#i referenced this connection in the out of context post

[chongoblog]

If I had a nickel for every evil blond guy in Hunter x Hunter who is almost always smiling and is skilled at manipulating others and is a member of a group of a little over 10 people and that group has had people leave it and others join throughout the series with both groups having a distinct connection to Kurapika (who, interestingly, is also blond), I'd have two nickels

[1tsjusty0u]

man. totk couldve been so good

[hella1975]

Bro I faint randomly all the time too! “See a doctor!” in this economy?! Also was unaware you had tits at all much less massive ones but good for you I’m very proud

PAHUAHEGKJHKJDGHAJKDGHAJD

[rottenr0ckets]

https://www.tumblr.com/pyroy3/758317686261432320/compiling-additional-proof-against-wilbur-into?source=share

Debunking this post show casing "proof against wilbur"I will go into detail but first I must say most of this isn't proof it is word by mouth and just stories taken out of context or made out to sound malicious As I had referenced to in a previous post take this as a "tldr"As that's said let's begin

Important note that any response to this post that is aggressive, threatening, rude, immature, insulting, ect, will be blocked and ignored

1. Shebly shubble herself has gone back on her words and addmited to the biting being fully consented to. "I didn't consent to getting hurt" she did. She consented to the biting. After wilbur worked with her to get a safe word. If he worked to get a safe word it should of been made clear it would hurt. It never left bruises or cuts though. As you can see in pictures of her during that time there is none. It isn't easy to hide with makeup and if it broke skin as she said it would of gotten infected human mouths are full of bacteria and one bite breaking skin could cause serious infections (speaking as someone who used to violently bite themself) she agreed to the safe word and the biting with wilbur himself saying he had picture proof of it (not sharing out of respect for sheblys privacy which she didn't reciprocate obviously) she even sated she consented every time. So she did it many times knowing how hard he'd bite. "He ignored the safe word" no. He didn't. He only took a second to respond. Snap your fingers. That is a second. Maybe a bit more but never too much. With shebly admitting to not using the safe word properly and just instead screaming at him it's reasonable he'd take time or have a instinct reaction before letting go.

2. 3 reasons in two of them is not proof but relying on sheblys words. That is not proof. That is word by mouth. That is the reason people request proof (which shebly has been known to block people for asking) to use words as proof is to believe everything you see online which is by knowledge the #1 rule of the internet. People have their rights to belive by word of mouth or by proof. No one is obligated to trust her immediately. Not anyone. She has put a name to the person (said directly or not she had confirmed and put his name on the role of the abuser) which means no one is obligated to believe her. She has accused so there is permission to be skeptical as believing without proof can and has a long history of ruining innocent peoples lives. If everyone believed every accusation without proof we wouldn't have schlatt, will wood, tommy, tubbo, ranboo, philza, shebly herself ect All have long histories of being accused of things some lesser known than others. If we believed without proof when a name is connected to the accused it had been known to cause horrific things to happen to innocent people. Words aren't proof. History shows that. Her own actions show that. She's changed her story many times her words go against others stories and even her own.

3. The Disneyland video. Using how wilbur had stepped on tommys hand for untying his shoe as proof isn't really proof. "He never apologized" maybe not on camera. We never know what happens off camera. And even so he had done several other things in that video that could add up to an apology without words. Such as buying tommy all those candies to help his low blood sugar. As someone who used to have it that shit mean so fucking much I don't think many would understand. Also are we going to forget all the times tommy hit wilbur? How they play fight all the time how they laugh when they do it? Philza minecraft had witnessed it and played along treating them like as if they were rowdy brothers. Which is what their relationship is mainly about them being brotherly like genuine brothers. Philza conforming it saying they were like brothers off camrea as they were on maybe even a bit more. Do you think if it was wrong philza would stay so calm whenever they'd hit eachother? That they'd laugh and continue to hang out? Should we forget all the times tommy did equal stuff to wilbur that could be considered abusive by your standards if you feel this is proof of abuse? This goes along with your other yaps. Tommy hand begins *jokingly* bitten at a concert. It was a joke. And goes along with what I had said before. Now there was one you brought up that neither of us can speak on

https://youtu.be/Pcs3UcjKeXo?t=2111

4. Technoblade apple incident. In personal belief. Neither of each side can use this as proof. Not you not I not anyone. This includes a dead man. Someone who can't speak on this. Someone who can't share their side. Someone who should be left to rest and not have his name dragged into a story that doesn't involve him. We weren't there. You weren't there. No one but wilbur and technoblade were there. It is a story wilbur shared in memory of him. A silly light hearted story about an accident that had happened. He showed remorse, regret and showed himself to admire how well technoblade had handled it. He explained it was an accident. He didn't mean to hit his shoulder. No one else was there. So no one but him can confirm it. He used that story to tell on how strong technoblade was how he looked up to him. There is no sign of abuse. No one can confirm or deny it. The other is dead. And the one who told the story is the accused. We may never know if it truly was meant to have ill intent or not. You can read his mind you can't pull apart his words to figure out some.secret thing about him being abusive or not. There's nothing. Don't drag techno into this. Let the man rest.

5. Song lyrics. Now with these this is tricky. He had confirmed he does this thing where he switches the pronouns referring to himself as "she" or the the girl in the song and sings through the pov of the other person pretending it to be him. He's done this with his song Warsaw. So with his others songs he hasn't confirmed he does this it's up for debate. And if we're to use his songs as evidence against him. What about msr. It came out after his rs with shebly and has lyrics that oddly fit her. From her personality to complaints she made about him. If you were to argue his lyrics could reference him being abusive what about msr that closely resembles shebly and talks about wilbur being harmed phycally and emotionally several lyrics hitting at him being physically harmed by his partner. What about how most songs that came out after their rs have themes of wilbur being harmed a lot more recent ones talking about physical abuse in some parts.

Lyrics for example;

Trying not to think abiut it: "Never been the one for romance

Never thought that I'd get married

Never been the kind to give a shared life a second glance

Selfish prose, a lifestyle of a stained-glass window"

The median: "Please don't ask what these words mean

Just please don't misinterpret me"

Amazon standing lamp: "hit me now before it gets to cute, don't make me beg in this hotel room"

Mine/yours: "you never liked me when drunk I'm starting to believe you never liked me at all"

"I stand just outside the reach of your fists And take myself away, a gangrenous limb And dance around the subject, a figure of eight Describe all the parts of me I'm yet to break Count all the parts of me I'm yet to break"

The list goes on. As well as more and more of their recent songs more more seemingly reflecting shebly and describing her. Just as you did. I used lyrics and songs to make theories. Is this proof? Or is it just an idea and rambling. Take mine as just that then you go back on your own word of providing proof. There is no proof. Only ideas and theories. To use lyrics of older songs most from before he dated shebly is to be just as valid as using songs from after their break up

6. Saying he doesn't know what his songs were about. He does. He wrote them. He's told us the meaning of them before. In the genius interview he was high. Obviously not sober😭😭😭 idk what else to say on this really he was just high he is a known weed smoker and had smoked before the interview most likely to calm his nerves since he's made it very clear is anxiety causes him lots of.issues and is the reason why he even took his mental health break in the first place.

7. "Pretty privilege" this is one I've heard people use a lot along with "he's white!" "He's cis!" "He's a man!!" That's means nothing. Most wss addmit to having used to support shebly before given a reason not to. We supported shebly until given reason to doubt her. She has holes in her story. History of lying not just with relationships but also her whole merch fall out that caused many issues and showed her to be not so innocent. There is no pretty privilege. Most people turned to support shebly there is no minority of supporting shebly wss don't support wilbur because he's pretty or white it's because they have reason be it proof, holes in stories, ect. Is shebly herself not pretty? Is she not at considerably a higher beauty standard than wilbur? People go based off proof not appearance. Wilbur being a man means nothing. Are men not able to be abused? It is always women being the damsels in distress and not the abuser? To go into this would go into deeper topic I wish not to yet cover in this since it much more severe. But pretty has nothing to do with this. It's proof. Shebly has said she has no proof wilbur has said he has proof shebly has gone on her word wilbur as referred to it as allegations that "deeply shocked him". Do not begin with pretty privilege because I can assure you it's not that.

8. "He only targeted women smaller than him so he could pin them down." That's uhm.. well first off shebly is a body builder and does weights and wilbur looks like a starving Victorian child. Also most women are smaller than him he's above the average height women are naturally shorter than men to so idk what is going on in that. That's just a wild thing to say.

9. I will be grouping Alice, minx and Nikki together in this. Minx, her story was saying how when they got drunk together she tried to do something nice yes but it triggered him and he screamed at her. He was drunk to the point he was throwing up. It's not a surprised it would be something small like that to trigger him and even after she even said he apologized profusely to her and she still left. Minx is not one to be trusted since she can't even beat her own allegations against her for abuse and racism. She's known to lie and put herself in others stories and just be a horrible person. Nikki, Nikki was the one to instigate their friendship having gone on a TV dating show to talk to wilbur. She was the one that started every interaction. Wilbur had no problem distancing himself from her when shipping made them uncomfortable, she was the one to mention him without being forced to she was the one who had his stickers she was the one who showed herself as a fan in moments where she didn't need to..she never once showed no signs of being afraid of him and in fact only ever trying to instigate a friendship. Alice. I could say a lot about her. From her story conflicting with sheblys, to times not adding up to picurte proof of her lying about things. It's a lot to say on her.

Here's a link proving debunking alice with evidence:

https://x.com/UltraViole74456/status/1767408802465243341

With that. There is no proof in this post, just opinions and theories. Thank you for reading. Avoid putting false proof in posts about serious matters. Options and theroies do not count as proof. What does count as proof is pictures, screenshots, videos, audio recordings, official documents, posts of addition, anything that shows abuse without having to make theories, or that isn't affected by personal beliefs and shows the actions. I apologize for any grammar mistakes I might have made writing this.

[hadesoftheladies]

Victim Blaming

Hoping I can keep this brief, but I have a habit of being thorough to a fault, lmao. Anyway, yesterday I had an unpleasant conversation with a radblr user who's online presence I have largely enjoyed at least, up until this point. She was frustrated with one of my posts, one where i joked about certain experiences i had with choice feminists.

She is referencing this post of mine in particular as an example of my victim blaming: (15) nearly all women who date men do so as a form of ritualized masochism: the lifeblood of female gendered socialization – @hadesoftheladies on Tumblr

I was, of course, upset at this, but I got curious as to whether or not the words I used in this post could qualify as victim blaming. I had this disquiet in me, which I usually have when a concept in my head is ambiguous and I'm struggling to define it. I want to draw a line somewhere because clarity is my one true love. So I did a little research on the general term.

First off, victim blaming is a term used in sexual assault/violence cases. That subject is the soil from which this notion of victim blaming grew into what we know it as today. FUNDAMENTALLY, victim blaming is when a victim of sexual violence is held responsible (either partially or entirely) for what happened to them. (Please keep that in mind.)

According to this article, victim blaming stems from several places:

-a desire to distance oneself from the possibility of being victimized

-a lack of empathy

-fundamental attribution error (FOA) which is the refusal to analyze external factors in favour of putting all the responsibility of the abuse on the victim

Also important to note, is that the end result of victim blaming usually results in the victim feeling ashamed or guilty for what happened to them.

Moving on, in the post this user provided as an example of me victim blaming, there's a note somewhere down there where another user called "eldopism" mentions a Lundy Bancroft quote about how victims need far more support than judgement, and how I shouldn't be making myself out to be a victim for something a man did to someone else.

maslows-pyramid-scheme also informed me that there were certain radblr users that had discussed this trend of me victim blaming straight women, so I think this serious accusation warrants a very fair and thorough response and I will use the above information on victim blaming to criticize this specific post i made about women who date men.

#1. Have I Blamed Straight Women for The Evil Men Have Done To Them?

In the above excerpt, I am drawing up a profile of a woman who is informed and not currently in a domestic hostage situation. The examples I provide are all of women I know who are unmarried and dating. One example I use is of a woman who was almost raped.

I talk about these women as active agents or "adults." They are capable of making decisions, perceiving threats, and are aware of the situations they've been in. I explicitly state that I feel anger at them, which DOES NOT MEAN I am ONLY angry at them. It is only that this anger at them is the focus of the post.

Now at a glance, anyone would say, "Yeah, this is victim blaming. You are clearly angry at a woman for almost getting raped." And I think in this case, I am partly to blame for not providing more context to that specific story.

At the point of writing this very emotional rant, the woman who was almost raped had gone BACK to flirt and talk with the very same man. When she told me what had happened, I was angry at him and horrified, but when I heard she'd gone back, that was when my anger extended to her. Both before and after the encounter, I and other mutual women in this circle, had discouraged her from fraternizing with him. This man was not attractive, neither did we find him particularly charming. They were not long-term friends and did not have any prior connections. He was a stranger that had no stake in her life. She had told us that leading up to that moment, she had not communicated what she'd wanted. Honestly, even now, I'm not too sure what was going through her head during all this and the sequence of events aren't adding up in my mind.

What I DO know is that he attempted to penetrate her without her consent and she froze as a fear response. Knowing that she found this potentially traumatizing, I wondered why on earth she went back to flirt with him days later and then continuously went on to put herself in escalating vulnerable positions with other strangers.

So, victim blaming is when I would blame this woman for being nearly raped, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm angry at this woman for disregarding this traumatizing experience. Consistently, even in the other stories, my anger is about women's decisions to re-expose themselves to predators POST victimization. Not about the victimization itself. I am not asking "what did you do to provoke him" but "why are you doing this again after what he did?"

I hope you can see the difference in both questions.

#2. Why Does She Do That?

The central theme of this post is the latter question: why the fuck are you going back? And please note, these are explicitly NOT domestic violence cases. These aren't women who live with these men or who's economic livelihoods depend on these men. These are important distinctions.

Of course, being well acquainted with theory, I know that none of our decisions are made in a vacuum. In many of my posts and also in this particular post, I acknowledge these external factors, which is why I called this cycle of "ritualized masochism" part of gendered socialization. I am explicitly acknowledging that this is a systemic issue that affects an individual's psychology, hence, interpersonal relationships. Literally in the first sentence. So I have not committed an FOA.

In this post, I also highlight the difference between me and women who make this issue out to be solely a matter of the moral failing or lack of resilience from these kinds of women. An inevitability that is better to just wash one's hands of. I DO NOT think flippantly abandoning these women to their self-destructive behaviour or acting smug about it is the right response.

#3. People That Love People Will Grieve

This post is PRIMARILY an expression of personal grief. When our loved ones are suffering or are hurt or are lost, we will, of course, feel personally affected. It is HEALTHY and IMPERATIVE that people who are supporting women or anyone, really, through difficult times or chaotic phases feel their feelings and air out their frustrations. Care-taking on any scale can and will get tiring because we are FINITE. We do not have unlimited energy to offer eternal support. That's the reality.

This anger and pain we feel is not coming from a lack of empathy but from the overwhelming presence of it. I feel for you so strongly, that every time you hurt yourself, I also feel it. When he hurts you, I am angry because I feel that hurt. When you hurt yourself, I fam angry because I feel that hurt. Because there is a part of me that is suffering as well, I get angry at the cause of that pain.

Apathy could never.

I wanted to provide an outlet to myself and other women who felt like me who had or were going through this grieving process and had frustrations as a result of having empathy while partaking in a seemingly never-ending cycle of torment.

#4. The Rescuer Isn't Coming

Which brings me to this next point.

Now I've made several responses in this thread already, but I really wanted to highlight that maslow's original criticism is that I was conflating an innate desire for a romantic relationship with men with femininity, and I was calling both ritualized masochism (which they are).

But this response really cements the absurdity of this situation for me; that is, the absurdity of choice feminism.

What really gets me about this particular response is how perfectly it poses the very same question that the post she cited says is impossible to answer: what can I do to make her life safer?

The post she cited is one that is lamenting the utter helplessness of being this support that never really improves anything because, at the end of the day, grown women will do whatever the fuck they want.

How can I make her safer when she rejects safety? How can the onus possibly be on me when I have zero power in this situation? I cannot criticize her decisions, I cannot herd all the men and shoot them into Jupiter, I can't stop her from going to club and picking these men up, I can't force her to date or believe me when I tell her that such a man is not good.

So what the fuck else is there to do but warn her? And knowing that my warnings are clearly falling on deaf ears, what the fuck else is there to do but watch or leave?

Do you not see the double bind. I am "protecting her" the only way I can: advising her to stay away.

Ultimately, it seems, maslow is upset that my solution to this whole problem is to tell straight women to forego this pursuit of a loving relationship with a man. She sees it as fundamentally self-centered, divorced from the interests and complexities of heterosexual dating and the rich inner lives of straight women.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no alternative. Radfems, of all people, know there is not. We know men do not rape because they lack education in consent. We know they rape because they want to. We know men do not abuse women because of any romanticized narrative of a tortured, guilty soul, but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Because they want to. We know men re-enforce patriarchy and misogyny, not because they "don't know" women are people but because it benefits them in some way. So WE KNOW that on a micro and macro scale, there is little we can do to appeal to men's humanity (or whatever's left rotting in its place).

So if men won't suddenly transform their hearts and rescue women, and if feminists and separatists can't get rid of men or force women to do anything, then who is left to protect these vulnerable women?

No one but their fucking selves. That's the truth. That's the point. Women are not to blame for what men do to us, but it is our responsibility to look out for ourselves because NO ONE ELSE WILL DO IT. No man is going to rescue us and no woman is going to resist the effects of socialization for us. Resistance and rebellion have to start from within and all I can do is inspire it however I can and seek freedom for myself.

The vision of separatism in feminism is one of women empowered to protect themselves, an acknowledgement of the fact that women only gain rights when we demand them ourselves. No man is going to change because we ask him to. At least, if he did, he'd be the rare exception. Which, you know, good for him. I can't be angry at a man for being genuinely good. It's always a win.

But separatism is a political strategy. "Let women try find a good man" is not. If most men are predatory toward women, then saying "find a good man among them" is shit advice. If it were a strategy, it would be a really shitty one because it CANNOT SCALE. Your political strategy should prioritize the majority of women who WILL NOT be able to find a good man that doesn't take advantage of them, otherwise, it's just elitism. Your personal hope in finding a good man is not a viable political/feminist strategy.

And if it isn't, then why are you demanding feminists take it as such?

#5. Love, Like Beauty, Is Pain

The comparison of femininity and dating men as ritualistic masochism was coming from the culture of women that romanticizes pain in love and beauty, insisting that these things are innate and inescapable, making them out to be virtues. It is glorified masochism and romanticized self-harm. The way we hurt our feet with heels, seek increasingly extreme ways to "correct" our natural physical characteristics and the way we put up with men. "Putting up with men" has been something we've been groomed to do by both our mothers, peers and men at nearly every stage.

This has become so familiar to us, that breaking free from this cycle is scarier than the anticipation of pain. This is also frequently a pointed source of my frustration in this post and other posts similar to it. This is why both femininity and sexual relationships with men are part of the same question and demand proper attention.

I am far from the first feminist to point this out, so I don't know why I'm being made out to be some sort of abuse-enabler for pointing basic feminist analysis like this out. It is this grooming that enables abuse, not advocating against it.

#6. Summary

-I committed no FOA.

-I have contextualized the suffering of these women and analyzed external factors.

-I have empathized explicitly with their pain.

Conclusion: I did not victim blame anyone and anti-separatist users continue to decontextualize my quotes in several other areas where context has not been adequately provided (and which I take responsibility for). I have not called women who date or marry men anti-feminist, but I have called that decision anti-feminist/non-radical. You can be a feminist and have non-feminist interests or pursuits. That doesn't mean you're entitled to validation from feminists because we are women. Feminism is a political party, not women's club. And choice feminists keep insisting it’s the latter.

Furthermore, I don't mind people questioning my integrity, but I do sincerely ask that they bring receipts. :)

[i-heart-hxh]

So, I was reading that ask about why Killua pushed Gon away in chapter 231, and the part where you said, 'It’s actually part of a larger pattern we see with Killua’s behavior towards Gon, where he decides to “protect” him by leaving him out of things and not giving him the full context of what’s happening,' really made so much sense to me for other moments between them! Do you think there's a connection to why Killua leaves in the end and doesn't tell Gon the full extent of what had hurt him?

+ in addition to my ask about that chapter (you can paste them together! character limit), I wonder if this behavior plays a role in how short and abrupt the separation was. Maybe it was time to let each other go for a while because Killua still don't know how to deliver the full context of his broken heart to Gon, and Gon knows better than push him to say it as he's still processing what he did and doesn't feel worthy of Killua's presence (Gon has never had a huge self-esteem to begin with)

Hello anon! Thank you for the thought-provoking messages--I love having conversations with people about the specifics of what happened between Gon and Killua because there's just so much to unpack there. Even after all the years I've spent in this fandom I still feel like there's always more to untangle.

Also, anon is referencing this post.

Killua sometimes hides things from Gon to protect him from other people or situations (or, in many cases, how he thinks Gon will react to those people/situations)--but he also hides things from Gon about his own internal thoughts and feelings for a few reasons that all blend into each other.

Most simply, Killua's upbringing actively tried to get him to suppress his feelings. While of course this failed to a certain degree, being raised in an environment where sharing feelings and even having feelings was actively discouraged is not an easy thing to unravel. This makes it exceptionally difficult for him to share his deep feelings and vulnerabilities and directly express his love--aside from in acts of service, which seems to be the only acceptable Zoldyck love language, essentially. He was always appreciated at home for what he did and not who he is, which is why he gets so flustered when Gon compliments him simply for being himself.

As the series goes on, Killua is increasingly fearful (as a result of the situations with Kite and Palm and not winning against Shoot due to the needle) that he'll lose his place at Gon's side or that Gon will confirm that Killua isn't as important to him as Gon is to him, so that makes it difficult for Killua to take any risks as far as how vulnerable he is with Gon. Because so much of his self-esteem hinges on how useful he is to Gon, the thought of being pushed away is terrifying to him. This makes his courage in standing up to Gon when Gon confronted Pitou exceptionally meaningful, and especially when his worst fears play out as a result--Gon does actually push him away, and then tries to throw his own life away as penance for what happened to Kite.

Killua views himself to a certain degree as essentially the shadow to Gon's light. Killua isn't even sure he deserves to be with Gon. He sees himself as someone who has been tainted by his upbringing, by his history of running from difficult opponents, etc. So, he thinks he needs to protect Gon in not just a literal sense but also a metaphorical sense--to make sure Gon doesn't end up like him. He knows Gon isn't "normal" either, but he sees Gon as someone who can lead him out of the darkness into living a more normal life, like he wants. But in order for this dynamic to continue, Killua puts himself in a role where he has to keep Gon from being tainted by the world, and also to a certain degree, from being tainted by himself and what he's been through. Of course, Gon's mental state ends up falling apart regardless with what happens and Killua is forced to confront that Gon isn't a pure being of light, but another traumatized boy who ended up in situations he couldn't handle. Killua feels partly responsible for what happened to Gon as well, because he fled from Kite with Gon, and because he couldn't change Gon's self-destructive course.

I absolutely think these tendencies play into why they have to separate, and why the separation is so brief. I don't think Killua is ready to open up and tell Gon the full extent of how he feels and how much both seeing Gon self-destruct and being pushed away hurt him. Even though Gon survived because of Nanika, Killua essentially watched him commit suicide. Of course he needs time to process that. Plus there are external factors that make the separation necessary (Alluka/Nanika, Illumi pursuing them). This post is important reading on the separation, as it affected my view of what happened between them.

Gon knows he hurt Killua deeply, and like you said I don't think he wants to push Killua into talking more about it after what happened. I'm sure they had some sort of conversation between Gon waking up and their parting that we didn't see, but I doubt it was a conversation where they delved deeply into the issues between them. I think Gon likely apologized, forcefully and wholeheartedly, but not in a way that had a complete enough understanding of what happened/what hurt Killua for it to be what they need.

It always boils down to the two of them loving each other but essentially feeling they don't deserve the other due to their own self-esteem issues.

I also think it was brief out of necessity--they didn't want to leave each other, clearly, so to drag it out risks them not being able to let each other go.

As I've said before, as much as the issues between them are deep, I have a lot of faith that they will end up reuniting and reconciling and having a better relationship in the future. The separation gives them both some space to think about what went wrong and why, and to figure out who they are individually and what kind of relationship they want to have in the future. They both need some time to mature and understand themselves better in order to reach that point.

Thank you for the asks!

[wildissylupus]

My (hopefully) last complaint about Junkertown and the Junkers before my inevitable Re-write post

Junkers vs. MAD MAX

Alright I'm already on a roll with this and I've already committed myself to doing a rewrite of Junkertown and the Junkers, but I have one more thing to complain. That being the fact that they butcher the media they are referencing, that being Mad Max. For more context this is also coming form an Australian who has never watched these movies, this doesn't mean I didn't do my research, this is just to give context that I myself have never seen these movies.

If you don't know Mad Max is very much Australian media, written by, acted by, and taking place in Australia. Not only that but it very much relies on the world building of the fact that one, Australia is very isolated, and two, the rest of the world is like this. Something that Overwatch fails egregiously off the bat with considering that the rest of the world is not an apocalyptic wasteland and the fact that the thing that caused Junkertown and the radiation was an Omnium. You know, the thing that multiple countries had? There's also the fact that Junkrat and Roadhog are international criminals, how big Austraila is and the travel time between areas are never considered, it's exceedingly easy to leave the damn country (Junkrat and Roadhog again but also Hammond in his new short story). They want to be a Mad Max reference without actually considering the fact that the isolation inherent to Australia is important to Mad Max's setting.

There's also the fact that Mad Max relies heavily on visual story telling, Mad Max: Fury Road not even having a screenplay, it was fully laid out on storyboards. There's also the fact that Mad Max was not about the Australian experience but rather the human experience, this isn't a problem until you realize that every other characters references are very much biased off that characters origin. That or their place of origin is considered when writing them even if the reference for said character isn't from that country.

Another thing is that Mad Max communicates the brutality and disfunction of humanity, society has collapsed and we are left with the worst of it. The theming and messaging does not work with the rest of Overwatch's theming, it also doesn't make sense in universe considering that Overwatch was one, very environment focused, and two, was already sending forces to Australia to help with the consequences of radiation. Why did they let the Wasteland and Junkertown get so bad? Especially in the early Golden Age, and you can't say that it was because of the Junkers cause Overwatch have handled worse. Even before that point. We also have better examples of "the worst of humanity trope" with Talon, and they actually fit the story and world.

The theme they also completely miss in the soulless copy that is the Junkers is the individual connections and the theming or regaining humanity after great tragedy. In all honesty the best way they could have done this would have been to make Howl's rule itself the Mad Max Reference while Odessa's rule was the healing process from that, but no, they made her an overtaxing dictator instead. The gave the Junkers storyline the theme of desperation but no theme of hope, leaving it empty.

The only thing they unintentionally get right is that your environment doesn't necessarily change you, you do. Yes, a change of environment can assist in giving you space to make that change, but you are you no matter where you go. Junkrat and Roadhog don't change cause their out of Junkertown, they stay the exact same. Which is unfortunate because this is just due to them lacking any real depth in canon, an no, Junkrat actually being incredibly smart isn't character depth.

Back to the whole human connection thing, tell me, outside of fanon interpretation, out side of Junkrat's unreliable narration, outside of the interaction with characters he hasn't met in canon yet. Does anyone like Junkrat? Roadhog is there because Junkrat is paying him and because he seems board, the rest of Junkertown hates him, JQ especially. Roadhog doesn't seem to care about anyone, Junkerqueen's only true connection we see is with Hammond, and Hammond contiues to be my favoutite Junker by literally negating all the complaints about Junkertown I've had so far.

Honestly when I started looking at Junkertown lore I did not expect to be coming out saying that the fucking hamster was the best written character but here we are.

This is all also only referencing Mad Max: Fury Road by the way, which is probably what Junker Town is based off of considering its popularity and the time of release compared to Overwatch's. Honestly I might re-do this analysis/complaint if I ever watch the Mad Max series myself. Though I don't think my feelings will change of this, and that is the Junkers are an insult of a reference to MAD MAX. An empty copy at best. This is also coming from the person who often defends Overwatch's writing, I can't defend the Junkers, it's just bad writing.

[flowers-of-io]

I *can* tell you why Neztea: When his brother Set cut him up into pieces after killing him, Osiris' wife Isis assembled all the pieces and wrapped his body up, enabling him to return to life.

I *can't* tell you why it was Mithrax and us collecting the bits of Nezarec instead of Saint. I *can't* tell you why it was bits of Nezzy in the canopic jars instead of bits of Osiris himself.

I *can* tell you we went through the whole song and dance of Osiris being functionally dead and then functionally revived, as tedious as it may have been, simply because that's the myth of Osiris and that's what Bungie does.

Full disclosure: I'm still perplexed about why it was Nez brew as well, but I personally call as of yet unclear Savathûn shenanigans. One of the biggest motifs associated with her specifically is tea and teacups. Don't believe me? Go do a search on ishtar. Saint's got his suspicious mystery teacup. You know what bone china is made from? Literal bones.

(There's also the Calix Summus emblem, which once again points us back towards the hive and their alchemy and nezzy (with the pyramid line thingy coming out of the cup). Calix = cup, but calix also = calx, one of the products of calcination (if that doesn't ring a bell, look back at the context of the calcified fragments). Summus here probably means something like key or paramount, so... the most importantest cup. Check out the secondary part of them emblem! That's a syzygy!)

If I sound like a lunatic, well... that's fine. The fun thing about Destiny lore is that it *does* reward you for putting in legwork to understand the mythologies and theologies and philosophies it draws from, even if you sound like a maniac to most people.

If you're really curious and want to figure out what happened or is going to happen with Osiris, I'd start looking into the history of Osirian cults and their practices. You might find absolutely fuck all, but you might also find something interesting. I'd do it myself, but I'm balls deep in Hive names and writing systems for the foreseeable future. Oh, and keep an eye on Saint. I'm still not convinced he's gonna make it all the way to the end based on what we know about the story of the phoenix and the turtle dove pigeon

Last thing: If a garden grows in both directions and that garden is a metaphor for the story told in a parable, then the story probably requires as much tending in the past as it does the present.

Good luck, I love you, have fun, pirate books if you have to, and keep your third eye wide fucking open.

(A reply to this post)

First of all, I'm so sorry for missing this message somehow. I've been having issues with not getting (or overlooking?) notifications about new asks and it's driving me a little mad by now.

(Putting the rest under a read more, because it's A LOT)

Second of all, I feel so stupid lmao. Of COURSE it's the Osiris myth eh? I genuinely didn't make the connection AT ALL, despite noticing the damn canoptic jars and being like, huh, interesting! And then my brain didn't follow on it ever. What probably threw me off is what you mention, the fact it was Misraaks and us, and not Saint, collecting the pieces, and that these weren't even Osiris' pieces to begin with. And besides, he wasn't even dead.

There's quite a mix of symbolism in the whole thing here, overall? Nezarec is the Nightmares guy, which makes sense in terms of him being the cure for a guy stuck in a coma--but this acknowledges Osiris' status as *asleep*, not dead, which then throws off the whole myth thing. And remember that one piece of Nezarec is, or is in, the Delicate Tomb--and that gun is very long-time nuclear waste warnings-coded, y'know, the whole "This is not a place of honour" thing. "The danger within is repulsive to us" is as far as you could go referencing to "What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us" while not quoting it verbatim. (And also the Delicate Tomb states "within" because the danger--Nezarec--is literally inside the gun.) The name of the catalyst quest, The Form of the Danger, is a direct quote.

What interests me is the thought process Misraaks and Eido must've gone through to arrive at the conclusion that they should brew this ancient corpse and serve it as tea, but okay, let's suspend our disbelief and say they just studied the remains for a long time (which they did) and within the context of Nezarec being the Nightmares dude, it made some sense.

It's also really funny of Savathûn making *that* the cure for the coma, and very 5D chess for her. She could have reasonably assumed the Witness would go looking for Nezarec's remains when shit hit the fan, in order to have its powerful Disciple back; though how it wanted to revive him I'm not sure, seeing as it was the Traveler's laser beam that inadvertently did the job. But then of course we Guardians would try to stop it, and most likely succeeded, and once Nez's remains were in our hands, we'd obviously study them. And so we'd find the cure. It's so brilliant and so, so unserious.

And yeah, her and tea!!! I'm not sure how to connect Saint's teacup (if you mean the one from Quintessence) here, but "Dûl Incaru serves you poison in a fine tea set of Ahamkara bone" from Truth to Power is iconic. *Ahamkara* bone china!!

You're also so big brained about Calix Summus because I literally didn't know this emblem existed. (For the record, it was included in the January 2024 Prime Gaming bundle.) And yeah if we interpret the graphic as planets and orbits, that is indeed a syzygy... And yeah. Calcified fragments. Gosh this rabbit hole runs so deep.

Bro I NEED to know about what you're cooking regarding Hive names and writing systems!!!!! Your brain is so big and I want to pick it about everything lol.

Oh, I never interpreted the garden growing in both directions as a metaphor for the story told in a parable, but rather the paracausal forces' ability to change past and future + the Black Garden being a four-dimensional thing where space is time, but. BUT. The thing about parables and myths is they bend time, in a way. They connect the past to the present, and so by extension the future. Time there is always circular; they keep happening over and over, regardless of linear history. They aren't physically *real*, but they are true. (Also paging @svedupelle here bc I know he'll be interested.)

Thank you!!! My third eye is so open it's like half of my forehead now.

[directdogman]

how involved was callum with nasa? he was president during the space race and personally sent norm on his mission but something that stook out to me was norm mentioning intell nasa info about man on the moon - neil armstrong - which happened 3 years AFTER he left earth. was history shuffled for callums sake, if it was important at all?

Disclaimer before I answer this: This is a nerdy DT lore question that is absolutely not essential to understanding DT lore and it's teeechnically slightly removed from the scope of the current canon (since it mainly relates to the actions of a character who Gingi has never met in-game), but it's a smart question so I feel compelled to answer it.

Answer: Your guess that the moon landing happened earlier in DT's universe than in ours, during Crown's presidency, is correct. It's funny, but I've got this rough draft of a joke post written that I never posted (involves DT characters having to pick their favourite Muppets. Yeah.) where Gingi (out of spite) informs Norm about the NASA Challenger explosion (a very specific malfunction/televised rocket explosion that occurred in the 80's in both universes, though the Bird Big Puppeteer died in DT's version of the event, unlike in ours, where that only almost (but didn't) happen.) ...which implies that, yes, with him not knowing about this event, Norm's intel obviously DOES cut out post-warp, meaning the moon landing itself was pre-warp by virtue of Norm having secret intel about it.

There are other big clues to an early moon-landing in other dialogue, but I figured I'd at least confirm your method of reasoning was also correct.

On the question of whether Crown really altered history: Yeah, history was shuffled to a large degree, certainly during Crown's term. while most events match up in timelines, Crown invested WAY heavier in certain technologies (mainly nuclear weapons + space flight), causing the US to hit certain milestones early (and even a few that we never did, when you consider the full extent of what Crown got done as President and then Honorary Leader of the UN!)

While I guess Crown's rigorous strides towards vast technological advancement was never outright stated in-game, I definitely implied it through Crown selecting Norm for the mission himself (which means Crown evidently had direct oversight on NASA projects.) There's also the very obvious (but easy to forget) point that of course NASA would not have gotten Norm to a wormhole before they reached the rock in earth's orbit! We're obviously far closer to our moon than any wormholes, and that also goes for the small sci-fi wormhole Norm traveled through which is not far from DT's version of earth (yet doesn't exist in ours.) If it was closer to earth than the moon, it'd definitely swallow satellites sent up by companies into space, which is funny and the kind of thing that would happen in DT's shitty world, come to think of it. But, yeah.

But yes, your question is entirely right for the reasons mentioned above. this might seem unnecessarily convoluted but there IS a reason why I constructed things this way (I know how it all connects in my head), but yeah, it's a little bit complicated to wrap your head around if you don't have surrounding context, and this kind of nitty gritty detail only really matters if you actually want to map a concrete timeline, or God forbid, deconstruct certain actions Crown took in office (some of which have never been directly referenced in canon DT material, but likely one day will be!)

[saccharineomens]

A small Chainsaw Man Analysis

They're referencing this post:

(Sorry i can't respond to your ask directly, tumblr kept crashing)

LMAO ok Anon you win but I can’t promise this will be very articulate or coherent

Ok so when I first heard about Chainsaw Man I heard it was The Manga Of All Time and the anime has been Majorly Hyped and Everyone Loves It so I was curious. Then I went and watched the anime and I was like ‘huh ok I mean. It’s good but it’s not like mindblowing.’

Then I read the manga all the way to the end of part 1 and I understood.

So the world of Chainsaw Man is set in a Fucking Bleak reality. Like, overwhelmingly so. The fact that devils exist and can murder humans on a whim and it’s basically treated as an unavoidable inconvenience because how the hell can you stop them, really, when they’re functionally immortal? The best you can do is kill them, send them to Hell, and hope they don’t die there and revive back on Earth. The protagonist is a 16 year old orphan who sold parts of his body to pay off a “noodle incident” debt inherited from his father, and then the kid was murdered by the yakuza he owed money to because they decided they liked devils, actually, and didn’t want him around killing them. In CHAPTER ONE. Why would anyone enjoy reading about a story set in a world like this?

Because of Aki, and Power, and the family Denji created with them. It takes a while for the ball to get rolling in the story, because they’re strangers at the beginning, but any manga reader is gonna know what I mean when I talk about how they love each other. Denji comes across as a sex-obsessed, horny teen, but that’s just because he craves emotional intimacy and sex is the only way he thinks he could get it. The truth is that his shower/bath with Power was the exact kind of vulnerability and intimacy he was craving, and it WASN’T sexy. The narrative didn’t treat it as sexy. Denji even notes that it wasn’t sexy, to his surprise, but it was nice to be able to be vulnerable with another person. Then there’s Aki, who imprinted on Denji and Power so hard he straight-up was considering quitting being a devil hunter so he could just live a normal life with his new family. He was willing to abandon his obsession with the gun devil, something that he’d been driving his will to live for years, for them. It was Himeno’s death and the letter he read that made him realize that the life of a country mouse might not be so bad, if it’s with the people he loves. (I know that’s a loaded sentence out of context but manga readers know what I mean when I bring up the country mouse, right)

I bring all of this up to show how even in a grim, dark, depressing world like Chainsaw Man, there is hope; and that hope comes in the form of love. Love in a general, not romantic, sense. Love of having toast and jam for breakfast, love of a movie, love of a family.

Now, to Makima.

Makima is Really Fucking Goddamn Powerful. She is literally reality breaking, almost as much as Chainsawman. (For the purposes of this essay, I’m referring to Pochita/Chainsawman and Denji as separate entities.) Makima is able to control anyone so long as she feels she has power over them, and she has a contract with the fucking Prime Minister. That’s a terrifying power. She’s literally the manifestation of the fear of being controlled.

And that’s a lonely existence.

Pochita/Chainsawman says it himself. When you’re so powerful, you struggle to make connections with people. Either they worship you and put you on a pedestal, or they fear you. You can’t get close to anyone, no matter how hard you try. The only way Pochita was able to do so was because Denji had no idea who Chainsawman was.

Makima doesn’t show this emotional weakness of hers, because it directly opposes her powers. If people saw her as needing connections with other people, they wouldn’t respect/fear her, and she would literally become weaker as a result. (The same way that as Chainsawman becomes more beloved by the general populace as a Hero, he becomes weaker.) But there’s a point where we, the audience, get to see this side of her. In her date with Denji.

Quick recap (of one of the best chapters in the whole manga, thematically): Denji and Makima go on a date at a movie theater. They sit and watch like six movies in a row over the course of the day. The first five are packed with people and are funny/entertaining, but not very deep. Neither Denji nor Makima are very impressed with these. Then…I’ll just post the comic here.

The final movie they see is more of an indie arthouse film. Most importantly, it shares an intimate, vulnerable moment between two people who hug. Denji cries because he sees this thing he craves, as I’ve elaborated on. Then he looks over and sees that Makima is also crying. We already know why, as Pochita said: she is unable to get close to anyone, due to the nature of her powers and the nature of her being a devil. Because of this, Makima craves connections with other people.

Makima straight up tells the audience why she’s doing the things she’s doing. If she has control over Chainsawman, she can have him eat other devils and create a world where those fears never existed. She truly, honestly believes this would make a happier life for humans. But the problem with that mentality is that in a world without bad things, in a world without fear…there’s no good things, either. How do you tell how “good” a good thing is, if you have nothing to compare it against? How can you tell that one in five movies is “good”, if you don’t experience the other four?

Why would anyone enjoy reading about a story set in a world like this? Because despite all of the horrible things that happens, love exists. It shows up over and over and over again. Love exists. It was there. It mattered. It was worth fighting for.

That brings me to the conversation between Makima and Denji I love so much, and why the end of Part 1 works so well.

Makima thinks that a world without bad movies fear would be better. She thinks that in this world, she could be loved. She thinks that in this world, humans could be happy forever because they never suffer hardship.

And Denji knows for a fact that that's wrong, because without bad movies, the good movies don't stand out. You can't say that jam and toast is a great breakfast if all you've ever eaten is jam and toast for breakfast.

And that's why Makima is tragic (because she's never experienced the love that Denji has, and never experienced the hardships he has), and that's why Makima is wrong.

And all of this, the whole conflict of the story, is summed up in three lines between Denji and Makima in a graveyard. It's perfect.

[fbczine]

Before we open contributor applications, the mods would like to answer questions raised through responses from the Interest Check and expand upon our carrd’s guidelines/FAQ.

If you are potentially considering applying for the zine as a contributor, please take the time to look over this post and read the carrd. 

Zine’s Themes: 

For our second zine, we decided to have a centralized theme for the overall project: investigation. Solving mysteries, puzzles, and problems are key elements of Remedy games. All pieces featured within the zine will focus on these ideas. 

The Oceanview is a connecting point between the Alan Wake and Control universes. It is a place of power individuals pass through on their way to somewhere else, so it’s had many guests over the years. However, pitches for the zine do not have to feature the Oceanview, they can involve different settings featured or referenced in these games, excluding the Oldest House. 

Interest Check Feedback

During the interest check, we received several common questions we would like to address:

Can we submit pitches related to Alan Wake? 

Yes, as both Alan Wake and Control both fall under the Remedy-verse, we want the zine to have a diverse spread of content featuring characters and themes from both games. 

Are Alan Wake 2 spoilers allowed? 

The zine will release a year after the first game, so we will be allowing content featuring spoilers. All pieces with spoilers will have a warning tag in the zine’s table of contents, allowing consumers to pick and choose what content to enjoy. 

Are meta/theory-crafting pitches allowed? 

No, the zine will only be featuring fanart and fanfiction. 

What about lore related documents such as dossiers/letters/case files etc? 

Yes. As with our previous zine, in-universe documentation is welcome so long as it fits the zine’s themes and criteria. 

Can I submit something which has already been posted to social media? 

No, all contributors must submit a new, original piece of content never shared before. 

Is there any specific content which will not be allowed in the zine? 

We will not be accepting typewritten, out of context manuscript pages. If a typewritten manuscript page from Alan happens to be one part of your overall story, that’s fine. 

No pieces featuring places found within the Oldest House. As much as we love the Astral Plane, the Quarry, and the Clocks Threshold, we want the zine to feature many of the other interesting settings within this universe!

All art pieces must be polished lineart or equivalent. We will not accept sketches. 

Pitch Process 

Please do NOT submit pitches that state “I’ll draw/write anything” – these will be automatically rejected. 

Please submit three detailed pitches. Include any characters or ships featured in the piece along with the general idea. Give us the elevator pitch.  

If you’re pitching a piece featuring shipping content, please state the overall plot of the piece. The mods will not be accepting stories that do not take into account the zine’s investigative themes. 

All art pieces will need to have a background. No negative white space will be allowed. 

The mods will be trying to diversify the zine’s content through the provided pitches. Of your three pitches, the mods will select what pitch to move forward with based on the zine’s tentative content spread, so please make sure these pitches are something you are passionate about and willing to create. 

Collaboration and the Creation Process

Remedy fans are a passionate bunch. Love for these games is shown in each and every creative work. And just like Remedy collaborates to bring us these amazing games, we are looking for that same dedication for the Oceanview Guestbook zine. 

We would like each of our applicants to feel comfortable collaborating with both the mods as well as their fellow contributors. We will be encouraging contributors to share WIPs with each other through more organized check-ins to receive feedback. With each phase of the creation process, the mods will provide detailed feedback and constructive critique with each individual contributor. 

Our primary mode of communication will be through Discord. The mods will be available should contributors need any assistance, to communicate any unforeseen circumstances, or to answer questions which may arise throughout the creation process. 

Final Notes

The mods are fans of the Remedy universe and love the games. We want to talk and create with fellow fans. This project is for the community, and we can’t underscore that enough. This is why our previous and next zine are digital and free. We don’t want to hide the fanworks behind a paywall. This unofficial project is made for fans by fans as a labor of love. 

We hope you’ll join us on this journey!

– The Admin Team

[crepes-suzette-373]

Black Sun, Shadow Moon

I don't have time to clean up my theories yet, but a while back I referenced that Kamen Rider Black's backstory is nearly identical to Sanji.

The quick summary of it is that Kamen Rider Black has an adopted brother who coincidentally has the same birthday as him, they both got experimented on to give them powers, but only the hero was able to escape. He has powers but still has a human heart. His brother lost his humanity, and became something like an "evil Kamen Rider". They got almost all the same mods, exoskeleton, power ups, etc. Except the brainwashed brother is stronger.

Basically kind of like Sanji and his bros, especially because despite being not blood related, having the same birthday almost makes them "like twins".

You can see the longer summary here, and pardon the rest of the post, it's super messy and incoherent. You can ignore the theory half of it honestly, just read the Kamen Rider part for context.

Anyway, my point is, while thinking of black and red being opposites I just remembered that it's connected to that Kamen Rider theory that I had. Kamen Rider Black was originally meant to be "Black Sun", but when he escaped he just used a different term (Kamen Rider Black) as his "hero name". His brother's name as the "evil Rider" is "Shadow Moon" as I wrote in the title.

Those names to me sounded like "solar eclipse" and "lunar eclipse" to me, and wouldn't you know, the science of it fits the Germa colours. A lunar eclipse makes the moon turn red, which people call "blood moon". A solar eclipse has the appearance of "the sun turning black".

I identify Ichiji as the lunar eclipse/Shadow Moon counterpart because of various thematic elements, but mainly because of this Japanese philosophy I mentioned, about red and black being opposites.

Not to mention in the Navagraha (the big circle with the 8 smaller circles around it), a symbol that is prevalently used in One Piece, the two eclipse "stars" Rahu and Ketu were originally one body that was split in half.

Again this "fits the science" in a way. Sanji and his brothers are identical quadruplets. It's somewhat a stretch, but you can say that identical multiplets are "one body" (zygote) that split into "multiple bodies" (embryos).

So, anyway, I have been holding a theory that Germa is connected to moon symbolism, and this just further adds to it. It's why I connect them to Wano, which also has very strong moon symbolism. It's all still a bit sporadic and too many what if, but anyway.

In Sanji's case the "sun" half of his eclipse image is Sora, but that's for later discussion I guess. I made reference to it here and there, but still hasn't pinned down where I want to go with it.

It'll be a while before I'm able to clean up the sun-moon theory properly, so that's why I'll just throw this out there for now.

[aemiron-main]

Father And Son: TFS, Brenner, Cat Stevens, The Cycles, Cat’s Cradle, 8:15gate, Radiationgate and Cat’s In The Cradle

So, during TFS, Brenner says the following to Henry, specifically saying “father and son” to him at the end:

Which, that made me think of the 1970 Cat Stevens song, Father and Son, because Brenner’s dialogue is worded the EXACT same same way as the song title:

And you might be thinking “this is a stretch, Brenner just saying ‘Father and Son’ doesn’t mean it’s connected to the Cat Stevens song, ‘father and son,’ is a common phrase, right?” and usually, I’d agree- however, Cat Stevens, and specifically, the EXACT ALBUM that Father and Son is on has ALREADY BEEN REFERENCED in ST specifically in the context of Brenner.

Where?

In the newspaper (because of COURSE it’s the newspapers again)- look at Brenner’s crossword here:

It says “tillerman’s beverage,” as one of the hints- and the answer is tea. As in Tea for the Tillerman. As in the exact album by Cat Stevens that Father and Son is on:

And not only does it appear in Brenner’s crossword, but they specifically showing him crossing that one off:

And there’s him having written the answer in, down vertically from 60- “tea”:

And what is the song “Father and Son” about? Well, it’s basically about what the title says- a father and his son. But specifically, it's about a the difference in perspective between father and son re: his son leaving/it's about the generational divide between father and son, and was written about the idea of a son wanting to leave to join the Russian Revolution.

This is also all interesting regarding the idea of anachronistic song references in TFS, specifically, songs from the 70s, such as Chuck E’s In Love being referenced in TFS versus Father and Son being from 1970:

And while I don’t think Brenner himself was necessarily referencing the song (although it’s possible because as evidenced by him knowing the answer to that crossword, he’s clearly aware of the album Tea for the Tillerman), it’s still yet another reference to a 70s song in TFS.

And speaking of TFS, Father and Son was originally supposed to be a musical (and of COURSE there's an Edward involved LMAO):

Versus the musical number in the church in TFS and the musical Oklahoma being reference repeatedly in TFS/Ted Wheeler sings a song from it.

However, there’s also more to this whole ST referencing Cat Stevens thing- because it’s something I talked about on discord quite awhile ago-

-but basically, summarizing those screenshots, this all connects to “I Just Died In Your Arms Tonight,” playing over a scene of Karen in s3, because that song has these lyrics:

And that “curtains are closed, cat’s in the cradle,” lyric is interesting for the following reasons:

a.) the whole “behind the curtain” thing in ST plus the whole TFS play/curtain thing

B.) “Cat’s in the cradle,” versus the book Cat’s Cradle from 1963 by Kurt Vonnegut- which has some VERY interesting connections to ST.

So, in Cat’s Cradle, the narrator is a writer that introduces himself as Jonah (but his name is really John and he’s never named again), and he sets up the plot as a flashback. The plot centers around when Jonah was planning to write a book called The Day the World Ended about what people were doing on the day of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

Which, the connection to Hiroshima is interesting considering what I talked about in this post regarding how 8:15 gate connects to Hiroshima & to James’ radiationgate posts.

And in the book, John also includes snippets from religious texts called The Books of Bokonon. Most of the events of the novel occur before the narrator was converted to his current religion, Bokononism.

And while researching for his book, Jonah heads to Ilium, New York, the hometown of the late Felix Hoenikker, who was a co-creator of the atomic bomb, because Jonah wants to interview Hoenikker's children, coworkers etc.

When he gets there, Jonah finds out about a substance called ice-nine, created for military use by Hoenikker and now likely in the possession of his three adult children. Ice-nine is an alternative structure of water that is solid at room temperature and acts as a seed crystal upon contact with ordinary liquid water, causing that liquid water to instantly freeze and transform into more ice-nine. Among several odd unfoldings in Ilium, the narrator meets Hoenniker's younger son, Newt, who recounts that his father was doing nothing more than playing the string game "cat's cradle" when the first bomb was dropped.

Which, all of the ice-nine stuff has me staring at the lack of water in the UD, and the song “Cold As Ice” playing during S3, during a scene where Mike has a Lynx behind his head (which, the Lynx thing is something I’ll come back to in this post bc it ties into all of the “cat’s in the cradle,” stuff, esp being in the same season/possibly the same ep as that Karen “cat’s in the cradle scene” and Victor’s burning cradle scene vs the taxidermy lynx in the Creel house).

And also, the book even has its own Papa- the dictator called “Papa” Monzano, who is introduced when Jonah goes to the fictional Caribbean island San Lorenzo, which is also where Jonah gets introduced to Bokononism.

Bokononism was founded by Bokonon, who was a former leader of the island, and who created Bokononism as part of a project to give people hope and community in the face of the island's poverty. As a deliberate attempt to give Bokononism an alluring sense of forbidden glamor, the religion is outlawed, which forced Bokonon to live in "hiding" in the jungle.

Which, Bokonon hiding in the jungle reminds me of all of the stuff re: Henry supposedly hiding in the darkness versus Will hiding in S1.

And also, Papa Monzano, threatens all Bokononists with impalement on a large hook (despite the fact that Monzano himself secretly practices the religion, and the hook punishment doesnt really get used)- which this makes me think of all of the impalement imagery in ST, such as Billy being impaled by the fleshflayer-

(which is extra interesting considering the visual parallels between this shot of Billy’s impalement pose versus Vecna’s attic pose & how Vecna also gets impaled by the tentacles when they plug into him)

-plus Phineas Gage having been impaled by a rod-

(which is ALSO extra interesting considering how the Phineas Gage scene/“No Longer Gage” ties into TFS with Alice saying that “Henry” is “Not Henry,” and how right before that Alice-Henry exchange, Henry had these weird appendages grow out of his back, which is extremely visually similar to the Vecna attic scene I just mentioned, and therefore also ties all of this back to Billy’s impalement, especially considering the parallels between Billy and Max versus Henry and Alice, although Henry doesn’t treat Alice the way Billy treats Max, there’s still parallels + Max has unending Henry parallels, especially re: sibling death & Billy’s death vs Alice’s death)

And also, Monzano has an adopted daughter, Mona- which, that immediately makes me think of Patty being Mr Newby’s adopted daughter, especially considering Mr Newby’s Brenner parallels, such as Mr Newby having stolen Patty versus Brenner stealing kids-

-AND Mr Newby being very authoritarian/dictator-esque when it comes to how he runs the school & how he runs his family.

And also, Monzano is ill from cancer- which, as we know, there’s SO many references to cancer in ST, considering what I’ve talked about re: the connections between regen healing and cancer plus the idea that Peter Owens may have had cancer.

And also, Monzano wants his successor to be Frank Hoenikker, who was both Monzano's personal bodyguard and, coincidentally, Felix Hoenikker's other son. Frank achieved this position by giving "Papa" Monzano a piece of ice-nine.

However, Frank doesnt want to be the new leaser and somewhat randomly offers Jonah the presidency. Although Jonah is surprised at at first, he accepts after he finds out that this means he’ll get go marry Monah. Soon after, the bedridden "Papa" Monzano commits suicide by swallowing ice-nine, whereupon his corpse instantly turns into solid ice-nine.

Papa Monzano being bedridden has me staring directly at Brenner Sr (who Brenner Jr also calls Papa), who was bedridden and dying after his return from Dimension X.

Frank Hoenikker admits to giving Monzano ice-nine, and the Hoenikkers explain that when they were young their father would give them hints about the existence of ice-nine while experimenting with it in the kitchen. After their father's death, they gathered chunks of the substance into thermos flasks and have kept them ever since.

Which, this has me staring at the scene of the Bingham kids in the kitchen, and how Peter Bingham puts in “too much salt,” versus the salt and ice used for sensory deprivation tanks, versus ice-nine, PLUS “Peter” Bingham versus what I mentioned earlier about Peter Owens and cancer, PLUS what I mentioned about Mr Newby versus all of the parallels between Mr Bingham and Mr Newby and Suzie versus Patty etc etc.

And after Monzano dies, celebrations for Jonah’s presidential inauguration begin, but during an air show performed by fighter planes, one of the planes malfunctions and crashes into the seaside palace, causing Monzano's still-frozen body to fall into the sea.

Instantly, all the water in the world's seas, rivers, and groundwater transforms into solid ice-nine. The freezing of the oceans immediately makes tornadoes ravage the earth, but Jonah manages to escape with Mona to a secret bunker beneath the palace. When the initial storms subside, they emerge and search the island for survivors, and discover a mass grave where all the surviving San Lorenzans committed suicide by touching ice-nine. Grieving for her people, Mona follows suit and dies.

This makes me think of a.) the complete lack of water and complete lack of people in the UD, and b.) all of the bunker stuff in ST, specifically, the NINA bunker + Murray’s bunker, and how Murray has a bunch of Creel references in his bunker, like his his Billie Holiday record + his WW2 posters which then also connect to the Peter Pan and Skull Rock and Eddie-Edward stuff but that’s a post on its own- but that also makes me think of what I said earlier re: Phineas Gage getting impaled because Scott uses that skull graphic that reminds me a lot of Murray's poster:

I also now have to wonder- if the UD was once a normal timeline that got devastated in some apocalyptic manner, could there still be PEOPLE there?? In bunkers?? After all, we’ve only seen UD Hawkins, but if the UD extends to other parts of the world, then what if there’s an UD NINA bunkers that still has living people inside of it??? Or hell, what about Murray’s bunker in the UD?? They’ve never shown it to us, but for all we know, there could be living people/alternate timeline versions of people in there, having survived however long it’s been since the disaster.

And at the end of the book, Jonah lives with some other survivors in a cave- versus TFS Henry having ended up lost in a cave in Nevada, and ending up contracting the shadow as a result, and Brenner says that Henry “changed, like my Papa,” due to Henry’s time in the cave, which brings us back to what I said earlier about Brenner Sr.

And anyway, setting all that aside and going back to the other reason why that “cat’s in the cradle,” line fron I Just Died In Your Wems Tonight is interesting, there’s also C.) “cat’s in the cradle,” versus the song Cat’s Cradle by Harry Chapin.

Which, “Cat’s in the Cradle" by Harry Chapin is about a father not being able to find time for his son and then his son growing up without him and not being able to find time for his father- basically, the son becomes just like his father, ironically, as a result of his lack of interaction with his father, which, the whole “becoming his father,” thing has me staring DIRECTLY at the lines in TFS re: “you have to BE your dad”:

And the “Cat’s In The Cradle,” thing is extra interesting because that song CONSTANTLY gets misattributed to Cat Stevens, who has an album called Cats Cradle:

Which, that reminds of all of the mistaken identity stuff in ST, especially regarding Brenner and Richard vs Martin/the identity mixups there and Eddie Munson delivering subtext for Edward & Eddie Munson being wrongfully accused of murder & Victor also being wrongfully accused by Wayne versus “the man who did this,” and how that connects to Brenner.

And speaking of “cat’s in the cradle,” there’s also all of the cradle imagery with Victor:

And there’s also all of the cat imagery in ST, specifically the silver cat/lynx stuff in S3 versus the stuffed silver cat/lynx in the Creel house and Victor talking about a wildcat:

Not to mention that again, that lyric is from “I Just Died In Your Arms Tonight,” versus Henry literally “dying” in Victor’s arms:

And it’s also interesting that this seems to be a REALLY specific song choice for S3/they really wanted “I Just Died In Your Arms Tonight,” because the use of this song is anachronistic, as S3 is set in 1985, and I Just Died In Your Arms Tonight was released in 1986- which is also interesting considering what I talked about earlier re: TFS and song anachronisms.

Point is, I think that Brenner’s TFS dialogue re: “father and son,” is meant to reference the Cat Stevens song “Father and Son,” and that there’s a bunch of other connections re: “cat’s in the cradle ,” and Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle,” and Harry Chapin’s “Cat’s In The Cradle,” and all of Victor’s cat and cradle imagery.

And I also won’t be surprised if we get the song Father and Son on the s5 soundtrack.

[broodwolf221]

meta that's mostly about vivienne and her pro-circle views, but also touches on both sera and anders. I love them all and that shows, none of this is character hate, but I'm trying to explore the nuance at play here

adding character hate on this post will get you blocked

cws: mentions of the following: abuse; starvation; murder

obviously sera and vivienne are very, very different from each other... but I think one important commonality between them is a desire to avoid anarchy as a solution

sera doesn't want the red jennies to become a new political power - she wants to keep the current batch of nobles on edge, knowing that the "red jenny" may come for them if they fuck up too much. she also doesn't want to take out all the current nobles bc she knows that new ones will rise to take their place. she hates the nobles, but she also sees how an anarchist revolution would harm the very people she cares about, those she's trying to help as a red jenny

vivienne doesn't want to abolish the circles, but she also doesn't want to permit the abuses within them... but she, quite realistically, views the destruction of the chantry/subsequent vote for the dissolution of the circles as an inciting factor in the mage-templar war

anders' actions gave people new and immediate reason to fear mages. whether he was right to do it or not - and I tend to think he was - does not preclude it having consequences, even those that directly harm the very group he was trying to liberate

further, the function of the circles as a place for mages to train is necessary, and is also why I personally tend to feel a little uncomfortable with direct parallels being made to rl groups. no minority or oppressed group in rl can accidentally burn down the family barn because they get upset. I'm all for ppl making these connections if that works for them, but I always look at things first and foremost as existing within their canon context, not referencing reality outside of it

with that in mind... training mages is necessary. they need to be able to avoid possession, to learn to control their abilities, etc. does it need to be in a circle tower? no! ofc not! but there does need to be a form of training

vivienne sees the circles as fulfilling that role. the dissolution of them plunged mages into uncertainty - the anarchy she is so opposed to. who will train new mages now? how will they even be discovered?

in banter with dorian, sera once mentions a mage who got picked up by the templars, so he's "better now." dorian reacted with shock, asking if she knew what the southern circles are like, and she replied that he got three square meals a day, a cot. and he wouldn't starve or be killed in the street, both of which she'd seen

this isn't saying circles are the ideal, because they have abuses occurring within them too. the one in kirkwall seemed to be the worst, but we can't know the extent of it in every circle throughout time. it is, however, a place with a severe power imbalance and stark controls placed upon people as a matter of course

it is also the current and only solution within a large part of thedas. without it, what will happen to those kids who get mad and burn a building down? will the non-mages around them be kind, or will they be brutal? will they be able to turn them over to rogue apostates?

this is the problem with anarchy imo - some systems absolutely deserve to be destroyed, but there are a LOT of people who are going to fall through the cracks in an anarchist revolution

so, tl;dr: anders was right. and vivienne is right. circles are bad, but they are also the only system in place rn. and sera and vivienne have an anti-anarchy pov that they share, which is very interesting to me.

[queer-ragnelle]

Hi there, you don't have to post this on the blog, but I wanted to thank you for your earlier post with regard to different interpretations and iterations of Arthuriana. I really admire your work in/thoughts on all things Arthurian, and seeing you say "Each iteration is it's own self-contained world and anything is possible within that framework" was such a freeing thing. I'm currently writing an Arthurian thing where Lancelot falls for/ends up with someone who isn't Guinevere, and I often wrestle with the doubt of "if he isn't in love with Guinevere, am I really being true to the stories and the canon?" But each iteration is its own self-contained world, and I can honor the stories in other ways while still doing my own thing in this particular story/world. Anyway, all this to say, I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but I appreciate your insight and the encouragement it brings. Take care!

Hi there! Sorry for the delay in responding, but I wanted to think about this a bit beforehand. In writing my own Arthurian series, as well as reading and watching absolutely everything I can get ahold of, historical, medieval, and modern, I’ve developed a whole philosophy about it. So my reply got long hehe. Here’s what I think…

In the ask you referenced, I talked about how Arthurian legend lacks a true "canon," and how the stories all build off each other. The inconsistency from text to text and even chapter to chapter within the same story affords us endless opportunities for creative reinterpretation. I can basically be sold on any concept. I’ve read a lot of retellings at this point and I’m not married to any specific “canon.” If the writer can convince me that, in this version of the story, things played out differently, then I’m happy to get invested. For example, in Exiled From Camelot by Cherith Baldry, she develops Lyonors, Gareth’s wife, and makes her into a likable character the reader can easily ship with Gareth. On the other hand, I definitely see why people prefer Lynette with Gareth, as Tennyson did, and the majority of other retellings follow suit. Even so, I think Lynette and Gaheris made an adorable pair in Squire’s Tales #3, and it was a satisfying reveal in Squire’s Tales #7 that the pov character was their daughter, Lunette. It’s indicated through context clues who her parents are when they arrive at the end referring to each other by pet names. In the same vein, while I favor Ragnelle, Gawain can have any number of partners so long as the author writes the chemistry well. And while I still firmly believe Agravaine is gay in essentially every retelling, I do love Sarah Zettel’s romance Camelot’s Blood that she wrote between him and Laurel. I’m an Orkney Wives fan first and an Orkney Bros fan second haha!

That being said, Orkney Bros have always been inconsistent, so changing their love interests isn’t actually that drastic. In the case of Lancelot and Guinevere, severing their romantic connection is a huge departure from the norm. Undoubtedly, some people won’t “get it” or say it’s out of character. But the thing to remember is, there is no singular source for Arthuriana, so how can they ever be out of character? Let’s get into it.

Firstly, you don’t need to rationalize your narrative choices. To anybody. So long as you’re writing something for the sake of authenticity and good storytelling (rather than simply to be contrarian or edgy or quirky etc) it will resonate with your audience. That said, there’s medieval precedence for your concept. In Alliterative Morte Arthure, Lancelot is listed many times as one of Arthur’s knights. He’s there. Yet it is Mordred who adulterously marries Guinevere. In the romance retelling Lancelot by Gwen Rowley, Guinevere is not the love interest, but Elaine. Another similar angle is explored in Port Eternity by CJ Cherryh, which takes place entirely from Elaine’s point of view. Guinevere isn’t even truly in it and her stand in doesn’t fulfill the same role. In The Adventures of Sir Lancelot (1956), Lancelot definitely has A Thing with both the King and Queen, but a potential affair is not explored or even hinted at. He’s their bestie, their confidant, their most trusted person apart from each other. The key here is Lancelot still loves Guinevere (or her stand in), however that manifests. There’s no active dislike or hatred between them. In that circumstance, I don’t think the character would feel like Lancelot anymore. But changing the nature of his love for Guinevere from romantic to something else does not diminish its narrative value, as the above examples prove. Their friendship is the core of their relationship, as the Vulgate proves, and maintaining that is important.

It’s not so much about asking yourself, “Is [narrative choice] true to the ‘canon?’” as asking, “How do I tell a good story containing [narrative choice]?” There are examples of this done poorly, in my opinion. I’ve elaborated many many many times about David Lowery’s fumbling of The Green Knight (2021) and how that particular iteration falls short of a true adaptation (which I don’t think he set out to do anyway, to be fair) but also proved an unsuccessful reimagining of the poem due to mismanaged references and motifs. I didn’t like Once & Future by Cori McCarthy and Amy Rose Capetta or The Winter Knight by Jes Battis for the same reasons—both books felt like shallow, meandering stories lacking narrative integrity with a veneer of Arthuriana over it. Reincarnation AUs are not an excuse to flanderaize characters. Battis writes Wayne (Gawain) acknowledging how drastically he differs from his medieval counterpart, but awareness of it doesn’t negate the facts: the story suffers for it. On the contrary, Camelot 3000 gives an entire character arc surrounding this premise to Tristan, who has reincarnated AFAB and struggles with his gender identity and with accepting Isolde’s love for him, changed though he is. First Knight (1995) really screws up by making Lancelot a misogynistic creeper who relentlessly pursues Guinevere and even forces a kiss on her. King Arthur: Legend of The Sword (2017) is insultingly bad by showcasing just how stupid it thinks its audience is, brutalizing and killing women left and right, giving unnecessary screen time to obnoxious OCs, and bastardizing every aspect of the legend it drew from. Meanwhile the Fate Grand Order anime cuts out Guinevere entirely. Her role exists as a void. It makes no sense, then, that Lancelot and Agravaine clash as “fellow traitors,” because the woman at the center of the conflict is literally never present. Seven Deadly Sins anime has finally gotten around to Lancelot and Guinevere meeting, and she’s a clingy girl Lancelot is disinterested in, trying to flip the script on their roles, and only exacerbating the misogyny problem in shounen in the process.

Fear not! Loving Arthurian legend automatically enshrines anything you create in a glittering anti-garbage shield! So many versions exist that draw on the elements just because they can with no respect for the material nor their audience. You literally can’t do worse than what’s already out there and there are no original ideas! Published retellings love crackships, they love mixing it up, changing the expected, surprising us! So long as Guinevere isn’t made worse to make Lancelot’s alternative love interest better, and Lancelot himself isn’t turned inside out until he’s unrecognizable, you’re golden. Follow your gut and write something you would enjoy, develop it well within your own universe, and there will be an audience for it. I’m certainly among them!

Thanks for the ask. Have a lovely day! :^)

[tumblezwei]

Bear with me I'm about to go insane for a few paragraphs.

Actually scratch that I meant a lot of paragraphs, because this became so much longer than I intended.

A thing that Honkai Star Rail is utterly obsessed with doing is masking the involvement of Aeons in certain events or encounters with their own personal symbolic language. If you read a piece of text and it mentions amber or constructing walls, for example, you can be pretty confident that it's referencing Qilpoth. Similarly, mentions of flapping wings, multicolored material, or things smelling of fruit is likely in reference to Tayzzyronth.

The Swarm Disaster in particular is rife with this shit. You can drive yourself insane reading through Trailblaze Secrets trying to parse through whether this line is meant to refer to something, or if you've been staring for way too long and need to slow down. In particular you can drive yourself insane looking for references to Terminus the Finality.

Terminus in kind of annoying because they don't have an entry in the Data Bank, but they are referenced well enough that we know a decent cursory amount about them. The main facts being that they somehow exist and move backwards in time, they are currently asleep and murmur prophecies, and they have two factions: the Omen Vanguard and the Creed Exequy.

The symbols we can generally look out for when it comes to Finality are concepts of time moving backward, prophecies, and, of course, references to "finality."

And to add more context to what I'm about to say, I have to mention that the Finality is all over the Swarm Disaster (so is HooH the Equilibrium but I don't care about them right now). In one of the Trailblaze Secrets we learn than an Omen Vanguard managed to hear and decode part of the prophecy murmured by Terminus and tried to spread that prophecy to members of the genius Society, but all who learned of it were killed by Polka Kakamond along with the Omen Vanguard. And like, the same part has Finality prophesying Tayzzyronth's death, which maybe implies that this prophecy is what caused the whole Swarm Disaster in the first place. But I'm also not a great theorycrafter so take that with a massive grain of salt.

The point for this post being, Terminus is connected to Tazzyronth in terms of their possible role in the Swarm Disaster.

Why bring all of this up? Because I watched "the "Fables About the Stars" again.

This trailer is unique among the many Hoyo have put out because it's one of the best jumping off points we have to sorting out the different symbols and motifs used by the Aeons featured in it. One of whom is mentioned three separate times without being explicitly shown. And I bet you can guess who.

The final minute of the trailer, after the Harmony, we get a rush of lines and images about the unplayable Aeons that are likely important to HSR's story. The images and titles that flash by are, in order, Aha the Elation, Ouroboros the Voracity, Idrila the Beauty, Tayzzronth the Propagation, Mythus the Enigmata, HooH the Equilibrium, Fuli the Remembrance, and finally, Akivili the Trailblaze.

"But that's weird," you think. "Where are those mentions of the Finality you talked about?" And that, my fellow mentally ill friends, is where this gets fun for me. Because when you turn on closed captions for that video, almost each reference to an Aeon that Black Swan says is accompanied by another phrase in parenthesis. No other Aeon earlier in the video gets this, it's just the Aeons in that last minute.

Now, some of these are in reference to the Aeon that the line in Black Swan's poem is referring to. But others, in my opinion, are referring to one Aeon in particular.

Aha -

Ouroboros -

Tazzyronth -

Mythus -

The first reference to Finality I think appears is right after "the mariner's intemperance" with this line:

"End of All Things" seems pretty Finality-coded to me. Why they are referred to as "the infant" I can't tell you. maybe something to do with how they exist backwards in time. Much like the prophecy given on Tayzzronth, perhaps Finality's existence predates their birth. Another strange aspect of this line is it's transition into Idrila, who doesn't seem to get a reference at all. The glass shattering into their title might imply that they are "the mirror," something suported by the fact that one of The Beauty's factions is called the Mirror Holders, but I don't really know enough to be confident about that. Considering Idrila is one of the missing Aeons, we can maybe take this line as a hint that Finality also had a role in Idrila's disappearance.

The next reference I've already shown. Just after Idrila we have the line introducing the Propagation, and the phrase (as they enter the dream (Consciousness)." If my ramblings about the Swarm Disaster previously were coherent enough, you might have already connected the dots on this one. If Terminus was indeed responsible for Tayzzronth's ascent to Aeonhood, then this line can be ready fairly literally. To put it in less flowery words: "Listen to the Propagation as it spawns into existence."

The third reference is thus:

Now, "the shapeless prince" is a reference to HooH, of that I'm....mostly certain. And what makes me the most certain is the next phrase "Against the Current." The concept of "currents" being another fun little symbolic reference to Terminus.

Reading more into the Swarm Disaster, you can also begin to see that HooH, alongside Ena the Order, is greatly involved in the Propagation's demise. Tayzzronth's appearance disrupted the equilibrium of the universe, and obviously that's HooH's whole shtick. So Terminus (who flows backwards in time) murmurs a prophecy that spawns Tayzzronth into existence, and HooH (Against the Current) participates in Tayzzronth's destruction. You see what I mean?

And that's. Really it. As a closing note, you know what else is fun? Outside of Idrila (maybe, neither I nor the other lore enthusiasts I follow have quite parsed that out), each Aeon mentioned in that last minute of the Fables About the Stars trailer has a role in the Swarm Disaster. Aha, of course, was one of the key players who was brought on by Ena and further recruited Akivili for help. Ouroboros was created because of the Swarm Disaster. Followers of the Enigmata are mentioned creating false histories of the disaster (this one is my personal theory). HooH as previously explained. And Fuli because of this one particular Trailblaze Secret which might have been about Akivili falling into IX and Fuli grabbing their memories before they were consumed, but honestly this post is long enough and I'll explain that one later if people are interested.

But uh, yeah. The Swarm Disaster has made me go a little nuts and so has the Finality.