#i know a lot of people are down about their productivity

[iliveforyouilongforyouvesuvia]

You've talked about Lucio’s forgiveness before but specifically speaking, Do you think the M6 could ever forgive Lucio for what he did to them ( Besides Portia )?

If they could how do you think it would go and what do you think would happen afterwards? Would they be friends? Would they remain on neutral ground? “ I forgive you but I don't want to see you for a long time”? Etc

OR Do you think there is absolutely no way in the Arcana Realms that they could ever forgive Lucio for the actions ( and crimes ) he committed? ( He did a LOT )

I'm going to go on a tangent about unreliable narrators here which I promise is relevant to the story -

And before I go on, yes, I know the production of the different routes was messy. There's a lot of inconsistencies that can be chalked up to rushed planning, poor work environments for the creators at the time, etc. That doesn't stop me from over-analyzing it though!! :D

Who Lucio is changes pretty significantly from route to route, which feels like inconsistent writing until you take into account the way that who MC is attached to is going to influence their perspective. From Nadia's perspective, he's an incompetent fool. From Asra's, a despicable villain, from Julian's, a scary nuisance, from Portia's, completely irrelevant, from Muriel's, the Devil incarnate, and from his own, the equivalent of a kicked puppy. Forgiveness is much more nuanced process than we like to think it is, and the concept of empowerment and injustice play heavily into it.

When it comes to genuine forgiveness, I personally think Nadia is the closest we get to seeing it happen, and I'm referencing the events of her own route. She's able to go through the process of unpacking the effect of Lucio's actions on her and the people she cares about and addressing it. By her final confrontation with him, she's established and reclaimed the narrative of his involvement in her life, she's able to openly express her feelings to him about it, and once she's toppled their old power dynamic once and for all in a duel, she's ready to put him out of her life on her own terms. Lucio goes running off into the realms and she's able to move on with closure.

Forgiveness in this case looks less to me like "it never happened" or "it happened but I'm not holding it against you anymore." Rather, it looks like "the past has been resolved and now I'm going to rebuild what you tore apart." Both Nadia and Lucio are freed in their own ways. It's a fairly appropriate resolution in my opinion because they chose to have each other in their lives as peers and the processing Nadia did was **roughly ** proportional to the amount of personal harm Lucio caused.

Asra's route has a slightly more typical ending for Lucio as the story's villain. There isn't one point in which the ex-count shows any kind of remorse, self-awareness, or concern for his actions. He's irredeemable. However, Asra doesn't harbor fear towards him as much as they harbor hatred and disgust. They knew Lucio was somehow responsible for their parent's disappearance and assumed death and for the death of their love, but they also saw how easy it was to make a fool of him from a very young age. For them, forgiving Lucio doesn't involve self-empowerment like it does for Nadia or Muriel. It requires a courage to acknowledge the personal pain that someone they hate so much was able to cause.

There's a moment in Asra's route as they lure Lucio into the trap that ultimately causes his death where we see the beginnings of this. Asra turns after running away to face their tormentor down, lists the ways Lucio hurt them, acknowledges that there is still a way for Lucio to hurt them, and then declares their own resolve to work through it regardless. While it doesn't reach the point of forgiveness, it's enough resolution on that front for life without Lucio in it to be free of the previous bitterness. Wrongs were acknowledged, justice was done, and life can continue. I imagine if Lucio had survived falling into the frozen lake, forgiveness would've taken another ten years and proof that Lucio had no further intention of harming anyone important.

Julian's route doesn't get into matters of "right" and "wrong" as much as it gets into "worth" and "guilt". Lucio still blames an inexperienced Julian for cutting off his arm way back when, and Julian in turn chooses to commit to finding a cure for the plague and taking the infected Lucio as his patient. Julian's own poor self-esteem twists all his very real misfortunes into a blame game designed to further trap him. The first step towards forgiveness requires acknowledging that someone else has acted unjustly towards you, but with Julian convinced he's not worthy of being treated with love, he's unable to see the injustice of Lucio's hateful behavior towards him.

Julian's sense of betrayal towards Lucio stems from the hopeless situation he ended up in and all the other lives lost to his selfish choices, but even towards the end of his route he still struggles to acknowledge how Lucio wronged him as a person. He's angry on other's behalf, not his own, but he's only able to forgive Lucio on his own behalf and not other's. The process can't start for him until he's able to hold onto his own worth regardless of how he's treated or what others think.

Muriel's route shows Lucio as something akin to demonic, even having him merge with the Devil later on in the route. Muriel doesn't seem to have ever had some kind of relationship with Lucio, which left the Count without anything to temper his malice. Lucio didn't know who Muriel was as a person and frankly didn't care, as long as he was able to leverage "entertainment" out of him. It's a connection built purely on exploitation, trauma, and ego-fueled malice, and not something to be taken lightly.

The only circumstance in which forgiveness could be healthy and real for Muriel would be if it was part of enabling him to leave Lucio in the past and flourish with as little of it weighing him down as possible. Given what a monumental task that would be, and how thoroughly Muriel likes to take his time to process things, that process would take decades and might never reach completion.

Finally, in Lucio's own route, I'll be honest and say I'm pretty dissatisfied with how the topic of forgiveness was broached. Rather, the word "forgive" seemed to be substituted for the sentiment "it's the in the past and there's bigger/more urgent things to worry about which unfortunately require cooperating with you". We do get the setup for a poignant scene where Lucio has to fight the younger version of himself, but it's more focused on forcing him to recognize what a terrible person he was. Furthermore, as long as Lucio is unable to see himself as a perpetrator or being capable of filling a perpetrator's role, he won't be able to see himself as someone who needs to be forgiven.

With the weight of all the harm he's done, there will come a point in the distant future will Lucio will have to forgive himself. However, that can't happen until the full effect of his actions have completely sunk in and he's matured enough to feel proportional levels of guilt. Even then, there's a necessary period of time where he has to find closure by addressing those wrongdoings before the process of self-forgiveness can start. There's none of that in his route, but I like to hope he makes it that far down the line.

Again, these are all just my opinions (and I'm so sorry it took me days to finish this!) but I hope they help!

[racetrackmybeloved]

Did Tommy Boy, Sniper and Kid Blink Scab?

To clarify, the question is whether the characters themselves scabbed, or whether the actors played multiple characters, one being their regular newsie character (Tommy Boy, Sniper, Kid Blink), and the other being an unnamed ‘scab’ character.

Most of the posts I’ve seen on here about these characters assume that the characters themselves scabbed, but I disagree:

(Note: this is all based on the 2017 proshot, I know there may be some differences with the original Broadway production and the UK production, but I have not seen those so cannot form an opinion on them.)

David says "Who are they?" when the scabs show up.

All three of them were at the circulation gate on the first day.

Tommy Boy and Sniper were at the circulation gate the next day. Tommy Boy questions Jack ("You got an idea?").

Tommy Boy was at Jacobi's. He was mentioned by name, and given an assignment by Jack ("Tommy Boy, take the east side").

To be fair on him, David did meet a lot of people on those days, and was under a lot of stress. However, even if he didn't know them by name, he should at the very least recognise Tommy Boy well enough to not ask who he was.

2. Finch says "They think they can just waltz in here and take our jobs?"

The implication of "take our jobs" is that the scabs are aiming to replace the existing newsies, and were not newsies themselves at that point.

3. Jack does not appeal to them as individuals.

When Jack is giving his speech to convince the three scabs to throw down their papers, at no point does he name them, or say anything personal. We know for a fact that he knows Tommy Boy well enough to trust him with an assignment. Why did he never appeal to him as a friend? Counter-argument: Jack is a dumbass.

4. IMDB and end credits.

Each of the actors' IMDB pages list them as playing two characters, one being their named newsie, and the other being 'scab'. This is done in the same way as Jack Sippel's IMDB, which lists him as playing both Darcy ("My father owns The Trib") and Kenny (his newsie character). This indicates that Tommy Boy, Sniper and Kid Blink did not scab, and their actors just swap between characters.

However, the official credits at the end of the film on Disney+ tell a different story. Michael Dameski is credited for playing both Tommy Boy and 'Scab', while Andy Richardson and Daniel Switzer are only credited for their respective named newsie characters.

From this, I would argue that it is uncontentious that Tommy Boy and 'Scab' are intended to be separate characters. I don't know where IMDB gets their information on character names, and whether it is common for them to be incorrect.

I will mention that there are other instances of characters not being mentioned in the credits. For example, Andrew Wilson plays three characters: a man in the audience at Medda's theatre, one of Wiesel's goons, and a Brooklyn newsie. He is credited as playing 'Willie' and 'Bart'. ‘Bart’ is presumably Andrew Wilson’s Brooklyn newsie character, as that is his last appearance, but which character is Willie? (It is also pretty clear that these are three separate characters, as theatre Andrew has a moustache, and I highly doubt a Brooklyn newsie would be working with Wiesel to beat up Manhattan newsies). None of these characters have any lines so it does not matter, but I just wanted to bring up that the credits may gloss over non-speaking characters. As such, it is possible that Andy Richardson and Daniel Switzer should have been credited as ‘Scab’ as well as their named characters.

Side note: the Newsies Wiki also says that Tommy Boy was a scab, but I do not consider this to be a reliable source.

In my opinion, it is quite clear that at the very least, Tommy Boy did not scab. Whether Kid Blink and Sniper scabbed is up to interpretation, but I believe that all of them were playing alternative 'scab' characters.

Note: Daniel Switzer (Sniper) speaks one line when he is not playing a scab ("So's the Bronx!" - Brooklyn's Here), while Andy Richardson (Kid Blink) does not have any independent lines outside of when he plays a scab. However, even Daniel Switzer's line is not done as Sniper - this is presumably another instance of an actor playing a different character, in this case being a Bronx newsie.

I do question the director's choice of having Michael Dameski play both a scab and a newsie who is involved in the strike.

Michael Dameski has 2 lines as Tommy Boy:

"It's gettin' bad out there" - Carrying the Banner

"You got an idea?"

He can also be heard (at least) 2 more times, but I would consider those instances to be background shouts rather than scripted lines. In addition, these lines are said in the minutes after he throws down his papers, so it is unclear whether he is saying them as Tommy Boy or as 'Scab'.

"That's right!" - Seize the Day

"Hey!" - Seize the Day

As mentioned earlier, his character is also directly named, and given an assignment by Jack. If the scabs were intended to be anonymous unnamed characters who were not previously newsies, it makes sense that Andy Richardson (Kid Blink) and Daniel Switzer (Sniper) were selected. I assume that their choices were limited to ensemble actors who would be in the Seize the Day number, so Andrew Wilson, JP Ferreri and Stephen Hernandez (Brooklyn newsies) were not options. Julian De Guzman (Smalls), David Guzman (Ike), and Jacob Guzman (Mike) do not have any speaking lines in the musical, nor are they mentioned by name. To avoid raising additional issues of one twin scabbing while the other did not (which would be a GREAT plot line in my opinion, but would not be realistic due to time constraints and as it would have detracted focus), the logical choice for an actor to play a scab alongside their newsie character would have been Julian De Guzman (Smalls).

Tommy Boy however, is a character that we recognise. We know he is extremely literal (his confusion when Jack says "would you keep your shirt on?"), and is likely more of a realist than an optimist ("it's gettin' bad out there" in Carrying the Banner). He, along with Specs and Finch are newsies that Jack specifically singled out to bring the news of the strike to the other boroughs. We can infer that he is someone who Jack trusts, is older, and has likely been a newsie for a long time. Him being selected to go the extra mile (literally) to tell other newsies about the strike would make it heartbreaking if they had chosen the narrative of the scabs being existing newsies. It brings up questions that make the plot more complex: what happened in that 24 hour period that caused him to lose faith? What made him betray his friends? However, I don't think that was what they were going for, as the credits explicitly make a distinction between Tommy Boy and the scab.

If we ignore literally everything I have said up until this point, and assume that the intended plot line was that three existing newsies had scabbed, then it was not executed very well. It would have been much more effective if they had selected newsies who we had more prior connection to, such as Romeo, Finch, or Albert. We have zero emotional attachment to Sniper and Kid Blink, as we do not know their names, and do not hear them speak. Even though Tommy Boy is an established character, he still barely speaks, and we have little to no emotional connection with him. The personality traits mentioned earlier would not even be picked up on by the casual watcher. (If he is anyone's favourite prior to that moment, it is 100% due to Michael Dameski's dancing, and not the character itself).

Further, if the characters themselves scabbed, we should have seen some kind of development that made sense. Focusing in on Tommy Boy, with the narrative of him being a scab, he says "I'm with ya!", and then joins in with the other newsies to intimidate the other two scabs into joining them. (He also yells "That's right!" in the background). Where is the reaction from the other newsies? Jojo puts an arm around him, but I do not read much into this, as he also has his arm around Henry. Give me emotion, give me 'my friend/probably housemate just stabbed me in the back, and then realised the error of his ways', give me SOMETHING. He is one of the three newsies that Jack trusted enough to give an assignment to, and one of two newsies who agreed - he is clearly an important part of this family.

Kid Blink and Sniper get even less reaction from the other newsies. The newsies are visibly happy when they throw down their papers, but I do not see their reactions as distinct from how they would have reacted if they had been random unnamed scabs. If the intended narrative was that the characters themselves had betrayed their friends, we should have seen a more personal, emotionally charged reaction. However, we simply do not know enough about these characters to draw a conclusion.

Overall, I think it is uncontentious that Tommy Boy did not scab, due to a combination of factors including the official credits, David's apparent terrible memory, and my (possibly misplaced) faith that if his character had scabbed, it would have been handled better. Whether Sniper and Kid Blink scabbed is more difficult to say, due to conflicting credits, and a lack of information about the characters themselves. In my opinion, it makes more sense to say that all three of the actors played two characters: Tommy Boy, Sniper and Kid Blink, and three unnamed scabs.

PS:

Michael Dameski (Tommy Boy)'s scab going from scabbing with Daniel Switzer (Sniper)'s scab to glaring at him and staring him down in the space of thirty seconds is objectively hilarious, whether you think he was still the 'scab' character at that point, or if he had turned into Tommy Boy in that time frame. Top tier, truly elite.

Would love to hear your opinions!

[shakingparadigm]

what is the theory that ivan manipulated the event where till and mizi met the wagyein?

It's not a theory, actually! It's confirmed that Ivan orchestrated the whole event. The true reason as to why however is still unknown. The information provides more context to this scene, though:

During the earlier times of ALNST the most rational explanation for this scene was that Till ran after a flower crown (presumably Mizi's) and Ivan followed him in out of curiosity. Now we know that Ivan was conveniently just standing there because he was waiting.

Side note, I find it heartbreaking (and maybe a little funny, sorry) that Till most likely didn't notice Ivan in this scene. That's just like him, isn't it. Always too busy running after Mizi while Ivan trails behind, an ever-present shadow.

I'm not sure how Ivan manipulated the circumstances for both of them to end up there, but it is confirmed that everything was intentional. What strikes me most is how they describe this particular scene:

I can't copy down what they said word-for-word (Patreon info), but they described Ivan watching "creepily" as Till and Mizi are faced with danger. We know that Ivan was familiar with the Cerberus wagyein beforehand, enough to touch its teeth and even to rest himself inside its maw. To Ivan, the wagyein is not dangerous, but to Till and Mizi, it could be. Ivan prepared the wagyein, led them there, and watched "creepily" from afar as Till fell on his knees, seemingly injured.

The closest I can get to making sense of Ivan's "scheme" is that he wanted to see how other children would react in a dangerous situation. Ivan's always been an observer, after all, and he's learned to survive by copying the more "normal" behaviors of his peers. This situation occured when Ivan was still young and had not yet developed his more charming mask, so perhaps he staged this encounter to study a situational response, to learn and mimic the emotion of fear. And what better subjects for the experiment than two of the most expressive and reactive humans of their batch? It helps that he was already fixated on Till beforehand, too. I think Ivan became irreversibly obssessed after this incident, especially since it's framed as a turning point in Ivan's life, comparing Till to the stars.

This is just my attempt at an interpretation, though. It could very well be for another reason. He most likely chose Till and Mizi specifically for personal reasons, not just for reaction. I'm still not sure on the purpose behind the whole thing.

The team wanted to capture Ivan's "dark emotions" through the shot of his stalking, which could relate to his more sinister intentions. His gaze can be read in a few different ways, though. Curiosity, interest, fear, etc. Maybe that's why they decided to redraw the shot in ROUND 6.

I think this better sells the feeling they were trying to convey.

[inkz123]

Man finishing school term and wanna rest, draw and work on comms more, but then like 2ish weeks later, boom, gotta fix stuff to start the new school term again

Mannn i just wanna do nothing but draw blorbos and backed up ideas and all the sketch wips i havent even finished ; ;

Idk school for me just throws off the vibes fr fr

[lovelaceisntdead]

i think i just need to rewatch lost.

[giantkillerjack]

I HAVE BEEN LEARNING ABOUT MISTER AUGUSTUS OCTAVIAN/OCTAVIUS GAIUS CAESAR SINCE 8TH GRADE. HOW AM I STILL LEARNING MORE THINGS ABOUT HIM THAT MAKE ME GO "octavius babe holy shit what the fuck what the FUCK dude"

[ashofalltime]

i truly have no idea what to make my "art brand" other than Hot Boys With Thick Eyebrows :/

[britneyshakespeare]

can’t stop intellectualizing about barbie

[neverdoingmuch]

the issue with what-about-ism is that it should have been an excellent opportunity to challenge someone's stance by introducing another point of view and expanding the bubble that people live in, and instead it's become an opportunity to suggest extreme edge cases that are treated as a joke rather than an additional voice in the matter (and yeah, most of the time it does feel like a joke if not just a sign of someone missing the point).

[im-smart-i-swear]

self-indulgent fnin doodles cause existance is Not Fun right now:/

[medicinemane]

.

[polaraffect]

this week on is it a side effect of testosterone or just season depression: my midterm essay for a class was due two days ago. i have not started it. normally i would feel anxiety about this but i feel distinctly numb about it.

[gingerswagfreckles]

I think people need to understand that when someone says the situation in Israel/Palestine is complicated they are not necessarily saying that the discussion of who the oppressor vs oppressed is complicated. The Israeli government has been oppressing the Palestinians for a very long time, that is clear, and it is not complicated to understand that at least since the 80s they have had dramatically more financial and military power to keep control of the territory in the way they like.

However, it is reductive and dismissive to insist that there is no complexity in the potential ways to move forward to bring peace to the region. Despite what people on tumblr.edu like to believe, "Israel should never have been created" is not a practical solution to an incredibly heated geopolitical situation in the present day. Israel was created and it does exist. 10 million people live there. 74% of the population is native born and the country has existed for 75 years. Hand waving these fact away with the opinion that "they should move back to where they came from" may make you feel good about being a Radical Leftist, but it does not give anyone a road map for how exactly millions of people without dual citizenship are supposed to just up and evaporate. Nor does it acknowledge the reality that 21% of Israelis are Arabs, the very people you are claiming to want to give the land back to.

Insisting that there's nothing complicated about expecting an entire country's population to willingly dissappear with no consequences is not a productive way to think about this conflict. It ignores the many massive superpowers that have an interest in proping up different states in the region, the power dynamics involved in any land back movements, and the inevitably negative consequences of totally dissolving an established state without a plan. It is also completely and almost comically unrealistic, so much so that it makes it hard to believe that anyone who's opinion starts and ends with this idea really gives a shit about anyone who lives in the area as much as they care about their online leftist clout.

There's nothing complicated in understanding that the Israeli government is and has been maintaining an oppressive apartheid state for decades. It is, however, very complicated to come up with a realistic way to resolve some of the most intricately entangled land disputes on the planet without plunging the region into total chaos. Not everyone has to be deeply educated on every geopolitical situation, but it is very hard to take people seriously when they know nothing about the politics or history of a region and yet insist that there is nothing complicated about it at all.

There's a lot of people on this website who are getting dangerously smug about their own ignorance, and are starting to go down Qanon type anti-intellectual paths in the name of being sufficiently radical. Not knowing the details of a very convoluted land dispute isn't something to brag about online as you call for intentionally reductive solutions. You can support the Palestinian cause and be aware of the oppression they have faced while also holding off on calling people trying to do real analysis and de-escalation work bootlickers. We need to get control of the urge to fit every global issue into a simplistic YA novel narrative structure that appeals to Western revolutionary fantasies.

[bettsfic]

one of the best decisions i've ever made was to stop arguing.

i'd always been an arguer. i was defensive about everything and mindlessly contrary. it wasn't all my fault; i was (and still am) talked down to and patronized a lot, and when you live your life that way, you become kind of a raw nerve and dedicate a lot of energy to trying to prove yourself. someone even told me once, "it's just fun messing with you. you get so upset."

at 23, i was working in an environment where about a half dozen middle aged conservative men were always telling me what to do and explaining things to me. i either argued with them when they said heinous things or stewed about it for hours or even days. and so my new year's resolution one year was simply: no arguing.

it felt a little like defeat at first, like i was no longer standing up for what i believed in, even though no matter how right i was or how much proof i had for my claims, no one had ever been swayed by anything i told them. part of that was because they had no respect for me and didn't take me seriously; the other part was the simple truth that arguments are almost never productive. when someone says something and you immediately reply with, "you're wrong and here's why," a wall goes up and nothing can go over it.

i couldn't just let these men talk at me though, so i started asking questions. not leading questions, not with an intention to prove a point or walk them into a corner. i genuinely wanted to understand how they came to shape the opinions they held. i realized that understanding and agreeing are two different things, and just because i seek to understand doesn't mean i condone.

a truly fascinating thing happened: these men walked into corners all by themselves. it turns out nobody had ever actually tasked them with speaking their opinions aloud to a neutral audience. no one had ever been sincerely curious about them and their views. sure, their loved ones probably asked, "how are you doing?" all the time as a show of affection, but that's much different than, "what do you think?"

knowing what i know now, i think that's true of everyone. how many people ask you for your opinion and listen to what you have to say without speaking their opinion back to you? without judging you? how many people actively and intentionally try to understand you?

it's been over ten years since my resolution and i think i can count the arguments i've gotten into on one hand. one finger, even. it's amazing what happens when someone tries to rile you up, pick a fight with you, and your only response is, "can you elaborate on that?"

you can work someone into a very open and vulnerable state when you ask questions. they eventually run out of their usual talking points and move into the personal. when i do this, it's not like therapy; i'm not trying to help anyone. and it's not like teaching; i'm not trying to educate anyone. i just want to understand how people reach the conclusions they've come to. even after all these years of asking questions and not arguing, it still amazes me how few people in this world feel understood, and how easy it is to get them to open up when you say, "i want to know what you think."

[byoldervine]

Types Of Writer’s Block (And How To Fix Them)

1. High inspiration, low motivation. You have so many ideas to write, but you just don’t have the motivation to actually get them down, and even if you can make yourself start writing it you’ll often find yourself getting distracted or disengaged in favour of imagining everything playing out

Try just bullet pointing the ideas you have instead of writing them properly, especially if you won’t remember it afterwards if you don’t. At least you’ll have the ideas ready to use when you have the motivation later on

2. Low inspiration, high motivation. You’re all prepared, you’re so pumped to write, you open your document aaaaand… three hours later, that cursor is still blinking at the top of a blank page

RIP pantsers but this is where plotting wins out; refer back to your plans and figure out where to go from here. You can also use your bullet points from the last point if this is applicable

3. No inspiration, no motivation. You don’t have any ideas, you don’t feel like writing, all in all everything is just sucky when you think about it

Make a deal with yourself; usually when I’m feeling this way I can tell myself “Okay, just write anyway for ten minutes and after that, if you really want to stop, you can stop” and then once my ten minutes is up I’ve often found my flow. Just remember that, if you still don’t want to keep writing after your ten minutes is up, don’t keep writing anyway and break your deal - it’ll be harder to make deals with yourself in future if your brain knows you don’t honour them

4. Can’t bridge the gap. When you’re stuck on this one sentence/paragraph that you just don’t know how to progress through. Until you figure it out, productivity has slowed to a halt

Mark it up, bullet point what you want to happen here, then move on. A lot of people don’t know how to keep writing after skipping a part because they don’t know exactly what happened to lead up to this moment - but you have a general idea just like you do for everything else you’re writing, and that’s enough. Just keep it generic and know you can go back to edit later, at the same time as when you’re filling in the blank. It’ll give editing you a clear purpose, if nothing else

5. Perfectionism and self-doubt. You don’t think your writing is perfect first time, so you struggle to accept that it’s anything better than a total failure. Whether or not you’re aware of the fact that this is an unrealistic standard makes no difference

Perfection is stagnant. If you write the perfect story, which would require you to turn a good story into something objective rather than subjective, then after that you’d never write again, because nothing will ever meet that standard again. That or you would only ever write the same kind of stories over and over, never growing or developing as a writer. If you’re looking back on your writing and saying “This is so bad, I hate it”, that’s generally a good thing; it means you’ve grown and improved. Maybe your current writing isn’t bad, if just matched your skill level at the time, and since then you’re able to maintain a higher standard since you’ve learned more about your craft as time went on

[percheduphere]

LET'S TALK ABOUT LOKI'S SHOES (ACTUALLY, HIS WHOLE WARDROBE)

Production costs aside, clothes tell the audience about how characters think of themselves.

Loki's shoes in the S2 finale raised a lot eyebrows, but I find them quite fitting: they are comfortable, practical, and most importantly, they are humble. The camera brings this to our attention to communicate his evolution in character.

Loki has always dressed well, often times ostentatiously. Whether he is at war, passing as a Midgardian, or held captive as an Asgardian prisoner, Loki communicates his social class and sense of superiority through clothing. For him, clothing armors his fragile sense of self and against others' opinions of him. He intends to be perceived as deadly charming but ultimately unapproachable.

His attire in the first Thor movie is roughly equal parts green and gold, signifying his royal status. His style is dressed down for his brother's misadventures in Jotenheim, yet overall both silhouettes are lofty, princely, but not hardened or threatening.

In Avengers, Loki's look has more black and leather, with exaggerated emphasis on his shoulders meant to intimidate as he assumes the role of villain. The silhouette is very hard, heavy, and edgy. Gold detailing is prevalent as well. Combined with the goat's helm, this is Loki's most pretentious outfit, which speaks to an undercurrent of low self-esteem and a compulsive need to impress. There's no mistaking he is the main antagonist of the story.

In Thor 2, Loki's attire is similar to Avengers but the overcoat is exchanged for a less bulky version (perhaps conveying he is less guarded now that the effects of the Mind Stone are no longer influencing him). Loki's role likewise pivots from the harsh lines of a villain to the more flexible edges of a reluctant villain-turned-ally. This aligns with his character arc when he protects both Jane and Thor, seemingly sacrificing himself.

In Thor 3, Loki's silhouette is streamlined even further. The overcoat is done away with in favor of what appears to be a leather doublet, pauldrons, and vambraces. Gold accents are minimal. While stylish, Loki's attire is more practical than showy, and his helm serves the dual purpose of protection as well as weaponry. At this point in his arc, Loki has become a full antihero, joining his brother's side in rescuing as many Asgardians as possible, and eventually dying in a vain bid to protect Thor from Thanos.

The TVA does something very fun and interesting in taking away Loki's ability to dress himself. Since Loki cannot use his magic in the TVA, he is forced to wear the same clothing as his captor/advocate, who eventually becomes his best friend and peer.

Perhaps, on a subconscious level, this helped Loki to feel included. We know by his pwn admission that Loki fears being alone and desperately craves a sense of belonging. At the same time, he intentionally dresses to put people at a distance, thereby protecting himself from potential rejection at the cost of isolating himself further.

When Mobius gives him that TVA jacket for the first time, Loki seems uncharacteristically pleased. It is not an attractive jacket by any means, yet he neither scoffs at it nor refuses to wear it. Instead, Loki puts it on and is content when Mobius says it looks "smart" on him. He continues to dress like Mobius and, indeed, mimic some of his mannerisms such as placing his hands on his hips. Without clothing meant to push people away, Loki opens up, has more fun, and makes friends.

Loki's choice of attire as he assumes the mantle of God of Stories (and time) is fascinating. Setting aside the clear design inspiration from the comics, Loki's silhouette is soft, remarkably so. His colors are earthy hues of green, and the only bit of flare are the light gold trimming and crown. The look brings to mind the garb of sages and wise wizards rather than royalty or warriors. He's powerful yet approachable because there is humility in his bearing. And that humility springs from a well of healthy self-worth, self-love, and a deep love for others.

The shoes are not meant to be attractive. They are meant to help him ascend the throne, nothing more.