#i can’t even comprehend the concept that i’m inherently worth something just for being a living human being

[fredersen]

i think being raised with the belief that the key to liking and feeling proud of yourself is to constantly accomplish things might have negatively affected me

[notbang]

the pursuit of happiness

or, an examination of happiness and the chase as recurring motifs in the character development of Rebecca Bunch and Nathaniel Plimpton

rethaniel appreciation week day 2 → pursuit

I could write a small novel cataloguing the endless parallels between these two—I have, in fact, thought about attempting it many times—but honestly the list is so long and varied and sprouts off in so many different directions that I’ve yet to think of a logical way to go about it. Which is why for the time being, I’m choosing to focus instead—in some degree of detail—on this particular mirrored thread between them.

As our protagonist, Rebecca functions as a major catalyst for change in West Covina, and just as surely as she stumbles along in her journey we see the (for the most part) positive effects of her friendship on those around her. With perhaps the sole exception of White Josh, all of the characters end the show as happier and healthier iterations of themselves, with many of the major aspects of their growth traceable to their involvement with Rebecca in some way. Nathaniel is no exception to this rule; arguably, his development, more so than any other character’s, is directly tied to Rebecca’s influence on his life. The main difference here lies in the fact that he moves to town good a season and half after her—putting him that much further behind in his inevitable development.

One of the major, ongoing setbacks Rebecca faces over the course of the show is her tendency to conflate happiness, or personal fulfilment, with romantic love, and more specifically, for the first half of the series at least, conflating it with a single person. Nathaniel, by comparison, at the time of our introduction to him, has little interest in the concept at all, something Rebecca is quick to sympathise with in 2x09—‘You know Nathaniel, I used to be a lot like you. Ruthless. But then one day I was crying a lot, and I decided to flip things around. Decided to put happiness before success. And when I did that, the world rewarded me with true happiness.’ Nathaniel doesn’t verbally dismiss the sentiment, but the wealth of facial expressions he supplies in response suggest what he thinks of that: happiness is frivolous, and he doesn’t have space for it in his busy schedule.

Nathaniel, probably: Sounds fake but okay.

In the season two theme Rebecca declares that as a girl in love, she can’t be held responsible for her actions, and the sweeping duet Nothing Is Ever Anyone’s Fault follows a similar thread of eschewing culpability. While this certainly works to help dismiss a season’s worth of questionable behaviour from the two of them—including, but not limited to, infidelity and conspiracy to murder—I’m not convinced the touted concept behind the song—that Nathaniel has learned the wrong lesson from being in love with her, as explained in post-finale interviews at the time—flies in the face of our understanding of Nathaniel’s character thus far. As a rich, straight, white, cis male whose privilege the show has only made clumsy attempts at dismantling, a disregard of consequence seems a lot less like something he needed to be taught by anybody and a little more like something that was probably ingrained in him at birth.

If we want to talk about misguided takeaways within their relationship, though, their relationship to happiness is the perfect place to start. Nathaniel begins the show with no concept of the pursuit of happiness, so it makes sense that when he does adopt an interest in it, he takes a page right out of the book of the person that introduced him and pins it all in the one place. Unlike Rebecca, though, Nathaniel’s preoccupation seems to be less wilful delusion and more of a case of ignorance being bliss—being with her feels good, so why change anything or interrogate the situation any further? For all his earlier talk, he is quick to give up the thrill of the chase under the hedonistic guise of contentment. Unfortunately, what he lacks is the emotional intelligence to navigate the implications of Rebecca’s disorder, highlighted by his belief that the mere fact that he and Josh are two vastly different people is reason enough for him to be able to dismiss her obsessive behaviour as ‘cute’ and ‘flattering’. Rebecca’s recent breakdown and consequential suicide attempt can’t exist as warning signs in their (what he perceives as superior) relationship because he isn’t planning on leaving Rebecca at the altar; he isn’t privy to the realisation that it ‘wasn’t about Josh, and maybe it never was’.

Nathaniel: I don’t want to get in the way of your therapy thing, but isn’t the point of all this to be happy? We’re happy. That’s what matters.

It’s a shame because despite there being so much more going on with Rebecca than Nathaniel is capable of comprehending at this point in time, he actually, perhaps entirely by accident, manages to get a few things right—he checks in with her about her therapy when her appearing on his doorstep contradicts the information she’d given him earlier (even if he is, at this point, all too easy to convince), counters her suggestion that they play hooky at Raging Waters with the compromise of a more sensibly scheduled dinner they’ll both enjoy, and, when they do come in to conflict over her obsessive behaviours, takes some time for himself before having a serious conversation with her. Though it’s certainly naive of him to think it’s a problem as easily solved as getting Rebecca to promise she’ll never do anything like this again, it suggests the capacity exists (given, with great guidance) for him to approach Rebecca’s mental illness within their relationship in a thoughtful way.

(This of course completely ignores the inherent issues in their boss/employee relationship, which come to a questionable forefront when Rebecca makes the decision to return to work after having broken things off, but we’re starting to get a little off-track from the intended scope of this discussion.)

The idea of romantic love as a chase—if not already sold to us by Rebecca literally moving across the country in pursuit of Josh—is hammered home most effectively in episode 2x11, but Nathaniel actually brings it up in the episode prior; before Rebecca and Josh leave for New York, at the same time as setting up the whole ‘man of my dreams’ idea that also carries on into the next episode, a sweaty Nathaniel beseeches Rebecca to imitate a land-based predator so he can amp up his workout under the threat of chase. Within this alignment, Josh, who ends up proposing to Rebecca at the end of 2x10, becomes even more clearly representative of an end goal—love, marriage, and, as an expected by-product, ultimate happiness. Nathaniel, by contrast for the time being, is all about the chase that comes before. After his speech at the beginning of 2x11 boasting of his dogged approach when securing clients, his passionate buzz words begin to permeate Rebecca’s subconscious, with ‘pursuit’ in particular going so far as to in an echo in a similar way that ‘happy’ does in the pilot. Such is the effect of his words on her that she parrots them back to Josh when she tells him she’s moved up their wedding—‘Finally, it’s coming to an end. The pursuit is over and I just want to celebrate that’. The title of the episode title may pose the question Josh is the man of my dreams, right? but in the most literal sense, the star of her dreams becomes Nathaniel, along with his personal brand of terminology.

Where Nathaniel thinks life is all about playing the hunter, Rebecca insists she doesn’t care for the chase, which makes sense—she doesn’t want to be chasing Josh, and furthermore, admitting that she’s chasing him would only be contradictory to her belief that they belong together. She wants her happy ending. She wants to arrive at her final destination—her destiny—because thus far all her journeys (which have in actuality been more of a kind of stagnation) have been left her unfulfilled. However obsessing over an idealised future only postpones her happiness with her inability to focus on the present. Ironically, the point at which she makes an active choice to begin shifting that focus—in 3x07, when Dr Shin encourages her to live in the messy in-between—is right around the time Nathaniel starts buying into her idealisation himself.

In a similar way to Rebecca, regardless of his purported love of the pursuit, Nathaniel’s infatuation is seemingly tied to the concept of a destination—several times quite literally. In 3x04 he’s ready to whisk her away to Rome to evade any obstacles to their being together, and in 4x01 proposes a similar escape to Hawaii, causing him to lash out when Rebecca turns him down—‘I want us to just be happy and be together. That’s what I want. You just said you love me, right? So can you just do that for me? Can you just stop overthinking everything? …seems like every time we’re happy, you try to ruin it.’ He sees their shared happiness as a nirvana state he’s caught a glimpse of that Rebecca is now determined to deny him access to, to the point that he seeks to make their version of a love bubble a physical one, where no outside interference (or, more accurately, internal reflection from Rebecca) can keep them apart. Still degrees behind Rebecca in the parallel arcs of their development, he’s stuck in the mindset that them being happy and in love is the only thing that matters. His behaviour is far from flattering, but with a quick review of his history of being on the continual receiving end of her rejection, it’s not entirely difficult to see where he’s coming from.

(As an aside, Rebecca’s relationship with the destination versus the journey as it pertains to the mural on her wall is something I’ve already discussed in a previous meta.)

When she breaks up with him at the beginning of 3x09, Rebecca responds to Nathaniel’s protest of ‘but we’re happy!’ with the qualifier that she’s ‘happy, but it isn’t real’, which probably isn’t the most pleasant thing to be told, even before you factor in Nathaniel’s implied inexperience with serious relationships. While her behaviour prior to this definitely calls for some self reflection, it’s an interesting backflip from extreme infatuation to sudden dismissal, and while it does align with the black and white thinking associated with BPD, it’s easy to see why Nathaniel feels blindsided and, consequently, spurned. She begged him not to break up with her not only to then turn around do exactly that, but to also (presumably unintentionally) throw in the humiliating implication he cared more than she did.

Dr Akopian: Maybe now you can see that your father’s behaviour in the past has set a pattern for you, seeking the love of men who don’t fully love you back. Who you have to pursue. Men who are taken or emotionally unavailable. Like your father. Like Josh. Like Greg. Like other men, I’m sure.

Nathaniel is an outlier amongst the three main love interests in that, for all his grandstanding about humans being hunters by nature, he’s the one constantly falling over himself to win Rebecca’s affection rather than the other way around; it’s ironic that the love interest that asserts himself as being all about the chase is the one that ends up later having to assign himself the title of ‘king of declarations’ based on his ongoing habit of blurting out to Rebecca how he feels, never achieving the level of emotional standoffishness he hopes to exude. Nathaniel’s unavailability—and subsequent cementing as one of the types of men Dr Akopian calls Rebecca out on being predisposed to pursuing—comes only when he enters into a relationship with Mona, and Rebecca, who supposedly ‘never cared for the chase’, with interest reignited finds a skewed sense of security afforded by the romantic roadblock, something Nathaniel seems to understand on some unspoken level, as hinted at by his eagerness to maintain the fragile status quo of their morally questionable arrangement.

As a result of this subversion of power dynamics within Rebecca and Nathaniel’s relationship, in amongst the many other parallels between them that only serve to support this, it starts to become apparent that, narratively speaking, Nathaniel is to Rebecca as Rebecca is to Josh, something that is visually co-signed by the show during 4x03, when we see the same golden glow of romantic epiphany crest behind Rebecca in the church during her speech at Heather and Hector’s wedding that suffuses across Josh when Rebecca encounters him in the streets of New York.

Nathaniel’s takeaway from Rebecca’s speech is that because he loves her, he should do everything within his power to get her back, which of course leads to his (frankly embarrassing) attempts to manipulate her and win her over in 4x04. (Fittingly enough to this discussion, the opening line of the Slumbered quote he plagiarises is ‘you are the only thing that makes me happy’. The irony of his failed use of her teenage diary to win her over is that I honestly do believe the speech is an accurate summation of how he sees Rebecca, and had he only chosen to put it in his own words, that final scene between them might have played out a little differently.) The part he probably should have focused on, though, is the part Rebecca is currently pouring all her professional energy into (and not so coincidentally, it’s right there in the episode title)—love (and therefore happiness) being about finding your own path.

Rebecca: I don’t believe in destiny anymore. I just believe in taking responsibility for your own happiness.

This is not the first time Nathaniel makes the decision to actively pursue Rebecca while her attention lies firmly fixed elsewhere. In 3x03 and 3x04, he is forced to grapple with his feelings alone when a distracted Rebecca eventually goes where he cannot follow, putting an abrupt end to any potential for chase when she flees back to New York in 3x05. Consequently, Nathaniel embarks on a mini-arc of struggling to accept the idea that Rebecca may never come back—initially incomprehensible to him, owing to the fact that she bears importance to him, personally—to conceding that his (thus far relatively unexamined) need for her to be in his life is secondary to her own wellbeing, something that acts as a precursor to a major thread in Nathaniel’s (often one step forward, two clumsily-written steps back) character development in the back end of the series.

Nathaniel: I just hope wherever she is, she’s happy.

In 4x11, Nathaniel’s dream world amalgamation of Maya and Rebecca begs him to let her be happy, and as the former fades into the latter we get another callback to the pilot—an echo of 'happy, happy, happy…’ reminiscent of the empty shell of New York Rebecca latching onto Josh’s description of laid-back West Covina. Unlike its instance in the 1x01, however, this is a wake up call of an entirely different kind—it is not the blossoming of a brand new delusion but the sobering dissolution of one. And unlike the speech a radiant Rebecca gave at Heather’s wedding about finding the one you love and holding on tight, this particular iteration is here to impart the contradictory wisdom ‘if you really love me, you have to let me go’.

Nathaniel: I want you to be happy, I do.

This moment is arguably the true beginning of Nathaniel’s lesson that his happiness isn’t necessarily (or in this case, due to the current circumstances, can no longer be) inextricably linked to Rebecca—she has the opportunity to find happiness independently of him and that in itself is something that should make him happy, as someone that loves and cares for her. His assertion to dream Rebecca that he wants her to be happy manifests in his concession to Rebecca in the real world—‘I’m glad you’re happy. I really am. And it makes me happy too’—an exchange that echoes two similar moments between them back in season three, during which Rebecca expresses the same sentiment regarding his relationship with Mona, first following the cool down from their 3x10 conflict, and again in the aftermath of their ended affair in 3x13: 

Rebecca: I’m happy that you found someone else. Mona seems lovely.

Rebecca: I’m happy for you… I want you to be happy.

The more interesting callback here though, of course, is to Rebecca’s conversation with Greg at the duck pond way back in 2x02. After finally tracking down an AWOL Greg with the intention of breaking the news of her involvement with Josh, Greg makes peace with the situation by way of reassuring them both that everything worked out fine as long as Rebecca is happy. ‘You and Josh—you should be happy together. You’re happy, right? And he treats you well?’ Rebecca responds to this in the affirmative, though her expression—and the context of the episode—belies her answer. In contrast, her exchange with Nathaniel goes a little differently:

Nathaniel: Because you’re happy, right? You’re happy with Greg. Rebecca: I mean, I don’t know. I’m not there yet. But I could possibly be, yeah.

The evolution of Rebecca’s response is of course evidence of her development as a character and her own understanding of her relationship to happiness, but what I find most noteworthy is not that she lies in 2x02, but that in 4x11 she chooses to tell an unusual truth. She could just have easily have said yes the second time around and it would have functioned as a clear enough juxtaposition of what she considers close enough to happiness; after all, at the time of 4x11 she and Greg believe they are approaching their relationship in a mature and thoughtful fashion, they are warm and affectionate towards one another and, unlike in 2x02, she is not having to compete for her partner’s attention. She would, by all accounts, be completely justified in giving what could be considered the normal response to being posed such a question—that yes, she is happy with Greg. So even though it’s encouraging to hear Rebecca verbalising her newfound knowledge that happiness is so much more than such a simple dichotomy of yes and no, it feels significant that Nathaniel, as a person currently knee-deep in untangling his own complicated relationship with happiness, is the one that gets to be privy to this particular brand of truth.

And while it can be argued that all the strides Nathaniel makes in 4x11 are undone over the course of the following episodes, setting aside the very real fact that human emotions are fickle, and we can’t always stick as completely to our guns as we’d like, his blessing here still comes with a telling caveat: ‘I’ve got to let you go… because you’re happy’. And who shows up on Nathaniel’s doorstep during 4x12 to poke holes in that perceived state of happiness between her and Greg? None other than Rebecca herself.

Rebecca: You just want me to be happy, which is what I want too, and god, Greg… Greg doesn’t know what happiness is.

Such is the shared significance of this concept of happiness between them that the second Rebecca alludes to their conversation in the foyer, Nathaniel’s previously good-natured, albeit slightly confused, response to her drunken presence in his apartment quickly and very clearly dissolves into alarm bells and he eventually sends her on her way. Though he could easily have wielded Rebecca’s visit as a weapon to create dissonance between her and Greg in 4x13, he merely probes for clues by way of a convoluted metaphor, resigning himself to the fact that the issue has been resolved, while Greg, in actuality, is at this point none the wiser. It’s only once Greg himself tells Nathaniel that it is over between him and Rebecca that Nathaniel returns to entertaining his feelings for her.

Though we the viewers are all too aware (and at this point, probably screaming at the TV!) that Rebecca’s happiness is not, contrary to recurring belief, a vacant role that she needs someone to fill; unlike us, the characters have not had the good fortune of being able to watch the show Crazy Ex Girlfriend on the CW network. Nathaniel is still a fledgling in terms of self enlightenment, and it makes total sense for him to be nudged towards into pursuing her again once the clearest obstacle to her affections—her relationship with Greg—is no longer an issue.

When she breaks the news of her decision to Nathaniel in the finale, Rebecca is quick to assure Nathaniel that ‘the times that [they’ve] spent together have been some of the best of [her] life’, which is an interestingly bold statement all on its own, but it feels somewhat satisfyingly like finally giving Nathaniel a real-life answer to the ‘we’ve had such happy moments, you and I, haven’t we?’ that he throws at his Maya-shaped projection of Rebecca in 4x11; affirmation that contrary to what she says in 3x08, something in there between them was real.

‘You only get one life,’ he tells her in return. ‘And you’ve got to live that the way you want.’

Neither of them uses the word ‘happy’ in this exchange, but as we fast forward in time, we get:

Nathaniel: Happy to be here.

Rebecca: For the first time in my life, I am truly happy.

Nathaniel (who in an amusing reflection in 2x09, reveals that he, in a roundabout way, moved to West Covina because of Rebecca—‘it’s kind of your fault that I’m here’) has finally made the actual change that Rebecca taunted him with on their first meeting. And unlike Rebecca, he’s had a chance to interrogate what happiness for himself, removed from another person, might look like before he does so. Rather than starting with a life-altering change, he gets to make incremental changes along the way—which very much are tied to his entanglement to Rebecca—in order to make a more meaningful and deliberate life change for himself later on.

“When you find someone that melts the iceberg that is your heart…” - 3x03

“Provoking me, and zinging me, and challenging my world view. And warming my heart.” - 3x04

“You make me feel like I can be a different kind of person.” - 3x08

“You’ve awakened my heart and unlocked my soul.” - 4x04

“You’ve changed my whole life. Who I am, who I can be.” - 4x11

Rebecca describes her moving to West Covina in Nathaniel’s first episode as ‘[deciding] to flip things around. [Deciding] to put happiness before success. And when I did that, the world rewarded me with true happiness.’ In the finale, she tells the audience how he, by comparison, ‘upended [his] life’—‘You changed everything. But unlike me, you did it for the right reasons. And I am in awe of you.’ Alongside the nice progression from her proclamation in 2x09 that she ‘came to West Covina to search for happiness’ to her more self-aware announcement at the open mic that ‘for the first time in my life, [she is] truly happy’, (which feels like a subversive callback to a certain infamous butter commercial) we also get a reiteration of the sentiment— ‘I came to this town to find love. And I did. I love every person in this room’—that conflates happiness with love in what is now a healthy and satisfying way. It’s the perfect twist that she’s rewarded with the thing she was searching for all along just as soon as she realises she was looking in all the wrong places, and that the place itself still gets to play such a large part in that. And she is able to see Nathaniel’s journey as all the more meaningful in light of her own missteps along the way.

While I have my reservations on the bow they tied Nathaniel’s arc in for the finale (because despite Rebecca’s realisation that there is no such thing as ‘ending up’, there is in the sense of the scope of this series) being a well thought out resolution as opposed to leaning on a previous gag without laying any actual groundwork, the truth is it’s unclear what the true nature of Nathaniel’s sabbatical is/was/will be—mere extended vacation, permanent new career path, or just the initial spark of inspiration in some extended self discovery. That being said, much like Rebecca evolving towards a point where she can appreciate the interconnectedness of love and happiness in a less troublesome way, it is neat that Nathaniel’s resolution follows on from his tendency to want to escape to far-off destinations in an attempt to control his desired status quo. Though his fleeing town is still inextricably linked to having his heart broken by Rebecca, Guatemala, for once, isn’t about transposing his current circumstance to another place in order to cling to something, but rather a carefully selected, specific site for welcomed change.

Independent of any potential that may or may not exist between them as the show closes out—romantic or otherwise—it’s undeniable that these two characters have left indelible marks on each other, and without their respective involvement in each other’s lives, their journeys—and resulting transformations—would not have been the same.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

I didn’t want to derail your post about the Trinity so I’m just sending this as an ask but I just studied all this in my Into to Western Religions class and I just wanted to say that girl who was preaching to you was actually heretical. It’s very funny because her analogy is a classic example of modalism, a 3rd(?) century heresy. I always think it’s funny when people evangelize while not even knowing the most basic stuff.

Hey no worries! For what it's worth, I don't think it would've been derailing at all, particularly since that post was a lot of me rambling and infodumping lmao

To your point though, I know, right?! It's so weird because I see variations of this everywhere on xtian stuff and have heard a number of them in person, too. There's actually one in the sources I linked:

There are others we could mention. An egg is made up of a shell, the eggwhite, and the yolk. All three are needed for an egg to be complete.

...

Like. This same source also explains that modality is a heresy?

What we don't mean

First of all, Christians don't believe in three Gods. That's a heresy called Tritheism. Second, we don't believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three "forms" of God—like, steam, water and ice. That's the heresy called Modalism. Third, we don't believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "parts" or "pieces" or God. That would imply that Jesus is 1/3rd God, the Father is 1/3rd God, and the Holy Spirit is 1/3rd God.

So... I'm really not sure why this keeps happening tbh. This particular source does clarify afterwards that all analogies are imperfect, at least:

It's important to remember that all illustrations fail eventually. They don't "prove" the Trinity, they simply help us understand the concept.

And like, look: for the xtians in the audience who are reading this, if any, please know that I am not trying to tell you what to think or believe. If this makes the most spiritual sense for you and is your way of connecting to holiness, I'm not going to pretend like I have The Answer(s). I do, however, have my answer, and it is that this is a form of polytheism that is totally unsupported and in fact thoroughly rejected by the Tanakh.

I think that when it comes down to trinitarianism, you either have a vested interest in xtianity being monotheistic and also worshipping Jesus, or you don't. If you do, probably one of the more cogent answers you're going to get is something along the lines of this:

The Trinity is a doctrine that all Christians believe but no one really understands. That much should be clear from this message. If you try to explain the Trinity, you will lose your mind. But if you deny it, you will lose your soul.

The Trinity sets the limits on human speculation about the nature of God.

There is so much we would like to know about God, but our finite minds cannot comprehend it. We are not free to create God in our own image. The Trinity sets the limits for human speculation. God is more than the Trinity, but he is not less than that.

The Trinity teaches us that God is beyond all human comprehension.

After all, if we could explain God, he wouldn't be God. I have no doubt that God is much more than "one in essence, three in Person," but since I can't even understand those simple phrases, I don't worry at all about what else might be true about God. If you feel baffled by the Trinity, join the crowd. The greatest minds of history have stood in amazement before a God so great that he cannot be contained by our puny explanations.

I can accept this answer as at least intellectually honest and as having the potential to be spiritually meaningful for some people, even if I thoroughly disagree with its conclusion and do not believe it to be true personally. I would even say that it is partially correct in the sense that if G-d could be fully known and explained, then it would inherently make G-d finite and thus no longer G-d. At the same time, I do not think that it then follows that trinitarianism can still be monotheistic, and thus this concept of God inherently cannot be the G-d of the Tanakh.

Point being, if you just straight up don't believe in the trinity and don't have a vested interest in making xtian theology work, then this looks like utter nonsense from that outside perspective. If you do, then that's your prerogative and theological dilemma to solve, or not.

[tigerkirby215]

I can’t make builds so let’s talk about the latest UA

I can’t make builds right now so let’s talk about Feats. I’m honestly a big fan of feats but I do think that ASIs are a little too strong by comparison in 5e. I feel like in order to compete with ASIs in 5e a Feat needs to do one of two things:

Offer new unique abilities that provide a large boost to your character’s capabilities so that taking them is worth sacrificing an ASI. (Feats like Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Warcaster, etc.)

(Half Feats) Provide a nice bonus to reward you for slower progression, or for having an uneven ability score to increase. (NOT ATHLETE, but feats like Linguist, Resilient, and the racial feats from Xanathar’s)

For the most part feats do accomplish these two concepts well but there are some feats that are laughably weak (Keen Mind, Weapon Master) while others are way too good. (Lucky.) I think that Feats should remain as options for players who want to build a specific build. They shouldn’t be the “best” choice but rather they should be inherently optional for those who want the power boost they provide.

With that in mind we got an Unearthed Arcana for Feats, and since I want to do more on this Tumblr than just make League of Legends builds I figured I’d throw my thoughts out into the wind.

Artificer Initiate

The main strength of this feat by far is that the spells are added to your spell list. This means that Artificer Initiate is a very easy way for just about any spellcaster to get access to Bless and Cure Wounds / Healing Word. These spells are fairly independent of their spellcasting modifier so getting both of them as a Wizard, Sorcerer, or even Warlock can be good in a pinch.

Other than that the ability to cast spells with tools is nice but ultimately pointless. It’s good if you’re playing an Artificer / Wizard multiclass but Artificers can already cast spells through their infusions. Ultimately this feature of the feat would work better if there were more Intelligence casters in 5e.

It’s a very fun feat for roleplay and has good utility, but I don’t think anyone’s going to be begging to get this feat.

4 / 5

Chef

How the mighty Gourmand and the “mighty” Song of Rest have fallen. Okay let me start with the obvious: the “treats” you can make are complete fucking trash. They’re laughably underwhelming and serve more as a ribbon ability than anything.

As for the Song of Rest-esque effect Song of Rest was already a grossly underwhelming ability for Bards. It’s really sad that it was so underwhelming they flat out gave it to everyone (at the cost of a feat) but I don’t think that harms the Bard class too much.

Just overall the feat really doesn’t live up to the fantasy of being a cook. Two underwhelming abilities for the price of an ASI? No thanks.

2 / 5

Crusher

“Hi I’m playing a Champion Fighter with a Warhammer!” The utility of this feat starts and ends with the critical hit modifier which I’m gonna be honest is insanely overpowered.

“But what about moving people? My Monk can now push people off cliffs!” Have you ever played a Minotaur? To be fair you probably haven’t. Pushing people around will hardly ever be useful. There’s perhaps niche utility in pushing someone away so you can run without provoking opportunity attacks but the Mobile feat does this so much better while also giving you additional movement.

Perhaps the only niche use of this feat is that it can increase your DEX, making it a good Half Feat for Monks that isn’t fucking Athlete.

1 / 5

Eldritch Adept

I really like this feat. It’s kinda become a running gag on this account that I really like sticking Warlock levels into things, and while it isn’t just for the invocations that’s definitely a big part of it. There’s a lot of really cool invocations that you can grab to make your character mildly magical without messing them up by multiclassing. To name all the invocations you can get as a non-Warlock:

Armor of Shadows is, has, and always will be the invocation you take more for character flavor than for practicality. Reddit has been theorycrafting how to break this feat with an Abjuration Wizard but I think that’s a bit too niche.

Beast Speech is really cute conceptually but will rarely be useful. I can guarantee that every single Druid and Ranger is going to hoover up Eldritch Adept just to talk to their animal companion though! (This would’ve been a nice feat to put in my Kindred build if it had existed at the time.)

Beguiling Influence... take Skilled instead. Maybe some niche use for the Half-Elf Rogue who wants proficiency in literally every skill in the game.

Devil’s Sight! This is the main Invocation people are going to be looking for! Magical Darkness is incredibly hard to use effectively and this invocation is pretty much the only way to make it not completely useless?

Eldritch Sight: at-will Detect Magic is never a bad thing but it always suffered from opportunity cost. This makes it available for Bards.

Eyes of the Rune Keeper: just get the Comprehend Languages spell tbh. It’s a ritual after all.

Fiendish Vigor is alright. Decent on an Eldritch Knight as a backup Second Wind.

Gaze of Two Minds is far, FAR too situational to be useful.

Mask of Many Faces is a god-tier invocation for Arcane Tricksters. It ticks me off that you can’t take this feat as a non-caster for a regular Rogue to gain access to this.

Misty Visions depends on what your DM lets you get away with using Minor Illusion for.

Thief of Five Fates: just get Bane from another source.

It kinda bumbs me out that this feat is restricted to just magic users, and I feel like that part of the spell could be removed. Also kinda bumbs me out that you can’t blow two feats to get Agonizing Eldritch Blast (Magic Initiate [Warlock] + Eldritch Adept) but I sort of understand why that’s a thing. But invocations are the perfect example of something worth losing an ASI for.

5 / 5

Fey Touched

Here’s the first feat that I think is a little too good. Let’s get the elephant out of the room first: Fey Teleportation. The differences between the two feats are as follows:

Misty Step from Fey Teleportation comes back on a short rest.

Fey Teleportation is locked by race.

Fey Touched gives you two spells.

Fey Touched lets you add the spells to your spell list.

Oh and let’s talk about some of the spells that are in the Enchantment / Divination school: Bless, Command, Detect Magic, Dissonant Whispers, Heroism, Hex, Hunter's Mark, Identify, and Sleep. (Just to name the notable choices.)

This feat should’ve been a full feat (no ASI.) Adding both Misty Step and Hex to your spell list as a Cleric or Paladin is more than enough to make this feat OP. If Artificer Initiate is a full feat than this should be too.

5 / 5 - OP award for being OP

Fighting Initiate

This should be a half feat. Actually: this should be merged with Weapon Master. I personally already Homebrew the Weapon Master Feat to do this along with the effects of Weapon Master (+3 weapons, +STR or DEX.)

If this was done as an eratta to Weapon Master (instead of its own feat) the feat could be taken by Wizards who want a way to defend themselves, Rogues who want more options Scimitars cough while also honing their own skills, or Barbarians who just finally want a fighting style. I’m glad something like this is finally being considered but please just buff Weapon Master instead.

4 / 5

Gunner

Crossbow expert for guns. A lot of people interpret this as a silent endorsement of guns in D&D or a hint at a potential official gunslinger (sub)class but really I just think Jeremy Crawford got sick of people asking him “does Crossbow Expert work with guns?” on Twitter.

gun / 5

Metamagic Adept

IE the feat that’s making Reddit throw a hissy fit. Does this suddenly make the Sorcerer class useless? Well excluding the fact that Sorcerers get way more sorcery points, metamagic options, and the ability to turn their spell slots into Sorcery points (and vice-versa)? Put bluntly your options are:

Make (Charisma Mod) creatures succeed their saving throw for your spell. (Rarely going to be used unless you’re already a Charisma caster.)

Double the range of your spell. (Maybe useful for a Cleric to extend the range of Cure Wounds idk.)

Reroll (Charisma Mod) damage die. (Kinda useful for spells that roll few dice.)

Double the duration of your spell. (Perhaps some niche use with certain spells.)

Can’t use Heightened Spell

Can cast one spell / cantrip as a Bonus Action. (One use of a bonus action spell isn’t really worth a whole feat.)

Cast 2 spells without verbal or somatic components. (Can’t be counterspelled!)

Make a spell of first or second level hit two targets. (Actually has some niche use for certain spells. Particularly nice to get extra value out of healing spells.)

(UA)

Change the damage type of a spell. (Maybe useful for Tempest Clerics? But barely.)

Ignore cover. (Very rarely useful.)

Reroll a spell attack once. (Kinda meh; might be useful if you have a very big attack roll spell but you probably won’t.)

I think the main thing Reddit is upset about is two uses of Subtle Spell for a Wizard but... if your player took anti-counter spell insurance instead of an ASI let them have it? Chances are you’re way too counter spell-obsessed if the Wizard casting a good spell once and awhile ruins your game.

As for the feat itself? The two that rely on your Charisma mod are hard to use for that exact reason. Beyond that there are some interesting ones beyond “anti-counter spell insurance” but I feel like two Sorcery points to use on metamagics isn’t enough. Probably a testament to how underwhelming the Sorcerer class is as a whole.

3 / 5

Piercer

It’s Savage Attacker and Brutal Critical combined in one half feat. I guess if you’re using Piercing weapons but I can’t shake the feeling that Savage Attacker would be the better option.

One interesting thing to note is that essentially all ranged weapons do piercing damage, and this feat doesn’t have a melee limitation like Savage Attacker. This could be a good feat for a bow fighter to do more reliable damage.

The irony though is that even though this is essentially just Savage Attacker I’m forced to say it’s overpowered since it provides more utility than Savage Attacker (assuming you don’t use weapons that don’t do piercing damage) as a half feat. This isn’t really a testament to this feat being overpowered, but rather that Savage Attacker should honestly probably be a half feat as well.

2 / 5

Poisoner

This is how poisons should work! It’s perfect for someone who wants it, and it looks well-balanced overall. The gold cost, action economy, and CON save requirements makes this feat fair for the DM.

It’s interesting that this feat allows you to ignore resistance to poison but not immunity. Poison was one of the elements Elemental Adept couldn’t affect which was part of the reason that Green Draconic Sorcerer was so bad (among the zillion and one other problems with Poison damage.) Overall this feat is really awesome but it’s held back by poison damage as a whole in 5e. Basically if this was for any other damage type than poison it would be great (which makes me wonder what this feat would be like with flaming poison.)

4 / 5

Practiced Expert

This is basically a slightly worse version of the Prodigy feat but it’s a half-feat and it’s for all races instead of just for humans and half-races... honestly  Prodigy is such a shit feat that I see no issue with this. I already let non-humans take Prodigy in my campaigns. My only real complaint is that this feat proves that Prodigy (as well as the Skilled feat) should probably be half feats.

4 / 5

Shadow Touched

Darkness is very hard to use without abilities to see through it (Devil’s Sight.) But other than that what can you get? Disguise Self? Just take Eldritch Adept instead for unlimited Disguise Self. There are very few low-level Illusion / Necromancy spells when compared to Divination / Enchantment. There are some midway decent ones (Inflict Wounds) but is it really worth it to lose an ASI for Darkness and Inflict Wounds? Put bluntly: no. Maybe some niche use for Darkness spam Warlocks to get an extra “spell slot” but it’s still underwhelming.

2 / 5

Shield Training

It’s nice to be able to grab a shield as a caster who likely has their off-hand open anyways. It’s also nice for a fighter to be able to “chance stances” and drop their AC in exchange for harder hits. The only part that bugs me about this feat is that the fantasy of an arcane caster using a shield as a focus is weird to me. I feel like there should at least be some sort of gold cost to convert a shield into a “not-quite Ruby of the War Mage” that can be used as an Arcane Focus.

3 / 5

Slasher

This feel like the best of the damage feats since it actually lets you do some unique stuff. Being able to slow enemies (without fucking Sentinel) lets melee fighters keep their allies safe, and giving allies disadvantage to hit you allows you to be a lot sturdier.

The sad truth is that this is probably the most underwhelming of the damage feats though. It’s very hard to use this feat as anything other than a Swashbuckler Rogue, and in order to get Slashing damage as a Rogue (Scimitar) you’d need to blow another feat or do some multiclassing. Slows in melee range are largely useless, and the crit is unreliable. I really want this feat to be better.

4 / 5

Tandem Tactician

Here’s the one feat I honestly have a big problem with. I don’t think being able to Help as a Bonus Action makes this feat OP. (It’s nice for anyone to be able to gain access to a useful Bonus Action without multiclassing.) But the problem lies in the fact that this feat lets you affect two people with the Help action. This makes the ability to give two melee allies (such as your Rogue) Advantage even more broken. People can already testify to how strong Mastermind Rogue is for its action economy increase.

And the best part? This feat still fails at giving Bonus Action Economy to “everyone” since backline characters can’t use the 10 foot range Help. I’d much rather this feat be given 30 feet, and Mastermind Rogue given an eratta to have its ability reach 60 feet or something idk.

1 / 5 - OP and dumb award for being OP and dumb

Tracker

“LOL RANGER IS OFFICIALLY USELESS NOW XDDDD” Jokes aside Hunter’s Mark and tracking abilities is good value for a half feat. Magic Initiate (Warlock) or Fey Touched are still probably better than this feat, but if you need the Survival skill then this is helpful.

4 / 5

FINAL RATINGS

Favorite Feat: Eldritch Adept

Least Favorite Feat: Crusher

Most OP Feat: Tandem Tactician

Weakest Feat: Shadow Touched / Chef

Overall this Unearthed Arcana excites me because I’ve always liked Feats and thought that they were cool. In my opinion it’s much more interesting to create a character with unique abilities over one that’s just traditionally strong. A lot of these feats need revision but I hope that practically all of these get published so we can make some truly unique characters with them.

[centrifuge-politics]

Brick Club 5.4.1

Late late late! I would say something about this compelling illustration but it feels in bad taste. This maybe goes without saying, but TW for suicide and suicidal thoughts. I don’t talk in detail about that aspect, but it very much is the lens this chapter is presented through.

To start off with a mild observation, I don’t particularly picture the Seine as a rapidly flowing river, so I’m wondering what the geography of this area must have been like to create deadly rapids in the Seine.

“There had been a new thing, a revolution, a catastrophe in the depths of his being.” I just watched Hello Future Me’s very good video on redemption arcs and Javert is absolutely primed for the start of a redemption arc that we are tragically deprived of. (The video also just provides really good frameworks for thinking about contextual character growth from any starting point). In the video, Future Me identifies three interconnected aspects of a character’s being that, when altered, create the tension that drives a character to change. These are stakes, views of self, and views of the world. For Javert, these have been in harmony thus far; he must maintain order, he is irreproachable in his duty, and people will always act according to their roles, respectively. But one of these points changes when Valjean spares him; his view of the world is challenged. As a result, his view of himself is no longer compatible with how he sees the world. If this had happened halfway through the book we would possibly see all of these aspects change one after the other as Javert struggled with the new tension between these factors and subsequently changed as a character. But, alas.

Javert has blown past rigid morals and entered into complete prescriptive essentialism. “One thing had astonished him, that Jean Valjean had spared him,” not even because Valjean is ‘bad’ and therefore does ‘bad’ actions, but that taking revenge against Javert would have been justified and even right in Javert’s eyes. It’s a startling view into Javert’s thought process, that every person is so inherently defined by their social positions that they their actions should be 100% predictable at all times, like rational choice theory on steroids.

However, there’s also a really interesting individual element that complicates things. Javert has a personal sense of honor that he has seemingly developed entirely based on his assumptions about society which dictates his response to this situation. It’s like he’s a computer program that hasn’t coded for any exceptions and assumes that every other person is the very same. It has such a twisted Hegelian flair, “the rational alone is real.”

“One of his causes of anxiety was, that he was compelled to think.” Honestly, it’s likely Javert would have never been able to comprehend that he even had an individual sense of honor had it not, at this moment, diverged from the one straight line he’s been following his whole life. There’s suddenly a divide between societal regulations and individual morals that he didn’t even know existed. Of course, the purely rational course of action is to turn Valjean in; a good act doesn’t absolve you of past crimes (legally speaking, because only state sanctioned penalty can exonerate a violation against state law). But Javert has made the mistake of making this personal, he’s no longer objective! Or he never was and is only just now realizing it. Instead, he’s suddenly developing subject/object awareness. Mmm, yes, Hegel. “He had, he, Javert, thought good to decide, against all the regulations of the police, against the whole social and judicial organisation, against the entire code, in favour of a release; that had pleased him; he had substituted his own affairs for the public affairs; could this be characterised?” Yes, sometimes we aren’t mindless cogs in the machine. Imagine if the world were actually imperfect and imprecise. “Terrible situation! to be moved…to be obliged to acknowledge this: infallibility is not infallible.”

The most surprising thing about this crisis is that it took this long for Javert to have it. I would have thought his continual dealings with corrupt individuals with the police would have triggered this crossroads ages ago. In the musical, this maybe works better because Valjean is Javert’s personal obsession. In the book, he’s really just a particular felon that Javert happens to run into every decade or so. He’s not hunting Valjean, he’s not even overly fixated on him until the moment when Valjean does him, personally, an unexpected good turn by not killing Javert as expected. Ignoring the fact that, by everything Javert knows, Valjean has never ever been a violent criminal and his worst crime is breaking parole, this is merely the ‘good’ reversal of the corrupt cop.

Below the cut, more discussion about Javert and rationality.

It’s also notable that this is not a moral awakening, it’s entirely a dilemma of moral logic. “Javert’s ideal was not to be humane, not to be great, not to be sublime; it was to be irreproachable.” And also, something not identical but similar to this has happened to him before! “But how manage to send in his resignation to God?” What a fascinating way of thinking about this. Javert’s mindset truly exemplifies the concept of anomic suicide—which I’ve often linked Marius to as well—which, to review, is characterized by an intense disillusionment and disappointment due to an abrupt shift in circumstances. In Javert’s case, the norms and values he has predicated his entire life on have been violently contested. He no longer feels able to fit into the societal niche he filled, he can’t be a police officer, he can’t be an agent of order, he can’t be a just man. Unlike Marius, Javert’s dilemma has very little to do with emotion and interpersonal conflict and everything to do with established rules and logic.

Javert is an interesting study of how macro structures perpetuate in micro cases, because it’s clear that he’s internalized the strictures of society into a personal ethic, but without any of the context that those strictures were created within. Society says ‘justice’ but what they actually mean is ‘rule of law.’ If Javert simply followed the letter of the law, he could turn Valjean in without reservation, but Javert genuinely believes in the spirit of the law and, well, the two are simply inherently incompatible in a corrupt system. Not to say Javert is a secret advocate of social justice, he definitely still has some screwed up ideas about the worth of poor people and oppressed ethnic groups and, I’m sure, women that definitely influence his idea of what is punishable. But his priorities show in what is functionally his last will and testament. He doesn’t show anything that could be called compassion or empathy for the prisoners he mentions—remember, he isn’t humane—but many of his observations would be a benefit to the prison population and restrictive for the guards. He’s a creature motivated by impartial reason and just exchange built on a questionable moral foundation.

So much of the imagery on the last page is adapted really beautifully in ‘Javert’s Suicide’ and this scene recalls Valjean’s initial epiphany years ago in Digne just as Javert’s melody is reprised from ‘Valjean’s Soliloquy,’ “Immensity seemed open there. What was beneath was not water, it was chasm. The wall of the quai, abrupt, confused, mingled with vapour, suddenly lost to sight, seemed like an escarpment of the infinite…the swollen river guessed at rather than perceived, the tragical whispering of the flood, the dismal vastness of the arches of the bridge, the imaginable fall into that gloomy void, all that shadow full of horror.” Javert, in the end, chose the unknown of death over the unknown of life which, in my opinion, if the core tragedy of his character.

[hecallsmehischild]

Grieving the Good

Beyond Boundaries by Dr. John Townsend claims there are six components for grieving a lost relationship. Most of the steps are already inherent to how I deal with pain, and I recognized each as I went through them. One, however, took me off guard. It makes sense, but it hadn’t been said to me before.

3. Name what you valued.

When you value someone, you affirm that he or she is important to you. When the connection is over, there are certain aspects of the person and the relationship that you miss the most. There are the values you have to grieve. {List of examples follows}

Sometimes, the value you need to grieve is connected to specific memories as well. It could be a trip you took or a private joke you shared. It might be a time of deep intimacy in which you were very close. Perhaps it was good times with the family.

Why is it important to name the specific things you valued? Because you must say good-bye to the entire person, not simply the negative parts of the person. You cannot walk away from the things you disliked, which may be the things that ended the relationship, without also saying goodbye to the things you loved as well. A half grief is never a healing grief.

It has been seven months since I ended a ten year friendship. Things have been better. I feel more healing every week that goes by. However, I am still stuck some days. I still cycle fruitlessly through each thing that hurt me. In my head, I argue and shout and scream until I’m acknowledged. I deliver biting, sarcastic lines designed to cut. I make it so that this time, I’m not the one in a thousand pieces on the floor.

I can’t seem to move on from this simmering anger on the back burner. I want it to protect me, but I know that’s not what it will do. It will turn into bitterness and a permanent wall that will hinder me from connecting to new people in my life. I also know, though, that if I try to suppress or ignore it, it will come back to bite me in other nasty ways down the line. So I continue to try and find ways of legitimately dealing with it, torn between letting it run its course and trying to find ways to let go.

I have grieved the negative parts and events for months, now, though I have not publicly disclosed all the specific events that led to this dissolution. It is time to grieve the good. I will grieve the good without asking which parts were lies and which were truths, because I’ve already asked myself that untold times and there is no answer to be had. At the time, it was all true, and I will grieve that.

My friend,

You are one of the two people that I know who writes at what I call a college-Lit-class-level. It’s a very specific compliment that carries a great deal of my awe. I know many truly wonderful writers who floor me every time I read their work. But I do believe your work, if published, could be taught in college classes. Not everyone would get it. You probably will not have a broad readership. It took me years of reading your writing to start to understand what you were getting at. It’s a small niche, but people who understand what you’re saying, well. Their conscience will be smitten. Your wordplay and sensory overload descriptions are brilliant. I will miss getting to read your work in advance and offering what I could to the editing process. I will miss cheering every time you got accepted for publication. I will miss collecting any printed piece you got published and begging for your autograph. I grieve that I will never hold your published novel and say, “See? I knew you could do it.” I still know you can.

We made two books together. Did you know how fun that was? Yes, there was some pain in the process, but we made two children’s books. You crafted two lovely stories. You weighed in on design ideas and I illustrated them. I am much more comfortable with my tablet and Art Rage after 9 and 6 months spent on the respective books. I have some concept of character design, simply by doing it over and over. This isn’t something I ever sought to pursue myself, but I learned a little of it through trial and error and repetition. Perhaps you will take the stories and have someone else illustrate them for publication. That is okay. I have my copies. They are the only two I can’t part with, even now. I will miss creating children’s books with you, friend. I grieve the ones we will never make. I grieve these ones will never be seen, but for the few copies that exist among friends and ourselves.

I miss sharing music with you, trying to find songs you would enjoy and occasionally finding for you one you’d searched for without success. I will never hear many of the songs you would have sent me, a lifetime of accumulated musical taste we could have traded.

I miss your passionate conversation about topics that interested you. You were never annoying, in spite of your concerns about being so. I could have listened to talk about your passions for hours. I miss how, when we got together, we could (and did) literally talk for hours, as if jamming together all the time we hadn’t spent together. I miss our long-distance communication. The wall-o-text emails. The few months we did Marco Polo, when we thought it would revolutionize our communication to be able to pick up on tone and facial expression. I miss getting to show you the cool little mundane things about my day. I grieve the loss of our communication.

You and I shared our deep sorrows and victories. We shared vulnerability and acceptance. We both mourned friendships that didn’t last or people who used us and wondered why people were so quick to cast loyal friends aside. I thought I could talk to you about anything and everything that hurt. I kept that belief very shielded from the things I knew I absolutely could not bring to you. Fortified heavily with denial was the belief that you were a safe person, and during the time I believed it, it was a good thing for me. I grieve the loss of that. I grieve the loss of trusting that you were really going to tell me the truth once you confessed to your lies, and that there were and would be no more lies between us.

I saw a great beauty in you, and I wanted so desperately to see that beauty bloom and grow, and to have been a small part of that because I felt you were so much wiser, smarter, more talented than me. I grieve that I will never see what becomes of you in this life up close. I hope, desperately, that you do heal and grow.

Once, when I really needed it, you stood up for me. Though details have come into question, now, in that moment I fully believed I needed it, and you were there for me. In the very early years of our friendship, you provided a friendly and safe-feeling place to talk with you. We talked about anything and everything. I grieve that.

I grieve the gifts I could not keep, chosen with care for every birthday and every Christmas. I grieve the joy I took in picking out gifts for you as well.

You loaned me your knowledge. Knowledge about health and food, theology and psychology. Book recommendations that were dead on what I needed to know and what my brain was able to process correctly. Articles you sent that made you think of me. You have had your head more in the real world than I ever cared to, and when I was stymied about how to even research, you shared your store of collected knowledge with me.

You had such insight. I felt that you “saw” me, and you phrased what you saw in me all so beautifully. I thought I was so fortunate to be friends with someone like you, who would point out my strengths in such a healing way. Do you even comprehend what a balm your words can be, when you want?

I remember playing the What-Does-M-See game. Because you said you could see the spiritual realm. Now I don’t know what to believe, but at the time, I was always in awe when you saw or described something. Especially if it was about me, and especially if it was accurate to something in my life.

I miss praying with you in the early days, when we first got to be prayer partners in the huge house.

I’d never had a delicious vegan meal before. You astounded me by cooking incredible savory 100% vegan dishes. And I got to cook one dish for you that you fell in love with. And even when we lived apart, it was fun to cook with you over Skype, creating the same dish across several states’ distance.

I’d only recently begun reading aloud books for you. Books I thought spoke to your situation, or books that I hoped held some answers for you. I grieve that I will not be able to share with you like you shared with me.

Slumbertale was a short story born out of our friendship. I wanted to sustain you from week to week. Give you something to look forward to. I miss coming up with a new few paragraphs of the story each week and waiting for your reaction to the next twist in the tale. I miss picking out a weekly treat to mail you. I miss making gestures of Philia (deep friendship)--nearly Storge (familial)--love and having them received. I grieve the loss of the times I was able to shine a little light into the darkness for you.

You actually got me to like parenthesis. With a super creative poem. How even? I was so anti-parenthesis in fiction and storytelling, but you did the thing. I liked it so much I had to literally paint the poem.

Some of my most beautiful artwork and poetry were inspired by something you said or wrote, or a part of who you were. You influenced my poetry style. You twined into my craft sphere. We even started a mini-partnership about my trees, remember? I wanted to start writing micro-fiction, but was having a hard time titling the trees. Your titles were spot on and creative and always inspired a fabulous story. I offered $2 per title if the tree sold because I wanted to. Now I title them myself, and have only just returned to the micro-fiction, because the grief was so sharp.

I believed you were someone worth flying out for on as short notice as I could afford during the absolute worst times. I did this three times. I grieve being able to hold the belief that you deserved this, and much more, from me. I grieve the image of you that I had and refused to release for so long.

I grieve good times in Seattle, the city I never want to visit again because the painful associations now outweigh the good associations. You were the last remaining reason I ever wanted to return there.

I remember one time, during a visit to you, I spiked myself into a panic attack. I had ordered a mocha from one of Seattle’s hipster one-off coffee shops. I could tell from the first sip that the balance skewed way more toward coffee than chocolate, and that it might be too strong for me, but I drank it anyway. And shortly after, my heart was hammering and my breathing was shallow and every dread in my heart came screaming up to the surface of my skin. And I asked you for a hug, and in the middle of the coffee shop, with no embarrassment, you held me. Spoke gently into my ear. Helped me regulate my breathing. Helped me back down to a tolerable level of anxiety (it would be a few hours before the caffeine totally left my system).

You wrote me a journal in response to the one I wrote to you. Then you spent months helping me decode your handwriting so I understood all of what you had to say.

You wrote the single piece of derivative fiction (or fan fiction) that exists for my still unfinished novel. You accompanied it with components of a visual piece of art for me to assemble, one that directly related to the story you’d written, in spite of you “not being a visual person.” It had so much meaning to me.

You gave me a deeply meaningful nickname, and called me that almost to the exclusion of my name.

I miss your laughter. I miss your sense of humor. I miss your warmth.

I grieve the good in you, and I grieve the good I received from you. I grieve the good we made together, and the good we shared with each other. As hurt and furious as I am, I still miss you. But I will not return this time. I cannot express to you how much I hope you heal, truly heal, and learn to relate to people. I wish you well. I wish you healing. I wish you true joy. I wish you a life where you do not have to leave claw-marks behind.

Goodbye.