#honestly both are equally plausible to me

[comradekatara]

> be zuko

> try desperately to ingratiate yourself within the avatar’s friend group (to no avail, of course, because you have terrible social skills, and previously tried to kill them, also)

> try to fight off the human wmd you previously hired to blow them all up

> fail miserably, because he is indestructible

> watch as sokka effortlessly kills him with a very precise boomerang throw to the brain

> suddenly recall every single time you got hit in the head by his boomerang

> feel immense gratitude for what you had previously dismissed as uncle’s obnoxiously stringent and paranoid over-emphasis on the importance of helmet safety

[gayofthefae]

Mike and El aren't "100% secure never gonna break up" because I'm only pretty sure that Nancy and Jonathan are gonna stay together and in season 4, I was only pretty sure Lucas and Max would get back together but I acknowledged a possibility that they would remain just friends but very close and still be the main pairing for each other onscreen. Nothing is certain. Because you haven't seen the ending. And with that Lucas and Max example, I was unsure of Lucas and Max and MIKE was the one that couldn't tell El he loved her. I was unsure of even the one couple that didn't have any (relationship) threat. No one is 100% safe because we don't know what's gonna happen. The only couple I was sure of in season 4 was Joyce and Hopper because they had very clear and consistent romantic buildup and references and hadn't been together yet. My closest comparison to that is Byler.

Honestly, I'm also realizing as I type this that the main lack of knowing stemmed from me knowing that plots have to invoke change and an established couple breaking up is a change, and being a change trumps being illogical. Joyce and Hopper or Mike and Will not getting together would be a complete lack of change.

Joyce and Hopper changed to dating. Jonathan and Nancy are shifting into their future and away from Hawkins. Lucas and Max changed into maturity that they didn't have before. Mike and El didn't change before, in fact, they reused(/extended with a tone shift to more seriousness) a PREVIOUS CONFLICT. Mike and Will haven't changed and won't if they do anything but get together that ends on good platonic terms.

Couples have to change. Getting together is a change. Breaking up is a change. Maturing is a changer. Elmike was already treated pretty seriously and that's used as reason for them to not break up but it's actually the opposite because they have nowhere to go but to break up now, as it is a story and further events are required to get to an end point. Byler were already on good platonic terms and and learning something that doesn't change anything is inherently NOT a change.

Realizing, even Will coming out to Jonathan was important because it was a CHANGE! They had been distant for a while and that was included in order to set up that moment as something that had needed to happen, a vulnerable conversation they hadn't had in a while.

Honestly the only established couple I'm 100% sure of is Dustin and Suzie because they have no plots and therefore no reason for change. Sidelined couples are endgame couples. Shoutout Mr. and Mrs. Finch on Bridgerton you're the cutest thing I've ever seen I'm so happy you both love cheese.

Jopp3r and J@ncy have available changes while staying together in committing further as they are adults or becoming adults who are capable of independent decisions like going to college together, moving in together, marriage, etc. All child couples, aka everyone else, do not have that change as an option (although some people have tried reaching for it under the idea of a larger time jump, even legality does not equal narrative plausibility) so their only possibilities are to commit to fight to reunite: Lum@x(just realized! parallel to when Elmike was romantic!), or break up (M!leven). Other options for any two people not together or engaged with another in-relationship change include as follows: getting together. That's it.

All couples but Mike and El have other options of change to build up to achieving other than breaking up. If they didn't, breaking up would be their only option, but they have alternates. For Mike and El, that is not the case. Lucas and Max are only even safe because she's in a coma, or if they decide to extend their get-back-together arc. The kids' only options are have an existing possible change or breakup. Lucas and Max have an existing possible change.

[tomwambsmilk]

Honestly my ideal tomgreg is the Schrodinger's tomgreg we have right now. tomgreg is somehow both canon and not at the same time. They technically aren't in a relationship and haven't done anything sexual, but also their relationship isn't exactly platonic either. Tom might be madly in love with Greg or he might just be fucking insane. Greg might be in love with Tom or he might be an opportunist who's realized he can take advantage of Tom's insanity. It's equally plausible to me that they might start fucking in season 4, or that their weird psychosexual tension will never be explicitly commented on. Gonna be honest I enjoy this weird bizarro world will they/won't they so much I kind of don't want them to ever go canon

[like-sands-of-time]

All right heres the thing that's been bugging me since I watched season four.

I love morgana in season one. I find her introduction absolutely fascinating. She feels like a very important character, but we don't know how yet. I love that we see her picking fights with Uther from the first, for it to all culminate in her attempting to kill him by the first season finale, all in a way that is so believable and sympathetic to me (and Merlin) that I was honestly hoping Merlin would just, slip on one of those hills and watch her kill him, because we now know three characters who wouldnt mourn the loss of the king. Who are angry at him for the unforgivable things he's done even recently. At that point arthur is most willing to work with magic and common men, and morgana (with Merlin) have had a clear impact on his growth as a man. I love that.

I... Don't see the rest of the shows arc (s3 and on) as believable for who she was then. I'm sorry but either she was caring about the citizens of Camelot and their suffering, or it was all a lie, that doesn't go away just because you're angry at one guy. I'll leave that alone, it's for another time. BUT. even if they wanted to show that dragons have free will and could befriend who they wished, regardless of dragon blood, I still don't think the entirety of that season makes any sense.

Why would Merlin have hatched the egg right then if he wasn't willing or able to raise the hatchling? They said multiple times the egg would last. And if Kilgharrah wasn't willing to raise the egg why did he convince Merlin to do it. It what world would the characters of Kilgharrah and Merlin as we know them at this point just leave an infant dragon to do it's own thing anyway? Let alone go work with a sorceress they believe to be evil consumed. That.... Doesn't make sense. Not even in a tragic but realistic way, it just simply doesn't make sense to me. Merlin could have safely put the egg where Kilgharrah used to be imprisoned if no one visits there, or Kilgharrah could have found another cave or safe place to keep it. Those make sense. Hatching it only to both leave and forget about the child doesn't really make sense for either of them?

The writers wanted morgana to have a dragon ally, be an equal to Merlin visually in their ultimate fight, and I get it....... but make Aithusa choosing morgana make sense. Develop their relationship in any way..? And while we're at it make morgana trying repeatedly to kill Arthur make any sense because it the show I watched I never saw any reason for her to want anything other than 1) uther dead and 2) magic free in Camelot once more. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE. You can't have characters just Do Things because you want them to happen lmao that's not how people work.

This show loves to tell me instead of showing me. I know what they want me to think because they make it glaringly freaking obvious but I'm sorry .. you have to actually develop character arcs or relationships (whether it's between a dragon and the main villain, or Arthur and Guinevere, because sunbursts and cute music isn't doing anything for me lol. They didn't even develop lance either. She had two love interests shown to us and we just have to use our imagination I guess.

Idk, write morgana to be the darkest, cruellest, most insane bitch you want that's fine with me. It's all medieval fanfiction but ... It has to be plausible. Give me any reason at all why bbc morgana hated Arthur or Camelot or Gwen or anything. Do tragic, do.. "she was always meant to be against him" if you must, but also? It's all fanfiction so have morgana being Arthurs sorceress .. powerful just like Merlin but in her own way and they're both loyal to Arthur.

[chuplayswithfire]

i made the bulk of this post a while back in a multi post comment thread, but want it on its own standalone post ✌️

So here's the thing. It is certainly possible that Ed does know that Stede is actively married (with living children!) in season 1, but I think there's an equal possibility, if not that it's even more possible, that he doesn't, and here's why:

The only explanation for Stede being a perfectly wealthy gentleman pirate while having a current, non ex-wife and children on land is that he ditched them. Completely abandoned his family to go off and be a pirate. This would be, as many of us have noted, a real dick move. Walking out on your wife and kids tk go off to be a pirate and telling everyone you meet your name and tying yourself and said name which said wife and children share to a legacy of violent criminal activity, would be, kind of, a real dick move. It's a very uncharitable assumption to make.

And Ed?

Ed really likes Stede. He admires him. Thinks he has his shit together, thinks he's brilliant and cool and kind and a good person. Ed and Stede both have each other on pedestals in season 1, and maybe it's just me, but I think finding lut Stede's a deadbeat dad who walked out on his wife would have taken Stede off the pedestal and safely on the ground of regular joe that Ed doesn't have to feel is totally out of his league.

Now, looking at the show - it's alsl completely plausible that Ed wouldn't know that Stede has a wife and kids he abandoned when you consider that Stede never uses the word wife at all in his conversations with Ed (I'm not sure if he mentions a wife or children at all, to anyone. The only time it comes up is with the Badmintons, who already knew of Stede's family). He says that he was supposed to be a lighthouse to his family and that he failed them. Talking aloud in his sleep, he says Mary's name and that "we were just playing pirates".

Stede has pictures of the children on his mantle, but not a family portrait, and again he specifically says that he failed his family. Failure can mean many things. Ed assuming it means that Stede abandoned his perfectly fine and alive wife and children to be a pirate would be the most uncharitable option, especially because it's completely at odds with the persona of Stede that Ed is familiar with. The Gentleman Pirate is Mr. Talk It Through. Mr. You Wear Fine Things Well. Mr. Obvious Regret About His Family.

Stede's line delivery and the actual wording of it - that he failed his family - in this case, it honestly sounds more like his family is dead and Stede is a widower than that they're all perfectly alive and in good health at home and Stede's just walked out on them.

Not to mention, family can also mean a lot of things. Mary can be a wife's name - it can also be a sister's name, a cousin's name, a sister in law's name. Ed does have the famous line - "Who's this Mary then?" - but he notably doesn't follow up when Stede is awake, and considering it would be a major step in their understanding of each other, I have to assume that if Stede spoke about Mary, Louis, and Alma in any detail, we would see it onscreen, like every other major development in their relationship.

But I really don't think they had anything close to a talk about it, and here's why:

Abandoning Mary and his children is the guilt at the heart of Stede throughout the entire first season, it's the choice he made that he doesn't regret but knows he handled himself poorly in. It's the guilt he needs to confront to move forward, and he doesn't do that until episode 10. If Stede had been able to discuss in any detail who Mary was to him, or the fact that he has children that he's abandoned, he would have had to tell Ed why - which is that the life of a gentleman never suited him, that he's felt rejected and unwanted all his life, that he felt rejected, unneeded, and unwanted even in his own family and that's the kind of emotional vulnerability that Stede has only displayed in life or death situations in the entire show.

If Stede had talked about those things, they wouldn't hit so hard when the Badmintons hammer it home. Chauncey saying Stede ruined his family wouldn't be so hard hitting if Stede hadn't been refusing to process that his leaving might have had an impact on Mary, Alma, and Louis. If Ed knew Stede had a family he had abandoned, it would mean that Stede had talked about abandoning his family, and Ed would have almost certainly asked why.

A big reason the events of episode 9 and 10 hit so hard is that Stede and Ed are carried forward on the power of getting each other, of having similar ideas and minds, of wanting the same things and having similar baggage, and running away with that feeling without having the necessary, hard conversations. The affection and love are real, but the ability to be willingly vulnerable without triggers or tragedy isn't. That's why episode 7 is about Stede trying to use treasure hunt to keep Ed's attention instead of just saying he doesn't want him to go. It's why they have a disastrous miscommunication in episode 8.

It's why the kiss feels so powerful, because Ed tells Stede that this has all made him happy, that Stede makes him happy, and neither of them is having a breakdown or facing death to spark it.

So yeah, it's very probable that Ed didn't know Stede had a living family that he abandoned for the same reason Stede doesn't know the real significance of Ed's red silk. The explanation is a conversation they haven't had yet, because it would represent a level of willful unburdening that they haven't yet reached.

In season one, they fall in love, but poor communication and emotional baggage tear them apart. Stede finally talks it through and unburdens himself from the act that's weighed him down all season. It makes more sense than it doesn't that Ed wouldn't be aware of that baggage just yet; this is a romance, based heavily in romance pacing and tropes. That kind of unburdening between the romantic leads is a classic second act obstacle - they have to find their way back to each other, and share the truth of themselves. For Stede that's the truth about his insecurities, which are the real reason he left Ed, and which the whole abandonment of his family absolutely plays a role. For Ed, it's going to be that his own self hatred, his guilt, the way he believes people like him don't deserve fine things.

[byephobec]

honestly i think hetero/bi women are fully aware of the way men are. they aren't stupid. they're just obstinate. they have in a way weighed the risk/reward of partnering with men, i think, they just kind of smudged the numbers to let them do what they were ultimately already unwilling to ever give up. they don't want to live a life without romantic and sexual relationships even if it will literally save their lives because to them it automatically equals loneliness. so they refuse to do so, even if it means they need to gaslight themselves into it.

they know at least enough of what the risk are and their brains are twisted into knots trying to rationalize it because they do know. they know when he insists condoms don't feel good, they know when he gets huffy if she isn't feeling up to sex, they know when she gets pregnant, they know when he gets angry at them and starts smashing things, they know when they overhear the things he says while he's gaming, they know when his friends come over, they know when they talk and he interrupts, they know when their gender reveal tells them it's a girl and he storms off, they know all of it. they just don't listen to that knowledge. the ideal version of their lives in their head is one with a man in it, and if they can't have it they aren't interested. osa women won't prioritize their own interests because their interests go against what they are taught their whole lives to yearn for.

other than plain lesbophobia i think this is part of why they get so angry at lesbians, even in radical feminist spaces where criticism of men and partnering with males should reasonably be expected to occur. they think we're privileged, because the risk we face is at the hands of society rather than the hands of our partners, and that's a lot easier to digest for some people. you expect society to harm you as a woman anyway. but your partner?

and even when they don't feel at all jealous or bitter in that way, they cling to the homophobic myth that lesbians have just as high/higher domestic violence rates. of course we don't, that's extremely obvious to anyone with even the tiniest hint of critical thinking skills, but it shifts the argument onto us so they can act like we are taking the exact same risk. we aren't. they want to believe that we're their oppressor somehow and we're just angry not all women are lesbians, that lesbians are just as violent and dangerous to their partners and we are trying to somehow trap heterosexual women in relationships with us. they put their anger onto us because the thing they're actually angry at is never going to change-- they want what they were let to believe was possible when they were little girls. they want a good man, a marriage, safety. they want to be loved and cherished and protected by a man. they want to matter to the men they desire.

it's a cycle. osa women go against the things that would help them. they start to identify with the things that actively harm them. they praise men, they raise them from little boys cornering girls in their class to ask them inappropriate questions to teenage porn addicts to adult serial rapists, they fuck and marry them, they give them babies and become their servants. and when they've completely devoted their lives to men they teach their daughters to do exactly what they did.

every time a woman does not fully teach the risks of being with a man to her daughter, the cycle continues. my mom told me she was thankful i was a lesbian because she would never have to see me the way her mother had to see her-- beaten black and blue in a hospital bed by her boyfriend. she has also said she was sad when i came out because she was going to miss out on the moments she dreamed of bonding over-- first boyfriend, birds and the bees, first time, first pregnancy scare, wondering when he'd propose, the announcement of our first baby. women know that both of these are extremely plausible outcomes, that you're gonna meet bad ones before you meet the one good one, and sometimes you don't make it out alive from the bad ones.

they just find ways to rationalize it. you can't take men away from us. what, do you want me to be lonely? you're just trying to get me to sleep with women! i don't know how those other women ignored the signs, but MY man wouldn't hurt a fly. I'M strong enough to get out if it ever got too bad. you can't force me to be alone. i'm able to be independent, having a man is MY choice. it's empowering to ME. i'm using HIM for HIS body, actually. he's one of the good ones. he's an ally. he would never hurt me.

it's like there's this imaginary perfect man in their mind they've been building up idealizations of since they first started dating. he's kind and involved, funny and smart, respectful, loyal, who loves what she loves and thinks she hung the moon, who's passionate but chaste, who respects boundaries and desires only her... he has a grip on them that is just never going to be argued away. it's nostalgic, it's comforting, it feels safe. he's what we end up arguing against. until the illusion completely shatters all on its own, they aren't willing to give up on him.

[perfugium042]

People who may have Alastor on a chain.

Lilith

There are a few things that point to her.

Such as Alastor showing up right after Charlie asking her mother for help to them both being missing for 7 years. But this may be a little to on the nose. And after thinking about it, I'm not sure about it.

Lucifer

Ok, I can see where this comes from. But they way he interacts with Alastor tells me he doesn't have control over him. He's stronger then him. But Lucifer sees him as a threat to his relationship with Charlie.

Eve and root

I know nothing about these characters so I'm not going to speculate

Rosie

This is another one I can see why someone would think this. But I don't get this vibe from either of them.

I see them more as equal footing friend with mutual respect. It feels like he hangs around because he's just comfortable around her.

Niffty

On the surface this sounds like an odd one. But I have heard arguments for this and I have to say I love em.

One, she is summoned slightly different then husk. Two, Alastor seems to have a lot of respect for her.

Someone said that they could see Niffty going up to Alastor for an autograph only to be like, haha, now your my friend forever. But also wanting to seem like he's the one in charge.

This probably isn't the case. But I love Niffty and this person made it sound like a really cool idea.

zestial

Honestly, this is the one I can see being the most plausible. Alastor holds him in hight regard. And he's one of the oldest overlords meaning he lived threw Alastor's overtakeing of the other overlords.

I can the overlords at the time becoming corrupt and Zestial wanting to do something about it but not wanting to tarnish his own name.

What better way to do this then give a no body power to do just that. If Alastor gets taken out, not big deal. But if he win the other overlords are taken out and Zestial how secret control over Alastor.

And I see Alastor helping Charlie as doing the same thing. Everyone in Hell sees her as a joke, despite who her father is. So being there for her at her lowest. Gaining her trust and holding her power once she comes into her own.

[hchollym]

I imagine Percy and Charlie having the most contentious rivalry among the siblings before he left and I imagine it’s because they represent two different reactions to being in the shadow of their “perfect eldest brother” Bill. Charlie was likely the one who was never as academically bright or as well-behaved as Bill but was also the closest to him among the siblings. Percy was arguably as bright and strived to be even more “proper” but was often overlooked by Bill. Both were likely made to feel inferior by the gold standard Bill represents in the Weasley household but since Bill was that golden standard, the resentment probably formed between the brother who was often seen as Bill’s “improper” opposite and the brother seen as his inferior clone.

I imagine young Percy feeling superior to Charlie because he was praised by their mother more often for being smart and neat while also being jealous of him for being Bill’s closest friend and the two hanging out more as equals.

Given his relationship with Bill (who likely does have a deeply internalized superiority complex kept in check as long as his self-esteem is never threatened in any way) is more equal ostensibly equal, Charlie probably latched onto the idea that Percy was simply being an annoying echo of Bill. He likely tells himself that while he’ll never be like Bill, he’s at least not trying and failing as badly as Percy. All the while, of course, subconsciously resenting how his younger brother really was more like smart, organized, put-together Bill than he ever will.) I actually imagine Percy outgrowing teen Charlie in height was especially triggering for him symbolically: Charlie was never going to reach Bill’s statue but Percy might. Neither likely understood what was going on internally but I imagine the two bickering harshly before Charlie left home.

I also imagine the twins got a lot of their actively negative views on Percy from Charlie while Ron was more passively dismissive like Bill.

After the war though, especially with Percy unraveling after Fred’s death, I think it may have been Charlie who helps him out the most. I want to believe a lot of that superiority/inferiority thinking was so shaken by the war as to dislodge it in favor of actually seeing each other for who they are. Besides, given how being in their adult careers has pretty much made Bill’s example irrelevant, I’d like to imagine they got wrangled into each other’s lives the way Ron joined the shop with George (I head-canon Percy took a lengthy, life-changing sabbatical in Romania after the war tribunals before working for Kingsley.)

Ouch. This one hurt. 😭

I've always had the headcanon that Charlie was the one sibling that Percy always had a decent relationship with, based on what little we see of him in the books.

Your scenario makes sense though, and it is certainly plausible.

Honestly though, that just makes me sad, because if it is true, then Percy really didn't have anyone. 😢

Thanks for the comment though! 😊

[houseofhurricane]

Hello! I am curious (and a little messy lmao) why did you start liking Neris?

P.S i love both characters so much 🥹

I love this question and I have to say, I'm not sure why it's messy? I still love all the other ships I love (including Nessian).

But on to the Neris of it all.

First of all, lately I've been loving messy ACOTAR ships. I've spent a lot of time in this fandom carefully setting up happy endings and making sure I write pairings that work well together, and honestly it's fun to write a pairing that's equally likely to end up somewhere toxic as somewhere mutually edifying. See also: my love of Azris. It's not that I'm not a fan of happy endings or fluff or cinnamon rolls, but I love when the ACOTAR world is dangerous and complicated and that's what's been intriguing me most as a writer in the fandom lately.

As for Nesta and Eris, specifically, there are a few things.

One is that I think this pairing is actually pretty plausible. If Nesta had healed at a slightly different rate, I could see her being very over the Night Court and/or Cassian by the time she danced with Eris. Especially because she had mostly healed, she just hadn't really claimed her power.

I think there's a way in which Nesta might always feel as if she needs to change for Cassian, whereas I think that Eris would revel in the ways she can be cruel and cutting. He wouldn't call her Lady Death as a joke. He would use that title with reverence.

Mostly, though, I love this pairing because of the way these two can be mean together, and the way that might be a form of tenderness between them. Nesta and Eris are the monsters in their respective stories in a lot of ways, but when they're together, they don't have to hide and they don't have to be afraid.

Nesta and Eris can see each other as they were meant to be seen: dangerous, and beautiful, and glorious.

Which brings me to my final point: is there a pairing that's hotter than Neris?

Think about these two politicking and catching each other's eyes across the room. Or trapped in an endless council meeting with their feet and hands occupied under the table. Or setting up endless schemes and games and just waiting for the other one to figure out what they've set in motion. The way their sneers might turn into smiles for just a moment, when they're looking at each other.

You know what they're doing right after those meetings are over, and it's going to be scorching.

I'm not saying anyone has to be team Neris. All I'm wondering is, how did it take me this long to get obsessed?

[guybitesatgames]

15 Questions for 15 Friends

Tagged by @emery-matsushita-vt

Are you named after anyone? Yeah, I named myself after an author, with a bit of remixing for plausible deniability.

When was the last time you cried? Honestly, I'm not sure. I think I've got most of that out of me.

Do you have kids? Nope, and I even got a doctor to ensure that'll never happen. Best of luck to you and keep up the good work, parents, but that life isn't for me.

What sports do/have you played? Is mini golf a sport? Dance Dance Revolution?? I am not a sports boy.

Do you use sarcasm? Yeah, but mostly for laughs, not confronting people. I'd rather be straightforward when there's actually a problem.

What's the first thing you notice about people? Probably what they're doing. I'm exceedingly bad at retaining faces and names, so I struggle to describe people past, like, "the guy who was selling pickles at a ren faire" or "that archer that does pole dancing".

What's your eye color? A bit of blue, a bit of red.

Scary movies or happy endings? There's a time and place for both. It's more about whether the story was crafted with passion. The Thing and Princess Bride hold equal place in my heart.

Any talents? I can draw well enough, and I'm decent at singing when I stay in my range.

Where were you born? A hospital, by c-section apparently. The first thing I did was stubbornly refuse to come quietly into the daylight and I stand by that decision.

What are your hobbies? Mostly gaming (both tabletop and video) and drawing stuff on the computer. I don't really do TV but audio dramas have gripped me recently. If I can find a good piece of media, I love to vivisect that shit. When I find a good creator, I will lose myself in their art, tracing leitmotifs like capillaries to document how they permeate the body of a work. Admiring how form is inseparable from function if you want a thing to live, to breathe.

Do you have any pets? Unfortunately not. Damn lease agreement.

How tall are you. As many inches as they gave me.

Favorite subject in school? English. I've always been a reader and who can say "no" to story time? I was even on board for spelling and grammar because being able to communicate precisely has obvious, universal application.

Dream job? I do not dream of labor. I just want to create whatever thing is sizzling my brain at the moment and survive. It's difficult to be a professional dabbler these days.

--

I'm not so great at tagging people, so consider yourself tagged if you see this. Or not if you don't wanna. I'm not your dad.

[hurrakka]

oh man. theoretically in a l4d au luis would've helped develop the green flu yeah? sure it's a naturally occurring virus in l4d canon (maybe. we're not really sure where it comes from cus ceda doesnt say shit but ellis mentions the government using bio-bombs in one of his keith stories so it could be a bioweapon?) but this is an au we can do what we want.

anygays im just imagining leon getting infected. we know better-safe-than-sorry-guy (i call him scout cus his va is the same as scout from tf2) is human when we first find him but experiencing extreme paranoia and some compulsions then a few minutes later he fully turns, going from able to speak and function to choking and growling and fully mutated (either into a hunter, boomer, or smoker) so there's always the possibility of a rapid transformation too. im thinking leon falling behind a bit while theyre walking because he's coughing and chokin and shit n he falls to his knees and luis is all like "bro whats wrong!!" and he gets to watch as leon Turns Before His Eyes. even better if he turns into a hunter cus if you look closely at their models they don't have eyes. we can't be exactly sure what Happens to their eyes when they turn but the two most popular headcanons are both equally brutal-- either Luis has to watch Leon's eyes quite literally melt out of his skull or he gets to watch him claw his own eyes out. Fun!

BUT there's graffiti in one of the safe rooms arguing over how long it actually takes to turn-- whether it's 20 minutes, 2 hours, overnight, or some other wacky chunk of time. so there's also the thought of Leon turning slowly. progressively becoming irritable and irrational and confused and him slipping in and out of conciousness for days until Luis goes to check his temp one day and he fucking Lunges.

and if leon turns and luis makes it out alive imagine the Guilt. he feels awful enough in re4 canon when there's a cure,,, but the green flu mutates too often to develop a proper cure for it. if leon gets infected and he isnt immune then he's just. done. theres nothing that can help him at that point. and luis already feels so goddamn guilty about the millions of people he's killed and now leon's gone too and he cant help but visualize every single person who had somebody ripped from them by his hands.

oh man and if luis has to put leon down? its joever. that man would Never recover. i dont even know if he'd keep trying to survive at that point. maybe just for that shred of hope of developing a cure (even though he knows it'd be damn-near impossible but it's the only thing hes got, dammit) and stopping this whole disaster.

coughs. sorry for the rambling i simply have been obsessed with l4d for going on 12 years now so <3

I had to lay down for a moment bc of the feels and potential outcomes in the event luis lives on while leon well...yeah (thinkin abt how buddy from re damnation would jus turn as well since leon is no longer there and that made me big sad dgkrnekhbfgnjklh) Since the re verse has like morbillion viruses, the green flu existing would be plausible so its just another stonks moment for umbrella lol. But yeah luis would absolutely be devastated. He probably doesnt have the guts to pull the trigger, least he can do is to restrain leon for a while and tries to find whatever humanity he has left in his nonexistent eyes. Tho in my witch!leon hc I think luis may have a chance to keep leon around??? Since witches seem to have the most humanity among the infected (and thats not saying much) he could probs observe him a lil bit without getting eaten right away. It would just be a warm bodies scenario ngl (i just watched that movie recently so this is huge copium dksfghbshgndfh) Honestly Im glad l4d fandom still alive after all these years. That game will always be goated and it was one of my high-school obsessions. I used to do crossover stuff back then and Im back to doing it now. Time rly do be a flat circle

[loveyougoodbi]

I'm very divided about the car thing, don't know what to think. With so many engineers from mercedes coming it seems to me they're will be building for lewis, which makes me concerned. Yes charles is adaptable but we saw this year, once the car got the update in japan that made him more confortable he became a beast and carlos had no chance.

So i'm concerned about 2026 because I know lewis have a preference for understeer and if they're taking his input more serious idk how it will be. At the same time, would they put all their cards in the guy who is in his forties?

I don't believe ferrari will demote charles to second driver tho, and make him just help lewis win the title. I think they will give the chance of them both trying and honestly? I'm putting my cards on charles in this one.

I hear your concerns anon. And I'm with you. I am also worried about all these things. Two things can happen in 2026 regarding the car:

Under the cut again because idk how to stop talking

1. The car is made with Lewis in mind (understeer)

This would undoubtedly be not ideal for Charles. Yes, he managed to beat Carlos in an understeer car but that's Carlos, not Lewis. In this case I have to put it down as Lewis having the upper hand and potentially fighting for a title.

But we have to consider a few more things: would this understeer car be as bad as the 2023 car? NO. Understeery cars can be fast understeer does not equal slow. It is not just understeer and oversteer that make the car. You mentioned Charles shinging at the end of this year and the car was still the understeery. It didn't magically become oversteer. Yes, they brought updates that suited him but ultimately it was Charles who drove the car. Charles can adapt. Give him some credit. I know we love to bash that the car was bad this and that but once Charles does good we imminently write it off to "the car did that" no. Charles did that in 2023. Because he is a monster who can drive anything he gets out in his hands. With a fast understeery car? I believe he Can still be a beast. Because he is a good driver. Drivers who can not adapt to other styles are the problem. If we say Charles can't drive a car that doesn't suit him we put him in the same category as Those guys. I'd rather not do that.

2. The car is made with Charles in mind (oversteer)

Just copy everything I said in the other category and put it here with the names the other way around. It's Lewis Hamilton. He can drive and be good in any car. Saying anything different would be disrespectful.

There is however a third option and this one is the most likely

3. The car is made to be fast considering both drivers feedback

This one is the most plausible one if you ask me. Does a fast car in the new regulations mean oversteer? Fine it can be oversteery. Does Lewis have feedback that will make the car faster? Great even better for Charles. We are going into this thinking Lewis feedback will somehow make the car slower for Charles (because we have been burnt) but again, Lewis is not Carlos. His feedback does not automatically mean an undeliverable car. Mercedes has made dominating cars for 7 years with his feedback. Give him some credit. With his AND Charles' feedback? What a beast of a car we will have.

Also there's still the possibility that they will listen to the feedback of the guy that did better in 2025 and since I am sure Charles will best him in 2025 I have no worries.

Thank you for sending me anons and discussing with me its very nice to see what other people think about the same topics I wrack my brain with 24/7 ❤️

[anitalianfrie]

when they went to film valentino for the polleria osvaldo ad he showed up in pajamas someone please give that man access to tiktok

anon i honestly don't know if that's his pajamas or if he has just terrible taste in clothes. both are equally plausible to me. but yes, he would smash it on tiktok- pr person who's holding him hostage FREE HIM let the people have what they want

[emblazons]

As much as i understand where the anon saying they wished the analyses were more realistic and based, i think that's not a plausable thing, because the personal experience of each person is just different. Each of us needs something else. Sure, we are all watching the same show, but since we all come from different backgrounds, lives and experiences, we all take different things from it. As much as i would die to know how the story wraps up this moment and i wish i could somehow read the Duffers's minds, watching the show, talking about it, discussing it, disecting it and even fighting over ships within the fandom is just a hobbie.

Now, don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to have their opinion, but what was told there is basically a M*lven vs Byler discourse, it looks the same. It's as if someone came and said they wished everyone just shipped M*lven instead of running away with Byler.

This being said, i heartly suggest the anon to find the roght nitche within the Byler community, you can just watch whatever you like, no one should ever force you to follow something you don't want.

I hope i didn't sound disrespectful, i really understand where they come from, i just felt like i needed to say something because i really want the anon to enjoy the experience.

I definitely don't think you sound disrespectful, so don't worry about that! That being said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that thinking people should be more realistic or narrative focused in their analysis of Stranger Things is "implausible" (even with everyone's varied backgrounds/interests)—and I'll do my best to say why!

forewarning: long post, and (probably) unpopular opinion

Honestly, I can understand how we all get something different or latch onto something different in ST, as well as why it would be strange to expect people's personal headcanons to line up across rhe fandom for all characters—that's not really what I'm arguing for (and I don't think what anon was arguing for either). If someone is just looking for a place to enjoy the fanon versions of characters in a way that aligns with their preferred interpretation, I agree with you—you should definitely cater your experience to what you enjoy!

I think the issue of a lack of objectivity and people being "plausible" becomes a problem when you start moving into media analysis of Stranger Things, and start losing sight of the fact that media as a whole is absolutely based on objective rules and structures—whether that be in writing, narrative structure, cinematography, and everything else. As much as it can hurt to admit when you're passionate about something...some people are better at catching narrative setups and structures than others, and it's because they've trained themselves through study and experience to do it.

In the case of narrative and even writing analysis, the issue starts when people start taking any and all interpretations as equally valid analyses solely because we're all "entitled to opinions"—aka taking someone who has no real experience with critical media consumption's opinion as "just as valid" an interpretation of what goes on screen as what doesn't as someone who has made a study of these things for years, professionally or otherwise. Like, sure—fandom is just a hobby, and I can understand if people don't want to sully their enjoyment of a thing with deep dive analyses on what shot structure or 3 part structure means. Even so...that doesn't mean the skills, degrees, personal work and even just study people have done to understand how stories are told on multiple fronts isn't objectively useful to them having a better understanding of Stranger Things, or that someone with deep and time-tested media literacy doesn't have a better shot at understanding both intent and narrative as done by the Duffers than someone else (while managing their expectations better because they know how stories/shows are built).

You have to remember: The Duffers are film boys. And I don't mean that in a "they enjoy movies" way either—they have literal degrees in directorship from one of the most respected film schools in California, run a masterclass on storytelling, and have been accepted into the wider cultural zeitgeist as great writers not just by the wider public, but their own peers. They have been writing for years, just started their own production company, and work with people who have been casting, shooting, designing and making music for decades too--all fields that have objective uses and "right" way to do things, the same as you learn in any english, journalism or film class.

In that way, saying "I wish people were more objective and realistic" in their analyses (at least to me) translates to "I wish people would stop conflating their deep interest in a thing from a perspective other than the one the creators are coming from with an objective understanding of how this story will be told," which...I mean its a little harsh, but its also an extremely fair statement in my mind.

Basically: If you have a baseline for what certain things mean in media in general, your take on what is going on in the show probably by default holds a little more water as an interpretation of the events on screen—and you're a lot more likely to have an objective, universally media savvy reason (as opposed to just "I watched the show intensely") for why you believe its true. There are objective rules behind why we talk about shot structure, pacing, parallels, outfit choice, score motifs, and even dialogue...and people who know what those rules are and why they are important are how we determine levels of media literacy, which (as I'm sure you've even seen around here) is very real.

The byler fandom gets on M*levens for this all the time by saying they're "misreading the subtext" or "media illiterate," but...the tendency to miss common media cues in other areas is still just as true in the Byler fandom, because (by absolutely no fault of their own most of the time) this is people's first attempt at media analysis...and media analysis as a concept is both a practiced art and an acquired skill.

Being preemptively concerned that a lot of people in this fandom are setting themselves up for disappointment because they are applying their own background as a baseline to a show built for and by people with media / film / television backgrounds is a radical bit of honesty on that anon's part, yes—but its also true. In the same way you can't expect to walk into a grad school class full of people studying rocket propulsion to throw in your opinion on how to build a spaceship as first year english student, so people trying to act like it doesn't matter if you're familiar with narrative or media or cinematography when talking the outcome of Stranger Things simply because "its a hobby" (esp knowing who The Duffers are) is a bit...shortsighted.

Not acknowledging the background the creators come from, then acting like your background matters more than theirs—especially in terms of analyzing their show—is nonsensical, but...its what a lot of fandom (in general, not just with Stranger Things lmao) does anyway. Too often people to let their passion for something get ahead of the objective reality behind why things happen on screen--which is what is core to media literacy as a concept, even if there are still things we can't know for sure.

All that to say: if you're just doing what interests you with the characters because you like them it doesn't matter, live your best life. I agree 100% that you should cater your experience to what you want to see. But if you want to have an analytical take that in the end has a chance to hold any water, you have to funnel your understanding of ST to what The Duffers would think to do...not your own experience. That, to me and probably to the anon you're talking about, is what matters the most...and why I don't agree that its strange to hope people will learn (maybe not now, but over the course of their fandom experience) that there really are objective ways to consume and analyze film and television.

I hope you don't take this as an affront, because it was so much lmao. I just...even if we are all coming at ST with different backgrounds, there is a baseline of media understanding required to funnel down what takes are valid interpretations and which aren't—and that's something we struggle to accept as a fandom in an attempt to validate everyone (fair) but that also makes it more likely a lot of people are going to walk into S5 and be radically disappointed.

Its also probably why a lot of people think the "ship war" discourse is based on preference and not objective fact--because they don't read it from anything but "their background" and "personal interest," which isn't why I (or a lot of Bylers) think Byler is gonna happen at all. Byler isn't just a "what you prefer" ship anymore—its whats been baked into the objective fact of the narrative. People think its not....because they lack the objective media analysis I'm talking about. And that's true even with Bylers sometimes, as sad as it is to admit lmao

[clarabosswald]

Time for bed and I've wasted a day arguing with seemingly every useless, part-of-the-problem, I-know-half-of-this-story shitmonger on this hellscape of a platform, and by that I mean every mook who thinks you can rationalize the barbarism of Hamas, or every scrote who thinks that the affront of the settlement policy and the increasing ruthlessness of the West Bank settlement policy is anything but a disaster for any peace process, or every submoron who thinks Jew or Arab, Israeli or Palestinian has a clean, clear purchase on this complicated history, or that either side can ever wash itself clean of complicity in trying to avoid the inevitable reality, that two wounded peoples need to share a land, that some portion will be a Jewish homeland for another 75 years, but not unless there is corresponding statehood for Palestine, and that any festering shitbag ideological rage-harvesting liar who wants to pretend that all this hate and violence will drive 9 million Jews into the sea or make their Semitic brethren ever concede that their national aspirations will not be realized, is simply another cell on a long, metastasizing cancer that devours innocent lives, well, add your trollery, anger and singular, one-sided imaginings to this thread and come morning, I'll wipe you all clean in one devoted burst of blockage. You're no good to anyone -- Israeli or Palestinian, Arab or Jew. You're just another small part of the great heaving, clogging fistula of shit that bars the way to the only plausible future that isn't caked in blood and gore. Fuck Hamas. Fuck Netanyahu. Fuck the Iranians. Fuck the settlers. Fuck everyone ready to monologue on one half of this long, ornate, tragic tale of a half century or more while magically forgetting every last shard of your brother's half. You will share the same narrative, and begin at least to contemplate the whole tale and everyone's shared complicity, or you will keep preaching to your rancid, rote-brained choirs and bleed together for another few generations. You will either learn to share the land, to cede some fair measure of a shared future or you will, every useless, hate-engorged squib on every side of this horror, learn to bleed into the same gutter. If you think you come away clean from your history, your religion, your ideology, you are a fool and you will never begin the long march back from hell. And there are so many of you assholes that, admittedly, it will be a long road indeed. But honestly, in the name of Yahweh and Allah both, and Christ himself if he's fool enough to show up, go fuck yourself to hell if you seriously think that you know enough to claim to be with anyone clean in this maelstrom. In the very claim, in your hunger to be singularly right and to have the other soul be singularly wrong, you reveal your amoral greed, your ahistorical stupidity and your corrupted, empty soul. Fuck you all. And to those remainder with the capacity to think in human-scale complexities and never let go of anyone's human spirit, I'll see you tomorrow when maybe I'll write exactly what I mean and we can coherently discuss. And, conversely, that everyone with anger, hate and cheap certainty in their soul is ever angry at me in equal measure, because again, you assholes at both extremes holding all of us and peace itself by the throat, can eat an overstuffed bag of stale, unsalted dicks. You're useless to any actual solution ever. You are the fucking problem. And that is enough sincerity for one man on the end of a bad day. 

-david simon

[loopy777]

How do you interpret the first period of contact between Luthien and Beren, just from what we learn in LOTR?

The way Aragorn's song describes it, it always sounded to me like Luthien was first confused, then intrigued by the strange man, and kept seeking him out, staying hidden just out of reach, but making it clear she was there.

And on the opposite, Beren was equally fascinated by this beautiful demigod eith magical powers who danced through the woods, bringing life and spring with every step. I honestly wonder if he thought she was an elf, or if he correctly deduced that she was aomething more.

Honestly it reminded me a lot about the little mermaid, and Ariel pining after a prince that represented something new in a world of(in her eyes) boredom. Only rather than just one party doing it, it was both.

Two souls facinated by the other person(A strange being that they had never seen before, with all the temptation that something new and exotic brings with it), until they crossed a treshold and actually stopped to talk, serving as the "Point of no return" where it became serious, as they actually got to know each other.

But what do you think?

That sounds plausible. I had never worried too much about the details of the history behind the song, since my experience with making things rhyme is that the story is secondary to making it sound pretty and conveying a general idea. XD But I do think it's notable that the gist of what's being depicted is a multi-phase chase, where Luthien keeps fleeing but still returns regularly to make herself a target in the same way. However, repetition is a big thing in older myths, so I had always figured that it was there for its own sake.

Yes, I am very cynical about poetry when it has to do with romance. XD

But if we do try to speculate a bit from a character-centric approach, I think Luthien pretty much has to be directly attempting to draw out whatever she thought was chasing her. Otherwise, she'd either end her little 'dancing amidst the flowers in the moonlight' appointments, bring some protectors, or whip out her own significant powers to defend herself.