that does not exist for him. The Three in this sentence comes after a string of active wishes/longings, and by ending with this Three, it casts a spell of sorts, honing in on the truest underlying wish that Adam has. In using the phrase “to go home” three times, the narrative is making sure you, the reader, know that this want, this need, this wish, is the most Important to Adam, and will drive his actions for the rest of his story. 

Most of the Threes feel like this. They are often tacked on at the end of a sentence or embedded in a sentence. They’re an addendum to the action of the story. They’re like casting a spell – once to manifest, twice to charge, three to cast. 

…..And Some Other Types of Threes:

Then there are the Threes that don't follow the typical pattern of the same word repeated three times one right after the other, but are still a Three in a different way.

There are short phrases/sentences that are repeated three times throughout a page or chapter. In the prologue of The Raven King, we get this: 

“He was a king…

He was a king…

He was a king.

This was the year he was going to die.” (TRK, 1-3)

In this case, the Three acts as a promise of Gansey’s kinghood, but in ending the sequence with “this was the year he was going to die,” the promise of the three is given a condition: it is not going to be a joyful kinghood, but instead a kinghood intertwined with the death we’ve known is fated for Gansey.

One of Adam’s Threes from Blue Lily, Lily Blue, uniquely breaks the mold of Threes in a format that does not appear anywhere else in the four books: 

“It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father” (BLLB, 242).

❋ (We’ll talk about this one more in-depth later.)

There are also a few “unfinished” Threes: 

In The Raven King when Ronan is having a nightmare (infected by the demon) about Matthew and the mask, he has this Three: 

“Ronan’s throat was raw. I’ll do anything! I’ll do anything! I’ll do anythi 

It was unmaking everything Ronan loved. 

Please” (TRK, 96). 

With the uncompleted Three, there is an uncast wish. Ronan’s wish is about Matthew, yes of course, but also about being willing to do anything to keep those he loves (ie. Adam, Gansey, Blue, his brothers) out of the reach of the “unmaking.” This unfinished Three serves to foreshadow the harm that does ultimately befall first Adam and then Gansey as a result of the unmaking of Cabeswater by the demon: without the Three spell completed, his wish is not fulfilled.

*This is Not all the uncommon/mold-breaking Threes, just a few that are interesting!

Do All Threes Come to Fruition???

The short answer is: No. Or at least not in that way. 

Once again looking at the text of The Raven Cycle, we are given an answer of sorts. In discussing Gansey’s predicted death, Maura says:

“First of all, the corpse road is a promise, not a guarantee” (TRB, 155).

This seems to apply to Threes as well. Threes are not a guarantee. They are a promise. Not all Threes come to fruition the way one might expect – or at all, for that matter. The important part of Threes is not that they will definitely come true, it’s that they could come true, because the Three gives them the potential to come true. 

Structure, Structure, Structure:

The main Threes structures are:

Three of the same word separated by commas: 

“magic, magic, magic” (TRK, 59).

A short phrase/sentence separated by periods:

“My father. My father. My father” (TDT, 369).

A short sentence that is repeated three times throughout a page/paragraph:

“Gansey did not breathe…

Gansey did not breathe…

Gansey did not breathe” (TRK, 209).

A word that is repeated three times and is connected by “and”:

“Round and round and round!” (BLLB, 224)

Italics vs. Non Italics:

Italics in The Raven Cycle are often used for character’s inner thoughts/anxieties. This continues to be true in the context of Threes. A Three that is not written in italics indicates a promise, or some foreshadowing of a plot point being foretold through the Three – it is typically more “real” – whereas a Three that is written in Italics seems to indicate a wish/hope/longing that is unattainable in some way. Italics almost always indicate a Three that may never come to fruition, or at least not in the way the character hopes it will. 

An example of this distinction can be found in chapter three (hah) (I don’t believe in coincidences and neither does Gansey) of The Raven King: 

First we are met with Ronan wishing/hoping to return home:

“That morning, Ronan Lynch had woken early, without any alarm, thinking home, home, home” (TRK, 24). 

This home, home, home, is in reference to the idea of home rather than the reality. Ronan is wishing to return to a home that does exist physically, but is not the same as in his memory – he wants to be at the Barns as it was in his childhood. 

Then, in the very same chapter, Ronan actually returns home and we are given this Three: 

“Slowly his memories of before — everything this place had been to him when it had held the entire Lynch family — were being overlapped with memories and hopes of after — every minute that the Barns had been his, all of the time he’d spent here alone or with Adam, dreaming and scheming. 

Home, home, home” (TRK, 27).

This second home, home, home, is about the actual reality of being in his childhood home – the good and bad that has existed in the years since the childhood he longs for. 

The Addition of AND:

The most notable use of “and” is in Noah’s very last chapter:

“Sometimes he got caught in this moment instead. Gansey’s death. Watching Gansey die, again and again and again” (TRK, 416).

When “and” is added into a Three, it becomes circular, cyclical. The “and” gives the Three a sense of infinity, or creates a loop of sorts. 

This Three operates in the same way “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” does in Macbeth – it is meant to convey the endlessness of time, a relentless cycle of tomorrows.

❋ While there are not many of these Threes with “ands” in The Raven Cycle, there are other examples of Threes or Three-like occurrences that fulfill the same purpose as the “and.” For example, remember this Three:

“It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father. 

He opened the door. 

It was his father.” (BLLB, 242).

In this case, instead of the word “and,” the Three (It was his father) is connected by “he opened the door.” This Three is accomplishing the same feeling as “again and again and again” – the feeling of being caught in an endless loop. 

Another example of an (implied) “and” in The Raven Cycle is: Gansey’s life. Gansey starts out alive and then dies as a child only to be reborn, and then killed again through his sacrifice, and then reborn for a final time. Gansey is Alive, Dead, Alive, Dead, Alive. And so Gansey’s life is a cycle of Three.

As with the Threes that contain “and,” Gansey starts where he ends: alive. 

Other Ways Threes Show up in The Raven Cycle:   

I will state the obvious once again: there are three Raven Boys, three Lynch brothers, three Fox Way women, three sleepers, three main ley lines (the lines that “seem to matter” to Glendower’s story), Gansey the Third (Gansey Three, Dick Three). 

There are also the more obscure: the “three kinds of secrets” in The Dream Thieves prologue and epilogue; each Lynch brother inheriting three million dollars from Niall Lynch; the three figures with Blue’s face on the tapestry and later as a vision in Cabeswater; Adam and Gansey going to DC for three days; the shield pulled from the lake having three ravens embossed onto it; Ronan having dreamt Matthew at the age of three; the door to the Demon’s room needing “three to open” it; Aurora Lynch staying awake for three days after Niall died. 

And of course, we have the ley line symbol/chapter header:

And then there are the 300 (three hundred!) Fox Way “villain” readings. (This was something that was particularly interesting to me.)

The first antagonist we meet is Whelk. When he comes for a reading at 300 Fox Way, he first pulls the Three of Swords. 

When the women all draw cards together, they pull identical cards for Whelk: three of the Knight of Pentacles, then three of the Page of Cups. After drawing, essentially, three threes (the Three of Swords, then two sets of three matching cards) in this reading, the first Three of the entire series appears: 

“Maura’s expression was dark, dark, dark” (TRB, 124). 

The second “antagonist” we meet is the Gray Man, who comes to 300 Fox Way in The Dream Thieves to “observe.” Maura, Calla, and Persephone are predicting which card is on the top and bottom of the stack and the first card, predicted by Calla, is the Three of Cups off the top of the deck that Mr. Gray is holding (a remarkably happy card in stark contrast to Whelk’s Three of Swords). 

When the third antagonist, Greenmantle, comes for his 300 Fox Way Reading he also draws the Three of Swords. The fact that each of the three antagonists come for a reading is in itself a sort of Three, but to further the importance of these moments, each of them draws some sort of three-related card. 

All of the examples I have touched on have been more symbolic references to Three as a motif of the books as a whole. However, Threes also show up in the literal number of times important quotes are said/written. 

I was tracking some of the most well-loved TRC lines to compile them, and noticed that the lines “don’t throw it away” and “safe as life” happen to appear exactly three times throughout the series. This was honestly pretty surprising based on the importance of those quotes – I would have assumed they showed up far more. Actually, they both appear twice in The Raven Boys and once in The Raven King. Threes, and the importance of Threes, is embedded so strongly into the narrative of The Raven Cycle that even the quotes we all think of as the most beloved of the series follow this rule of Threes. 

Now, could you chalk some of these up to coincidence? I guess. But Gansey doesn’t believe in coincidences so I don’t either. So what’s the point of all these Threes?

Conclusion???

In a literal, literary way, Threes are a fourth wall break to make the importance of a moment obvious, but I’m not sure what the larger “point” of Threes is. My best analysis comes from the idea of The Raven Cycle being all about time and Threes playing into the importance of time as a sort of record scratch or loop. The Threes, as a stylistic, written motif, seem to connect the time-based cycle the characters experience to the time-based cycles the reader experiences by reading the books. 

But my conclusion feels incomplete and so I would like to rely on the collective for this one – just about the most Raven Cycle thing you can do. So I’m asking you, the collective you, what conclusion would you draw? What do you think? 

What I do know for sure is that Threes are magic, magic, magic.

For Your Convenience: Here is the textual significance given to threes within the books (chronologically): 

And here are the Threes, Threes, Threes (compiled):

(If you made it to the end of all this, I love you. Have a gold star and a hug <3)

[serpenera]

One of the things that most irks me in the HP, and especially Snape discourse, is the misinterpretation of the meaning of the patronus. The general consensus seems to be that the shape of the patronus indicates one’s true love but that is a massive oversimplification that creates numerous inconsistencies. In other words, when we look at it like that, the patronus makes NO SENSE. Except the patronus makes PERFECT SENSE. Just let me explain.

The patronus, as we know, is a charm that repels Dementors - an anthropomorphized representation of clinical depression. Keep that in mind as this is important. You conjure it by focusing on a happy memory or should I rather say a happy thought.

Memory is the word Lupin uses when he first explains the patronus to Harry and I’d argue this is the reason why Harry initially fails at conjuring one. He remembers his first time on a broom and winning the house cup. Both happy memories to doubt but “not powerful enough” as Lupin puts it. So what makes a powerful memory?

Harry tries again and succeeds by focusing on the memory of finding out he was a wizard and would be leaving the Dursleys and going to Hogwarts. What makes this memory different than the other two is that it wasn’t just that of a fleeting moment of glee but of an event that marked a major change in Harry’s life, a change for the better. Yes, it was a moment from the PAST but one that influenced Harry’s PRESENT and FUTURE.

See, this is the key to understanding the patronus. The trick is not to remember a happy past long gone, it’s to find something in the past that gives you a reason to move forward. Anyone, who’s ever been depressed to the point of wanting to off themselves will know what I’m talking about here. And those who don’t, good for you.

Anyway, back to Harry. When he conjures his first fully corporeal patronus at the end of PoA, he thinks of going to live with Sirius. And when he uses the spell again in GoF he thinks of celebrating the end of the Tournament with Ron and Hermione. In both cases, he doesn’t even recall an event of the past but projects into the future. And note that regardless of whom or what he thinks of (and not once does he think of his dad), his patronus stays a stag. Even after his love and admiration for James falters due to the discovery of SWM, his patronus stays a stag. This is because the stag, while visually traceable back to James, does not represent James as a person but rather a concept that James himself is a representation of. The stag stands for family, legacy, and a sense of belonging. What keeps Harry moving forward despite all the obstacles is not the mere memory of having had a dad once, it’s the realization that he’s not alone in the world, that he has friends who care about him, and that he’s part of a community.

If we look at the patronus through this lens we can logically explain the shape and origin of all the major ones present in the books.

Snape is often accused of being a stalker incel and whatnot because (apparently) his doe patronus is the same as Lily’s.

First of all, did you pull that information out of your ass? ‘Cause I checked and nowhere in the book(s) does it say what shape her patronus was. The same goes for James. He was a stag animagus. We don’t know what shape his patronus was. That, assuming they both even knew the charm. Although, as Order members, they probably did. If they hadn’t learned it at school, Dumbledore or another Order member would’ve taught them.

Okay, for the sake of this argument, let’s assume that James’ patronus was in fact a stag and Lily’s was a doe and also that the animals represent them respectively. People will argue that the fact the patronuses match (they don’t actually cause they’re two different species of deer but never mind) implies they were each other’s soulmates. To back that argument they will cite Tonks’ patronus which changed into a wolf after she fell in love with Lupin. At the same time, they will argue that Snape’s doe indicates an unhealthy obsession with Lily. Can you spot the issue with this reasoning?

Snape’s and Tonks’ cases are analog: their patronuses turn into animals related to the other person. And yet in Snape’s case, it’s obsession, and in Tonks’, it’s love?

Lily/James and Tonks’ cases are opposite: Lily/James patronuses turn into animals related to themselves while Tonks’ turns into one related to her love interest. But in both cases, it’s true love?

If Snape’s obsessed with Lily then Tonks is obsessed with Lupin and Lily and James are just obsessed with themselves. Contrarily, if Tonks loves Lupin then Snape loves Lily, and Lily and James, again, just love themselves respectively. Moreover, if you follow either logic, Harry is obsessed / in love with James and Dumbledore with Fawkes.

See how none of that makes ANY SENSE whatsoever? Also, no, it’s not a plothole. Y’all are just looking at it wrong. Now let’s rewind and analyze all of these the same way we did with Harry’s at the beginning of this rant.

James’ case is very straightforward. Similarly to Harry, James finds meaning in the traditional idea of family, clan legacy, and belonging. Remember how on the train to Hogwarts he says he wants to be a Gryffindor just like his dad? That, in my opinion, is already very telling, and considering that right after school James marries the girl he decided would be the future mother of his children and promptly gets her pregnant we can easily deduce what he values and what he believes his higher purpose to be. When facing a Dementor and being consumed by despair, perhaps remembering the loss of his parents and perceived betrayal of his best friends, in order to push through he certainly focuses on his wife and especially his son.

Lily’s doe patronus has nothing to do with Snape. Or with James for that matter. Instead, it has everything to do with Harry. See, many real-life women who find themselves at the edge of despair for one reason or another declare they only push forward because of their children. I think Lily is no different. I mean, she did die trying to protect her child. So I think that facing a Dementor, she thinks of Harry. Her wish to be there for her son and protect him is what keeps her going forward despite everything. She has to be strong because she is needed and that is what her doe stands for.

The doe and the stag, somewhat complementary animals, both symbolize family-related but very different concepts. The stag carries a distinctly masculine meaning, that of the passing of legacy and prolonging the bloodline. The doe has a more feminine feel, that of nurturing and protecting.

Snape’s patronus is the same animal as Lily not because he loves her or is obsessed or even just friends with her. It’s the same because both these characters find purpose in the same thing: being needed.

While for Lily this mindset seems to stem from her motherhood, for Snape it seems to have always been there and for very a different reason. The severe neglect he experienced in his early childhood conditioned him to always seek external validation. It’s as if he couldn’t find value in himself unless someone else found it in him. This is why he was trying so hard to be useful to Lily when they first became friends. This is why he got himself groomed by the Death Eaters. This is also why he was so easily manipulated by Dumbledore.

Speaking of Dumbledore, he has to have taught Snape the patronus charm and it must have happened sometime between his defection and the Potters’ death. Now imagine what that might have looked like.

Dumbledore explains how the patronus works. Snape tries, recalling one of his happy childhood moments with Lily, and fails. He chooses another memory and fails again. Dumbledore tells him it has to be something really powerful. Snape is out of ideas, the only happy memories he has are of his childhood friendship with Lily but that friendship is over, it has been for a while, she’s married to his bully and having his child, and on top of that, she’s being targeted by Voldemort and it’s all his fault. Reminiscing their past together is nowhere near enough to fuel the patronus. Then Snape projects into the future in which thanks to him, Lily is safe, she forgives him for his past mistakes and they make up. This time he successfully conjures his trademark doe.

I imagine that, after Lily died, Snape would have had trouble producing a patronus. That would be until Dumbledore pointed out how even in death she still needed him to protect her child. He would then focus on a future in which Voldemort is defeated, Harry is safe, his debt with Lily is paid and his sins are redeemed.

Dumbledore knows that Snape’s doe patronus is related to Lily but it’s probably because he taught him the charm himself and in doing so he learned that it was thoughts and memories of her that fueled it. Not because it was (presumably, mind you) the same shape as hers.

That said, I’m firmly convinced that if Snape had survived the war he would again have had trouble producing a proper patronus, not because of any change in his feelings towards Lily but rather because with Harry safe and Voldemort gone, he’d find himself lacking a purpose. If, for example, he got himself involved with someone else, someone who would make him feel needed, he might be able to produce a patronus again but it would most certainly remain a doe.

Tonks’ patronus is an interesting one because it actually changes its shape in the course of the narrative. We know it became a wolf after Tonks fell in love with and started dating Lupin.

Yes, it’d be easy to assume that the wolf represents the character whose name is literally Wolfy McWolf and who’s also a werewolf but that would be both shallow and inaccurate.

Tonks’ wolf, not unlike Lily and James’ stag and dear, is symbolically tied to the concept of family and friendship. We don’t know what drove Tonks forward before she became involved with Lupin but we can easily deduce that what drives her afterward is the thought of being with him. When she conjures her patronus, she probably thinks of a future in which they have a proper relationship or perhaps start a family. When Snape makes a dab at her patronus he isn’t just being mean. Knowing Lupin, he probably expects him not to take responsibility for his actions towards Tonks and wiggle out of the relationship the moment things get a little bit too serious for his liking. In saying her patronus is weak he’s trying to warn her not to put her faith in Lupin.

In the end, I’d like to mention Dumbledore’s patronus. Just like a phoenix is reborn from its ashes, Dumbledore rises up from the pit of his troubled youth. When in the vicinity of a Dementor, he must be plagued by thoughts of his misplaced aspirations, of Ariana’s death, and his fall out with Grindelwald. The thought I believe he focuses on in those moments is that of having rehabilitated himself in the eyes of society, and having ultimately become a champion of the light.

[assignedmale]

As a trans creator whose work went viral an awful lot of times and who was targeted by so many hate campaigns that I lost count of them (I started publishing Assigned Male Comics 9 years ago, to give you an idea), I think it would have been very easy for me to go down a bitter path. Our communities are merciless. Our movement is obsessed with ideological purity. It's a fact. Our siblings will devore us for the smallest misstep. It's very easy to become jaded, when you give your entire being to a cause that will treat you as disposable as soon as it's done draining all your energy. When I started getting invited to different countries to speak about my work, I viewed it as some kind of "reward" - I create work that spoke to people, so it got me speaking engagements. I realized that it was in fact the opposite : it's seeing the impact art can have on communities that became the real catalyst of it. With all the hate I've attracted, from transphobes, far-right extremists and other trans people alike, I often wonder why I keep doing it. What is it that makes it that I'm still there after a whole decade, when it would have been easier to let resent and bitterness become my fuel. I always come to the same conclusion. It's meeting all of you, meeting so many communities from all around the planet, that keeps reminding me of the healing and transformative powers of belonging and empowerment. It's only with that in mind that the incredible amount of responsibilities and pressure that comes with a platform such as mine can make sense. Because why do we do this? Why do we burn ourselves out for a cause that we know will throw us away the minute doubt is cast on our ideological purity? It's so that "thriving" may be something more to trans people everywhere than a distant dream. Your activism should be to work towards that. And that starts at home. As a trans person, when you're given a voice and an audience, feeling attacked suddenly becomes a thing of every instant, from the moment you wake up to when you go to bed. It's not something volunteer social media moderators can help you with. I will always have compassion to anyone who goes through that, willingly or not. We ask a lot from trans public figures, who literally put their lives at risk for doing so. It shouldn't be that dangerous to do the work they do. Let's all recognize that. That being said, bullying, high-school-level drama and feuds should never be tolerated. Resist the urge to dogpile and raid. You might be filled with righteousness right now, but I can assure you that you will not feel better afterward. The world won't be a better place for it. When the world becomes too much, I retreat in a corner and write comics. Sometimes, after a long creative process of multiple hours of drawing, rewriting and rewording, I post one of them on the internet. Most of them, I keep to myself. Thousands of Assigned Male Comics strips none of you will ever get to see. I believe that our minds aren't made for the instantaneity of social media. I want my readers to sit back and get thinking, which is why you will rarely see me post more than 3 or 4 times a week, and only a very curated selection of posts. I basically hit the "post" button and run back offline. One day, I'll retire entirely from social media. When that happens, I'll keep posting on Webtoon. Go read the comics there, it's under the title "Serious Trans Vibes". "She's done it," you can then think. "She's thriving."

[laroinda]

i just caught up to wind breaker manga (the satoru nii one) and i desperately need to rant abt it

let's start from the fact that i'm not a fan of this genre of manga. the only other delinquent series i've actually read was t*kyo r*vengers but we shall not speak about this one and it certainly didn't leave a good impression of this type of manga on me. so imagine my surprise when i tuned in to the first episode of wind breaker and i found myself tearing up by the end of it, let's just say that it was quite unexpected.

the thing that surprised me the most about this series is the heart that it has. yes it's cheesy, yes it's cringe at times, yes the premise of the town and the school is so silly it might just fall apart if you start looking at it too closely. but the series manages to build the sense of community within this place so fast and so well that i never actually found myself questioning any of that.

another thing that was a really nice surprise was how kind the series is, both with its characters and with the themes it builds itself on. the main one of course being opening yourself up and learning how to trust others. every time we see a character struggle with that it tugs at my heartstrings so much i end up barely able to read the chapter cause my eyes water immediately, especially when it's about sakura himself.

sakura, oh my dear sakura. i could sing him praises for hours i fear so i'll try to keep it short. he's just incredible. he's truly the heart of the story in every sense of the word. he's so kind! he's such a good person, even if he doesn't believe it or doesn't know how to properly express his care for others! he's so lovable from the start, even before you see him grow into the person he is at the current stage of the manga. and he keeps growing and changing and becoming the person he probably never thought he could ever become before he came to furin. and it's all because of the people around him that accept him and let him grow at his pace, even if he makes mistakes or doesn't do things exactly right immediately.

i love the slightly more recent imagery of comparing him to a plant that started to grow since he joined furin. it started in the stretch between the keel arc and the red lights district arc when he decided that furin is the place that he belongs in and we saw a little sprout, but i feel like it's gonna come to full fruition in this arc. it's pretty clear to me considering that endo literally compares him to a flower and his whole thing is to try and set sakura on fire (metaphorically of course... i hope). it's probably gonna be contrasted to umemiya who's literally a gardener and under whose care and leadership, directly or not, sakura was finally able to grow because he was nurtured by those around him. in this case the main person who allowed that to happen would be umemiya as he's the one who made furin into what it is now. also, i've seen quite a lot of people be worried (?) about sakura potentially going with endo to protect furin but idk man i don't think that would happen. the angst potential is incredible but he was literally calling out that girl in the red lights arc (i'm sorry i forgot her name, it slipped my mind cause i've read like 90% of this manga in two days) for... basically doing just that. giving herself up so that others could be safe without thinking about their feelings. i feel like he's probably gonna take that lesson and apply it here.

speaking of which, i love this whole theme of passing down knowledge and advice on how to handle things that are new to you. first it's kotoha telling sakura that he needs allies to be at the top of furin, that he should start facing people that want to be there for him and even the small things like telling him to just say "leave it to me" when someone asks for help. and then, in the keel arc, he uses the same advice he was given before and gives it to someone else who's also struggling with quite similiar things to him. then there's him learning how to rely on other boys in his class and going to kaji for advice, who's very clearly meant to be kind of a parallel to sakura. kaji's went to somewhat similiar things, he's just further down the path of figuring out who he is, what he can and can't do that sakura is (or at least that was the case when they talked). so he gives sakura advice, one that was given to him before by hiragi when he was struggling as a newly made grade captain who felt like he was wholly undeserving of the trust that people placed in him and felt like he's gonna dissapoint them. he knows exactly what sakura is struggling with so he can help him the way he was helped before, the same way that sakura helped nagato before.

i have a lot more thoughts about this series but they are not sorted out in my brain in any way yet so i'm not gonna say anything more cause this on its own is messy as hell

[yooniesim]

So, I may be a day late, but I still want to make a little post for Simblr Gratitude Day 💜

To start off, my memory is pretty bad, so I just know I'm gonna miss tagging people... and honestly, there's way more people on here I'm grateful for than tumblr's limit of 50! So I'm starting out addressing everyone.

To everybody that likes or reblogs my posts, sends comments or asks, shares their sims with me, or uses my cc: I love you. Yes, you! I may be bad at answering back sometimes, but I cherish every interaction I get- a lot of the times they have me kicking my feet and giggling, or sometimes I'm barking and scaring my cat. Asks really make my day and even when I don't reply so fast, they warm my heart. Asks I've gotten on here have genuinely helped me in my dark times, and renewed my faith in this community as a whole, because some of you are just so freaking amazing and kind. Especially now with everything I've been going through, sims and being here has remained a comfort for me because of you all. Even if there's speed bumps from time to time, I truly believe there's more good here than bad, and y'all should be proud of yourselves and your capacity for endless kindness. Thank you!

Now, I'm going to address a few specific precious people I'm grateful for.

@wastelandwhisperer - Moon, my precious mom friend, I adore you. The joy, comfort, and hilarious memories you give me can't be understated. You deserve all the love and light in the world.

@neverheresims - God's eepiest soldier, what would I do without you? Thank you for always being genuine, reliable, and a true friend.

Vi - Thank you my sheriff, my paggro detector, my master of copypastas, my right hand catboy. Even though you're untraceable, I couldn't leave you out. I love you!

@divinedionym - Thanks for always being straight with me and taking NO shit. I truly admire you and your attitude, friend.

@dyoreos - We may not both be active at the same time anymore, but I still think of you, friend! You've always had my back and I'll always have yours.

@nucrests - I'm so grateful to be your friend, and every time you share your beautiful content and gorgeous sims with me, it really makes my day. I adore you.

@cinamun - You probably don't know this, but in certain times when I was feeling low, your comments and kindness really lifted my spirits and made me feel like I belong. You're a lovely person and deserve all the love you receive, friend.

@woosteru - You won't see this bc you're retired so I can be sappy as I want, so there!!! I adore you, your sweet personality, and your sense of humor that matches just right with mine. (Nobody tell them)

@superflare - Lulu, you're an incredibly creative and intelligent person. I can tell you're going to go far in life and do great for the world. Be proud of yourself, always!

@fiftymilehighclub - Thank you for always being yourself, Manda! You're such a hardworking person that's kind but firm with your opinions and what matters to you. You're amazing.

@nicatnite88 - Tay, you're someone that's always empathetic, understanding and kind, yet hilarious at the same time. I look up to you as a person and admire your skills as a parent.

@pluto-sims - What do I say about Eli? Despite being unfortunately bri*ish, you've exceeded expectations in all other areas as a friend. I genuinely appreciate your presence and kindness in my life.

@bloody-soda - As one of my longest and dearest mutuals, peachy, my love for you can't be understated! I think of you whenever I see cute meme pics lol and you're so lovely as a person.

@wubblesgonefishin - Beautiful wubs, you're such a wonderful person with so much love to give! My day brightens every time I speak with you and I'm so glad you're back.

@toastie-sim - Meg! One of my few brain cells, I don't know what I'd do without you! You're so helpful all the time and unbelievably patient. I appreciate you.

...Phewph. Now that that's o- wait. You thought I was done??? Nuh uh, the king of long ass texts posts is not done that fast. Here's some more beautiful people I'm grateful for and love seeing grace my dash 💜

@simandy @void-imp @therichantsim @adelarsims @marsosims @shysimblr @1-800-cuupid @xldkx @xiuminuwu @hexcodesims @cassymblr @lotusplum @rebelangelsims @denzellion @strawberrylattesims @anachrosims @cowplant-snacks @fierce-trait @simanin @ghostwoohoo @llama-head @aghilasims @janjumjam @jellyfish-tea @bbdoll @puppycheesecake @mwvwv-sims

[jazy3]

ST5 Casting News

So in addition to Linda Hamilton joining the cast for Season 5 it looks like we've got some other new faces! In the Behind the Scenes teaser trailer and the Season 5 Tudum article that was recently published we got some new information about who will be joining the cast this season!

First up, we've got Nell Fisher who has been cast to play an older Holly Wheeler! And based on the trailer it looks like Vecna might be targeting her this season. In it we've got footage of Holly in her bedroom with the lights flickering on and off. You can see that the wallpaper matches the previous BTS pic we got in March of an Alf poster and a copy of Peter Pan and Nancy Drew: The Secret of the Old Clock and some other books in a holder. We now know that this is from Holly’s desk in her bedroom.

This feels so validating because I called it back in March that the photo was of Holly's bedroom! A lot of people thought it was Erica's but to me the vibe didn't match. I love Holly's taste in books too! I'm a big Nancy Drew fan and Secret of the Old Clock is one of my favourites! Seeing it is a nice callback to Season 3 when the newspaper guys kept mocking Nancy by calling her Nancy Drew and suggests that the sisters might be more alike than we thought.

In this new clip, we can see Holly’s Lite-Brite, a music stand, and shelves full of board games and stuffed animals. Which means Holly likely plays an instrument of some kind and I'm curious to find out what that is! Next we have a scene of her standing in the kitchen panicking and looking at something off camera while the lights flicker. This could be Vecna or a demogorgon coming through the wall or something could be happening to Karen. Either way this is going to be a rough season for Holly!

I had theorized after Season 4 came out that Holly might play a bigger role this season and I'm glad to see they're doing more with her character. I think this plot could be really interesting because she seems to notice things her parents and siblings don't. We know Holly saw the lights flicker in Season 1 and moved towards them when Will tried to communicate with her. And in Season 3 she noticed the trees moving in a weird way when she was on the farris wheel with her parents. Then in Season 4 we saw Holly was playing with her Lite-Brite in the living room while the Erica, Dustin, and Lucas discussed the mindflayer and watergate in the kitchen.

So we know she's observant and may have knowledge about what's really going on that she's not sharing. I feel like Mike, Nancy, and Karen are going to be so surprised to find out that she's known the whole time that weird stuff has been going, but I feel like Will and the others won't be surprised at all! Next up we've got Jake Connelly whose been cast as an unnamed friend of Erica’s. In the trailer we get footage of Priah Ferguson and Jake Connelly in costume at a barn.

Which makes me wonder if the G.I. Joe lunchbox and Transformers blanket we got photos of back in May belong to him? And if the 80’s Bedroom we got photos of with the computer, board games, stuffed animals, and ET game are from his room? That would make more sense than some of the other theories I've seen so far as the items seem too young to belong to any of the Party members, but too old to belong to Holly.

To be honest, I'm not sure why a new friend of Erica’s that we’ve never heard of is getting screen time when they could be giving Will a love interest or focusing on the characters they already have. I'm not sure why they expect us to care about a character we've never heard of when there are so many other characters who deserve screen time and love interests and to make new friends.

Speaking of love interestes where is Vickie in this trailer? We know she was filming at the hospital with Robin in either episode 1 or 2 and we know she's a part of the main cast so I feel like she should be here. The only thing I can think of is that whatever she's filmed so far is really spoilery so they can't show it to us yet.

Lastly we've got Alex Breaux whose been cast as an unnamed military character. In the trailer he’s seen in a black jacket holding a rifle with a scope on it and he's bathed in red light that's coming from somewhere else in the room. We previously got a BTS pic in February of a crew member in a room with similar lighting next to a lab coat so it's possible he’s at the lab here. To be honest, I'm not sure why they expect us to care about this character when all the military personnel we’ve seen in seasons 3 and 4 have been utterly stupid and ridiculous.

Like getting me to care about Erica's new friend and this guy is going to be a tough sell! Introducing Argyle as a character took a lot of screen time and dialogue away from Jonathan, Mike, and Will in Season 4 in what should have been their storyline and their time to shine. So I'm a bit concerned that these two new characters are going to do the same thing and take away more screen time from the existing cast of characters we already have.

Since we know there's going to be a large military presence in Hawkins this season I'm wondering if maybe this guy is going to be our heroes' inside man the way that Owens was in past seasons? I'm also not sure how old this actor is so it's also possible he could be a love interest for Karen or another character on the show. I'm still holding out hope that they're going to introduce a new love interest for Will this season and that he's going to get his happy ending! Cause the boy has been through it!

Tudum Article: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/the-title-of-stranger-things-season-5-episode-1-revealed

BTS Teaser Trailer: https://youtu.be/vEhYTJpC2No?si=la95B7BwxWgav4Dq

ST5 BTS Teaser Trailer Thoughts Parts 1 - 4: https://www.tumblr.com/jazy3/758215736865013760/st5-bts-teaser-trailer-thoughts-part-4?source=share

[scorchedthesnake]

March 7, 2011

I moved to New York City in August 2010. My life before New York was something I’d grown completely unsatisfied with: I had moved to Connecticut for graduate school in 2001, had weathered two recessions in the relative security of academe but could see the writing on the wall for the doom of that profession and so had, via my teaching assistants union, begun to work for our international union as a communications staffer. This had given me a way out of Connecticut, though escaping the cultish environment of the union would still take a few more years.

The person I was back then was very unlike the person I am now. I wasn’t very much fun those first nine months in the city because I was just so afraid of everything. Bars scared me; too many strangers. Clubs scared me; too dark and too many unknowns and unpredictable scenarios. I was happy to be in a new place but petrified by what that freedom actually meant, and I had yet to find any place to belong or feel at home in.

I worked on 7th Avenue back then, around 27th Street. I remember sitting in my dreary cubicle that Monday, when I got a message from my best friend Matt, asking me if I wanted to go to a show that evening. No, I said, I really just want to go home and hide from the world. It’s the show John (O’Malley) is working on, he said, and he got us comps. Well what kind of show is it, I asked? “We’re gonna, like, chase sexy dancers around a warehouse.” Oh god that sounds so stupid, do I have to? “Just come with me, if you hate it you can leave.” 

So around 7pm I walked over to 10th Avenue and the block was so dumpy back then – junkyards, warehouses, not much else. I saw a small line of people gathered at the address I’d been given, so I approached and was handed this card:

I don’t remember anything about checking in or what it was like seeing Manderley for the first time, though I do remember Maximilian being there, giving a short speech and then we were taken to the elevator. I remember getting off the elevator on 3, and taking far too long to explore an empty Macbeths bedroom before, I suppose, figuring out I should investigate the other floors.

I’ve told this story often, though: at some point I came across an extremely attractive man moving quickly, so I did what it seemed like many others were doing: I followed him. We were in the 2nd loop by now, and I had realized it was a loop; but my target soon was running down High Streeet and through a darkened door and it slammed in my face and, to my surprise, was locked.

Oh, there are secret things all over here, aren’t there?

So I picked up his trail again as soon as I could, and stuck as close as I could. Including when we stumbled down all the flights of stairs and I wondered, should I call for help? Is the performer injured? But I stuck to him like glue and when he again approached that darkened door I was close enough to get inside.

And so the highlight of my first show was seeing Luke Murphy in interrogation.

After the finale I reconnected with Matt. We had, of course, seen completely different shows. As we exited we saw John. “Did you get any one on ones,” he asked? One on whats? “Well, I had one where the man in the lobby took me into a room and started putting on makeup.”

No we hadn’t seen anything like that. We immediately set about buying tickets for later in the six-week run. And we wandered the streets for a couple hours after that, comparing notes, feverishly reconstructing what we had just experienced. 

Obviously I did not sleep that night.

So much of the time you don’t know when everything has changed. You realize it long after the fact and in retrospect. Not this, this I knew was a fundamental shift. I’d never felt my senses at full alert like that, my mind racing trying to make sense of something so visceral. The music rang in my ears for hours, days later, and I knew when I came back, I’d need a plan.

[loveandleases]

Man, Jade is just so.... slappable. She really needs an ass kicking. Being so ridiculously impulsive, never thinking of consequences, wanting to fuck someone your sibling is together with just because you want to, then not understanding they want nothing to do with you anymore?

"We are family, nothing changes that." The hell it doesn't?? Have to wonder if MC was the one to do that and throw that quote in her face, she would have been so nonchalant about the whole thing. I swear to God, makes me want to have a situation in the game where we will get to screw her over with something important to her then mockingly bat our eyelashes at her and say "We are family, so it's no big deal, right?"

And I must say, her reaction to an indifferent MC is so frustrating because why the hell would someone wanna shed more tears and use up brain space for a couple of losers who clearly did not give an iota of shit about them enough to just not fucking HURT them so brutally like that? Jade sure was indifferent to MC when chasing after their fiancé(e), only caring after her pleasure like she is controlled by a lizard brain. Chris didn't give a damn enough to even try to come clean and then they callously stole their pet as if they were the wronged party here taking what rightfully belonged to them.

Not cheating is a real easy thing to do! You just don't kiss someone when they come unto you. You don't go to their bedroom, you don't strip, you don't fuck, you just don't! Just like how you don't jump on every attractive person crossing your way! Common courtesy! Common SENSE!! (shakes them until they get normal like a radio)

I feel like flaming angry Disney's Hades whenever I think of Tweedlebitch and Tweedledick. I am READY to kick ass and take names!! And smooch the likes of Cam and Ardent and Kara and G who I'm sure won't take MC for granted!!

I can't wait for the demo, OP!! 🥰

I loved the energy behind this anon!

It is very easy not to cheat, especially if they communicate to their partner. Communication.is.key. It's how you learn, how you keep the relationship going, to help it grow and understand what each other need. But nope, those two Tweedlebitch and Tweedledick (which I will now allow Cam to refer to them as), didn't care enough. It's as simple as that.

There is no reason it should have happened, no reason they should have hurt MC the way they did and others who are also hurt by their actions. Yet, here we are and ready to ensure MC get's what they truly deserve! Other's who are better~

I look forward to the feedback, can't wait for everyone to play!

[drdemonprince]

are there any arguments against the following hypothesis:

a lot of people carry (intergenerational) trauma in their brains and bodies. Some people choose the construct of autism to label their intergenerational trauma traits. this gives a sense of belonging to a community, which people in capitalism carrying (intergenerational) trauma don't have. Intergenerational trauma can be healed (IFS and Ancestral Lineage Healing are two great approaches for this). This would mean that autism can be healed, and I know this is an utterly triggering and ableist sentence. We classify it ableist because the pathology paradigm of mental health has taught us that healing means 'getting rid of' or masking. What healing actually is and should be is getting to know, attending to and listening to (autistic traits, for example). If we listen and attune to something, it relaxes. So if we listen to our autistic traits and needs, they soften and may become less prominent (the result of unmasking). If autism is the brain and if everyone has brain plasticity, transforming the brain by listening to our autistic traits and attending to their needs may actually make us feel like we have fewer autistic traits. This may feel threatening because we might fear losing our sense of belonging (being autistic or identifying with the autistic community). Not everyone has the privilege, resources, and capacities to attend to and 'heal' aspects of themselves. Society limits the possibilities in which we can accommodate our autistic traits and the prominence of harmful 'healing' paradigms gatekeeps us from the healing we actually need. Most healthcare providers are unaware and still being taught harmful approaches to 'help' body and mind. A lot of harm is being done while slowly but surely new paradigms that are actually helpful are shifting into mainstream Western (mental) healthcare sectors.

A lifetime may be too short to heal all the intergenerational trauma our bodies have accumulated. So identifying as autistic, belonging to the community, and using the construct of autism to deal with our experiences in the world is one solution to protect ourselves during our lifetime and in this quite fucked up society, and to feel some sense of belonging in midst all the craziness.

What am I missing and what are your thoughts? Maybe this is more a late night ramble than anything that actually makes sense to anyone, and that would be okay too...

There are a couple of faulty premises here. The primary one is this:

"So if we listen to our autistic traits and needs, they soften and may become less prominent"

That's not really what happens, and in fact unmasking is the act of your Autistic traits becoming MORE prominent and you shaping your life around them MORE.

I'm sympathetic to many of the ideas you are sharing vis a vis the social construction of disability labels including Autism, but certain elements of the experience such as sensory issues and gross motor deficits are very much NOT negotiable or best understood through a social or contextual lens alone. I had pervasive developmental delays relative to my peers not just socially, but physically too, and nothing is making my sensory issues or propensity to Autistic burnout go away.

I think this take on Autism is largely more appealing to maskers who, in a different life, would have been Aspie-identified. Not saying you're that, I'm just commenting on your positionality relative to those in the community who cannot verbally speak, couldn't write with a pen or walk due to motor deficits, have regular seizures, or can't mask at all. I may pass for what people used to consider to be "high functioning" in a lot of ways but i was also in special education because of physical disability caused by being Autistic, so I'm a bit sensitive to the interpretation of Autism as solely being a social mismatch or a trauma effect or things of that nature. I think many mental illnesses are basically just trauma symptoms with a worse more stigmatizing label put on them, but Autism is a lot more than that.

[selpide]

a long, confusing, existential introduction

i have noticed there's a proportion of us humans who seem to have a tendency to look for the essence of things

an obsession, some would say

(some would be right)

minimalism, others will state

(other will be wrong)

(there's nothing small about this search)

i am a number of this proportion, you see

everything i do, i try to undress it to the bones

find the skeleton

trace the carcass

what's the closest i can get to one truth before it burns my skin alive?

that's where i like it

that's where i live

a nomad in the borderland of skulls

there's some holy serenity in being able to go the distance

that distance

i went that distance yesterday

i have trouble putting into words what i do

and what i do is who i am

so i spend an unhealthy (what is healthy anyways?) amount of time in this so-called minimalist search for the most precise arrangement of letters to make other people understand what my ego claims as hers

i am a writer

that is without a doubt

the first thing i have ever been

the last thing i will ever be

let's set aside the clearness and focus on the blurry lines

i am a singer

(i make songs)

am i a singer?

i am a cinematographer

(i am an audiovisual communication graduate)

am i a cinematographer?

do i deserve to claim myself as part of these guilds, these collectives, these ideas, these concepts, these communities, these archetypes, these

words

do i deserve to be called by any of these perfect words?

when you are called by your name

even if you know you are not your name

(you are not some letters nor their sound

you are flesh and blood and bones and maybe, if we are all lucky, a soul

however

when this name is called upon)

you answer

as if you were synonyms

as if meaning and symbol became lost within each other until becoming one and the same

so when someone says

"writer"

and i turn my head

when i jump at the sound

when my brain has already done the job — and i cannot escape my fate — the fate my brain has woven for myself — when someone calls for a writer and i raise my hand

do meaning and symbol get mixed up just the same?

this is where it got heavy for me

do i deserve to claim the same name as every single person who came before me, and whom i admire, and whom i respect, and whom i couldn't dare to offend (them nor the rest of the world) by suggesting we may belong to a somewhat similar category?

but then again

names

words

why should anyone be worthy of a title? surnames are given. they come to us by birth. like it or not, they're part of our identity — they give information on who we are — be it by acceptance or denial — be it by proximity or self-made walls — opposite or mirror — we don't need to deserve our surnames. they are us and we are them.

am i a singer?

yes

am i a cinematographer?

yes

i first was a songwriter — a writer of songs. then i discovered i could sing them. badly. but they were sung. less badly. and they kept on being sung. less less badly. and then i discovered i could put my own music into them. i once met kim yerim on the streets of madrid. i handed her a piece of paper with the lyrics of my song written on them. and she spoke these words: "so you are a producer? you are a composer?". and it was a conversation, and she was looking at me in the eyes, and so i answered. i said: "yes". and it was as simple as that. because it is true. i produce songs. i compose songs.

i am a producer.

sunghyuk said i already am a producer.

and it is as simple as that.

so i write songs. and i sing them. and i produce them. and that's all too long to fit a social media bio, isn't it?

so what am i?

a music maker

i am a music maker

i first was a scriptwriter — a writer of scripts. then i discovered writing scripts was too boring for me. there is only so much you can control about a story with a script. movies have so much more to them. movies move. so i started editing videos. turns out i have an eye for that. rhythm. that's all it is, really. i have an inner metronome. i can sense patterns. i can repeat them. i am a little clock pedaling backwards and onwards and to whichever direction has the beat that pulses the brightest. but you can't edit a blank screen — you need images. and there is only so much you can control about a story when images aren't yours. so i got myself a camera. a little green sony point and shoot, y2k excellency, all digital grain and untreated saturation and pixelated zoom. then another camera. a little red sony handycam that, as i write this, is on the cabinet under the tv of this apartment in the middle of another continent that i moved to three months ago

(i got this camera when i was 14)

(i think it might be my favorite camera)

then another one

then another one

then you know how it goes

i became a videographer

but these cameras could take pictures too, right?

pictures are so beautiful

i became a photographer

this kind of motion got be so obsessed i could not picture myself doing anything in this life that didn't rely on its cadence

so i got into college and i majored in film

(it's not film)

(you can't major in film in spain)

(not in university)

(so i got into audiovisual communication)

(you can major in audiovisual communication in spain)

(in university)

(i specialized in film)

(i wrote a film script as my final degree thesis)

(i ended up working as a scriptwriter)

(i am, as of today, a scripwriter)

(i miss my red sony handicam)

(i miss the colors)

i miss the motion

i direct my own music videos

i keep a record of my own life

i can't escape live photographs nor still movement

there's so many information in there

how can you shorten that up for a social media bio?

a filmmaker?

but does that sum up everything?

i don't think so

so what am i?

an image maker

i am an image maker

let's get back to words

because i am a writer

that's the only one i savor between my teeth

every letter is mine to say, mine to keep, mine to pray, mine for me

a writer

but what does a writer do?

letters are the smallest piece of a writer's craft

but we are not letter makers

same happens with words

we work with them

we don't create them

(not all the time)

(not as a summary of our duty and routine)

(words are not the word)

it's sentences

i guess that's it

that's just how minimalist it can get

so what am i?

a sentence maker

i am a sentence maker

i am a music, image and sentence maker

but what is music?

what are images?

what are sentences?

art

i am an artist

yes,

but

but

(always a but)

aren't they all languages?

i am a translator

aren't they all symbols?

i am a speaker of metaphors

aren't they all unexplainable ?

i am a magician

aren't they all but a beautiful attempt to capture, to portray, to preserve, to understand, to celebrate, to blame, to share

life

itself?

i am a life curator

(it's funny

i have a song about this

i scrambled some of its lyrics around

i love clues and riddles and the silly breadcrumbs some humans leave for others to find in hopes of making their everyday a little more adventurous

i hope someone someday finds this funny

i hope someone someday

thinks of this

as an adventure)

this is me

sélpide

life curator, writer and magician

welcome to the museum

i hope you find yourself inside here

[booksandwitchery]

Revering Nature

Throughout my search for science-based pagan books to help me on this path of mine, Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer kept popping up--so I finally read it.

I would recommend it to most people, especially those who feel a special connection to the natural world but don't exactly know why. I can see this book offending a lot of people on the right side of the political spectrum, but if you fall into that category I'm betting you found this blog in an accidental or ironic sense anyway.

Ultimately this book is all about reverence for the natural world and the importance of maintaining a spirit of respect, reciprocity and responsibility for the gifts given to us by nature. It makes a strong case for maintaining balance, which is a) weaved throughout pagan religions, b) arguably foundational to them all, and thus c) deeply relevant to my studies. Kimmerer also explains the importance of ritual and ceremony to human beings, regardless of our beliefs (or lack thereof.)

Bits of wisdom I marked down from this important book (just in case this isn't clear, everything inside quotation marks is taken directly from the book) separated by theme:

I. Exploitation of Natural Resources

Kimmerer disapproves of the belief that the natural world is human property to be produced and sold: "The commodification of the natural world is just a popular story told by humans. Strawberries belong to themselves."

II. Indigenous Wisdom & Animism

Thirty percent of English words are verbs, but in many indigenous American tribes this proportion is as much as seventy percent (as with the Potawatomi tribe). The language does not divide between masculine and feminine, but rather between animate and non-animate. We can learn from Potawatomi and other indigenous "ways of knowing" because even their very language acts as "a mirror for seeing the animacy of the world," and honors the universe as "a communion of subjects."

III. The Power of Balance

The author stresses the need to maintain balance with nature and life in general: "Balance is not a passive resting place--it takes work, balancing the giving and taking, the raking out and the putting in." Kimmerer suggests that we should temper our desires with self-discipline, which "builds resistance against the insidious germ of taking too much."

IV. Capitalism and the Death of Contentment

Kimmerer comments on consumer society's tendency to see contentment as a "radicalist proposition" and capitalism's dependence on the creation of unmet desires. This reminded me of The Door to Witchcraft by Tonya Brown, when she writes that we should try our best to have an abundance mentality rather than one of scarcity. We should take from nature only what we need, and give back whenever we can.

V. Importance of Ritual and Ceremony

Kimmerer beautifully explains humans' innate need for ritual and ceremony: "Ceremony focuses attention so that attention becomes intention. . .ceremonies transcend the boundaries of the individual and resonate beyond the human realm. These acts of reverence are powerfully pragmatic." This is deeply reminiscent of my post last year on the psychological benefits of ritual ceremony. This affirmed my belief of why these behaviors are ubiquitous despite all varying forms of thought and belief.

VII. Pessimism in the Environmentalist Community

Regarding the fatalist attitude that has crept into many environmentalist conversations: "Environmentalism becomes synonymous with dire predictions and powerless feelings. Despair is paralysis. It robs us of agency. It blinds us to our own power and the power of the earth."

[allthefujoshiunite]

Hi, Nora....My friend and I made a list of ace and aro characters from BL, and then we get to Love For Sale. We think Sieon is aro, based on he never regret his previous relationships until he is with Namwoo. And how he felt so indifferent about them. But what do you think? Also, do you have any BL characters that you think are ace or aro?

Great question! And thank you for giving me a chance to talk about Sieon. I'm always happy to do so. If you want the tl;dr answer, I don't consider him to be one. However, as is always the case on Wild Wild Web when you express a thought or preference, people take it as me condemning all the other thoughts/preferences. So here's a PSA: if you consider him Aro, good for you! You can interpret him however you like.

Also, lots and LOTS of spoilers for the uninitiated.

As for how I read his character. I think Sieon is hard to understand for a lot of people because they expect him to be either this or that and try to put him into categories he doesn't fully belong in. It's one of the reasons why I'm so enamored with Love for Sale as a whole, and Sieon in particular. Dal Hyeonji, even though this is their first commercial BL work, does an absolutely fantastic job in this character study.

Back to the point. When the story was still being released, I entertained a similar idea myself about him that, maybe he's demiromantic. Not a romance-aversed aromantic, but still a part of the spectrum. Then I kind of abandoned that as well.

We are a melting pot of our environments, cultural codes, family, and our characteristics. That's why most of the time, it's hard to make out whether you've become something due to some external force or you were that something before anything else. A very lame example would be, do I find red lipstick sexy because I find it arousing, or is it because it was marketed in such a way that I am conditioned to think it's sexy? Similarly, it's not always easy to tell apart whether your feelings are genuine, you feel like you have to feel certain ways towards certain people, or something impacted you in such a way that you don't feel a certain way anymore. I know I'm being vague but hopefully, it'll make more sense now.

Sieon, having to shoulder her mother's emotional well-being and their reversed parent-child roles, has found himself in a position where he seeks gratification through the things he can provide to his partners so he can feel 'needed'. The comfort he can provide for his partner becomes his purpose to be in that relationship. I was throwing him bombastic side-eyes very early into the story where he never expressed any type of preference and was very evasive whenever Namwoo tried to probe. Naturally, it was quite frustrating for Namwoo. As for me, it was as if Sieon was trying to erase himself from the relationship and be there for Namwoo as a combination of 'bank account + lips to kiss + a hand to hold' and blend into the ether as a person.

That's also why his relationships ended the way they did. He knew his mom wasn't happy, and even if he tried to alleviate her pain, it ultimately didn't work, thus, the one last good deed he could do for his mom was to let her go. To not be greedy. To not be selfish and say "I need you, don't go." This is the root of his letting go of his exes 'too easily', rather than him not 'loving' his partners.

Here's where things get tricky. Ideally, a romantic relationship requires you to be vulnerable, communicative, diplomatic, etc. Ideally. But none of us are exempt from carrying our baggage with us into the next relationship, no matter how big or small. In that sense, should we say that just because Sieon hasn't been perfectly vulnerable or has been avoiding conflict, he was never in a real relationship before? I don't think we can. 

One of the moments my heart ached for him was during his conversation with his close friend. He reiterates it later on when they're having the talk with Namwoo, but he desperately tries to convey that, no matter what his partners felt, whether they were satisfied on their own account or not, he was always genuine. Has always been. It may not fit the mold of grandiose, shouting-from-the-mountaintops, I'd-swallow-a-sword-for-you kind of love we are constantly sold in the romance genre, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of love either. On the contrary, I think he does look for romantic companionship, but he just doesn't know how not to intellectualize his feelings.

So, in my opinion, "he didn't love anyone else before Namwoo" is not exactly the correct way to read him. Up until Namwoo decided that he was going to hold onto Sieon and 'show him a selfish love' in Sieon's mom's words, their relationship was following the pretty much same direction as the others. At first, Namwoo is content with what Sieon provides, but then he develops feelings for him and expects Sieon to return them in a way he can't. The same old story that is bound to end with a break-up.

Emphasis on 'in a way he couldn't'. The way I read it, his way of loving is different from what others deem as 'romantic love', so he's convinced that he can't reciprocate others' feelings. If that's love, and his feelings don't look like that, then he must not be in love after all. And when Namwoo shows Sieon that it's okay to be needy and selfish at times, and it's okay to be vulnerable and honest, we see that was the wake-up call he needed all along. 

The verdict? If you consider his past partners through the "he wasn't able to genuinely love them" lens and interpret his "not being able to reciprocate romantic feelings" literally, you can think of him as an aromantic who's not really averse to dating. But as I've tried to elaborate, rather than not feeling romantic love, he does feel love and seek companionship but doesn't know how to handle conflict and can't break free from the behavioral patterns ingrained in him in childhood. 

About aro/ase characters in BL. There's only one work that comes to mind which, interestingly, makes asexuality/demisexuality one of the core themes it explores and that's This is Love by Ziki Masaya. I have reviewed it before (click me) and I highly recommend it! I can maybe mention Sangwoo from Semantic Error, but then again, I think he's just autistic and his approach to romantic love for another guy is different from his normie boyfriend Jongchan because of that. I can't really think of any other works with Aro/ace characters as there's always romance/sex involved. Or maybe I just haven't paid enough attention! Let me know about the list you two came up with ~

PSA: I added the intro because the original link needs you to login to Lezhin as it's a Mature title, but you know the drill. Read on the official platfrorms!

[amethystblack]

genuine question: why did you say that ages can be up for interpretation if you were gonna keep dialogue in the game that refutes that?

it just makes a really uncomfortable fanbase where theres people who either arent aware of it and ship things thinking its ok, or those that are and just continue shipping weird things simply cus youve said itd be ok. if you were gonna say ages were up for interpretation, you couldve at least tried to pretend that characters that are minors arent.

idk. it just kinda makes me hate the reborn fanbase. and you, for allowing that to be the case. i dont really care that much anymore, cus ive lost interest in reborn. but my point still stands. kinda weird of you

in the first place, i think we originally said that they are up to interpretation within the bounds of what makes sense within the text. i think it's pretty hard to, in good faith, interpret a number of young characters as being an appropriate age to ship even within some leniency.

but you're saying these people 'arent aware of' when the characters 'are minors' like that is still some objective predefined line, which we have objectively said we are not subscribing to. their ages are also generally arbitrary in the first place.

let us also please remember the entire reason that relationships with minors are a problem is because of the imbalance of power leading to deeply controlling and abusive dynamics. let us please also recall that these are fictional characters who are not real and cannot participate in such dynamics of abuse without the guiding hand of the person shipping them. someone who takes deep pleasure in that is probably concerning regardless of what age the characters are.

...but what you're saying here is that you have some notion of what ages the characters are, and you find it weird that i am not participating in the vigilantism of your self-proclaimed objective view of. it does not escape anyone that under the current tinderbrush social climate, this dismissal as "kinda weird" is an implication that i am complicit in some kind of problematic behavior... when, let us remember, the entire reason that we opted out of the ages was because people were immediately being extremely weird in all directions about that very vigilantism.

i am not interested in participating in whatever kind of "weird" shade you're throwing here, and i don't think anyone should be. when real people are involved in the community, we will do our best to make sure everyone is as safe as within our power to influence. as a moderation team we also still generally do discourage people from being "weird" about characters, whether they are underage or not.

if you're uncomfortable with this because it doesn't match up with your preferred lines in the sand and social grandstanding, then it is probably best for you to move on anyway.

cass here. had a part in this decision. tbh i barely know what you're saying, other than that you're mad.

people being weird about fictional characters is, well, always weird. but your concern is really about the fact that we are not drawing an exact line about who's a minor and who isn't. ame originally didn't want to include ages at all because of this sentiment. my counter was that there is at least an age range that the characters feel like they belong in. people are going to want ages, and we need to give them something or people are going to be weird about it. but if we assign them a number as their age, we are making that number up. surely you've met people who do not feel their age. so instead we give a range.

there are safe age approximations that i can make. for example: shelly's in middle school. she's probably 10-12 or so. but she doesn't have a literal actual age because she's fictional. we just have to pick a number that fits. whether it's 10, 11, or 12 doesn't really matter. she's in middle school. end of story. being weird about shelly is not controversial. don't do it. cain is probably in the 17-19 range. that's a safe approximation, yeah? any number in that range would be acceptable from an author standpoint. but now people are going to get real mad about which number he is. "is cain a minor????? is [x] okay now??????????" and listen. this is still easy. the answer is no. don't be fucking weird. it doesn't matter what number we set him as. shit isn't suddenly more or less acceptable because you interpret him as one number or the other. the reality of the situation is that other people think that some behaviors are suddenly acceptable once you pass the magic 18 line, and they aren't. if you think we're okay with more weird shit because of how we set this up, you're wrong, and the vigilantism has gone to your head.