#like this is just one facet of their disconnect

[morethanwonderful-archive]

The thing about Wei Wuxian and Jiang Cheng is that they did both love each other pre-resurrection, and they did both want to do the right thing as kids, but they operated in fully different moral realities.

I think Jiang Cheng saw the darkness of their world, and he said "okay" and adapted to it, whereas Wei Wuxian saw the darkness of their world and dared to try to fix it, and that's where it all came apart.

Jiang Cheng wanted his and Wei Wuxian's bond to be a "you and me against the world, we don't need anybody else" type of love. They could work together as the twin prides and protect the Yunmeng Jiang from the Wen, and that was all they needed. That was the right thing to do.

Wei Wuxian, however, never landed on that same "you and me against the world" wavelength. He's a social butterfly. He was never so isolated from their peers as Jiang Cheng was. As much as he loved his brother, he would never have discounted the rest of the world just to stay with him. His understanding of their relationship and his definition of right and wrong regarding it was completely different, and that's a huge part of why they imploded.

[broomsick]

any tips for starting out when working with deities?

Hi, friend! Thank you for the ask, and sorry for the late reply. I've posted tips for beginners many times in the past, most of which you can find via links in this post. But now, since we're talking about working with deities more specifically, I'll list a few quick tips in a point form!

The golden rule to deity work, in my opinion, is respect. Everyone interacts with their deities with varying amounts of familiarity, but one quality always remains no matter the worshipper, and that is respect. But that goes without saying, right? 'Treat others how you want to be treated' makes no exceptions, even with non-human entities.

To me, the first step to respecting a deity is acknowledging their depth and multi-faceted nature. Mythological sources may describe this or that deity as the 'God of this or that', but in the context of religion, they are much more. The believer views the God as more than a mythological figure, but as a complex existing being.

For this reason, another tip I'll give is to get to know them. Learn as much as you can about them, and never stop learning. Not only about the deity/deities themselves, but also (and I think it's crucial not to neglect this!) about the cultural context in which they were first worshipped. I can't stress enough how big of a difference this makes when it comes to understanding a God. If you're interested, I've linked here a few of my favorite sources pertaining to nordic cultures, religions and history!

To me, offerings are not transactional. That is just my own belief, of course, but I don't adhere to the idea that 'one must give to the Gods in order to earn blessings and vice versa'. Paganism is not a trade market, but rather a way to experience spirituality. I believe in making offerings when you can, if you can, as a gesture of gratitude and not as a way to somehow 'earn blessings'. As a pagan, you do not "owe" anything to the Gods they do not "owe" you anything either.

Do not be afraid to simply spend time with them. While we may not always feel their presence, you can have faith in the fact that they watch over you. And for this reason, it's perfectly okay for you to sit down at your altar, or in the outdoors, to simply talk to them, symbolically sharing a drink/meal, telling them of your troubles or of how they inspire you. Developing this habit can help make you feel connected to a deity, even on a tight schedule, or during times when you feel disconnected from your spirituality.

In the same vein, it can be fulfilling and fun for you to dedicate certain activities to a deity of your choice! For example, practicing your instrument in honor of Bragi, or hiking in honor of Jörð, etc... What's more, whenever you dedicate an activity to a deity, you can invite them to partake in it, as I've described in this previous post!

Start to notice what things in your life reminds you of them. Maybe a certain smell? Or a song? What animals, meals, stories of else bring this deity to mind? Either because of the similar feeling they instill in you, or because you think this or that deity might enjoy them.

As a beginner, you needn't feel bad about how many deities you work with, or which deities you reach out to (so long as they are not part of a closed practice). I've always thought it weird how in some books centered around witchcraft, they'll rank deities in order of 'how experienced you need to be to reach out to them'. If you want my own honest opinion, anyone is free to reach out to any deity. No God is more difficult to work with than others. It all comes down to the individual, their values and the way they choose to work with the deity in question. I'm also not a big fan of such sources encouraging calling out to a deity during a ritual/spell like they're a tool for a magical working, if the practionner doesn't plan to really get to know them. But that's a topic for another day.

It can be greatly fulfilling as well to simply ponder a deity from time to time. What do they teach you? What can you learn from their example? What do they represent in your life? I listed in this post a few ideas of questions to ask yourself in order to better understand a deity and their presence in your life.

Take it step by step, day by day, and don't feel bad if you think you've made a mistake. We are all constantly learning. The Gods know we are human, and they reflect us in that way: they themselves have their strengths and weaknesses.

I hope this helps, but please do keep in mind that these are all my personal views on paganism, and that not every practionner will resonate with them. In any case, don't hesitate to ask if you have any other question(s) regarding practice or belief in the nordic path. Have a good day, my friend.

[celluloidbroomcloset]

Since this was being discussed, I think it worthwhile to take a quick look at Calico Jack's character and the way in which he represents a facet of the toxic masculinity and internalized homophobia of piracy.

I've written before about Izzy's internalized homophobia and investment in the masculine hierarchy that despises men like Stede and Lucius, both of whom reject gender conformity and more naturally embrace the feminine aspects of their personalities. That Jack is Izzy's immediate choice to get Ed away from Stede speaks both volumes about Izzy and his assumptions about Ed, and about Jack himself.

When we first meet Jack, his entire persona is of a frat boy, an old friend of Ed's who wants to shoot, drink, fight, and fuck. In their first introduction, he refers to Stede as "the big gal"— a comment on Stede's perceived effeminacy, and highlighting Jack's inherent misogyny. Ed immediately laughs, dismissing it as a joke, though Stede is accustomed to being treated this way by other men like Jack (similar to Nigel's jokes about his "plumpness" and effeminacy). Already, Jack is indeed being typed as homophobic, with a contempt for "lesser," more effeminate men whom he can control and dominate.

The major indication of Jack's homosexuality is his statement about his dalliances with Ed, which he frames in the context of directly asking Stede if he and Ed are "buggering each other or what." It's the show's first explicit verbal reference to sex between men, but here it is framed as an act that men do to each other, disconnected from love, attraction, or even desire, because "anything goes at sea." The anything goes comment is what further highlights the undercurrents of Jack's homophobia—that sex between men is simply what happens at sea, often on ships with no women present. Once more, it is disconnected from any elements of desire or love, and while there's no indication that Jack would consider sex with anyone in romantic terms, he certainly doesn't consider sex with men to be romantic.

Izzy clearly understands homosexuality as an acceptable, normal part of piracy, but his initial horror at Stede and Ed having sex is rooted in the hierarchy of men, who penetrates whom (Stede, an effeminate man, penetrating Ed, a hypermasculine one, is unacceptable and has to be rectified via murder), and the relationship between sexuality and violence. Jack's role is an offshoot of this—he explicitly addresses homosexuality and Stede and Ed's relationship, but it remains formed in terms of what they are physically doing to each other, ignoring any facets of emotional or romantic connection. He further highlights Ed's own arrested development in his understanding of sexuality as violent games between men, with the insistence on playing whippies mirroring Ed's desire for Stede to stab him. Sexual contact is always violent, and it is always about who does what to whom. The only place for men like Stede is in being subdued, or in not participating at all.

Jack's homophobia is not rooted in the act of gay sex, but the meaning behind it, and the importance of who does what to whom. As I've mentioned here, sexual roles are about places in the masculine hierarchy, and sex itself is about power, not love or attraction. He dominates Ed in the whippies game, and he attempts to dominate Stede via a discussion of sex. The wedge which he tries to drive between Stede and Ed is based in his having had "dalliances" with Ed, with the implication that he is the more masculine man and therefore has a right to penetrate Ed.

Stede, once again, rejects the masculine hierarchy. He doesn't form his relationship to Ed on the basis of power dynamics, and openly states that he respects Ed's past as being Ed's business. Whether Ed has had sex with Jack is, to Stede, immaterial; just as he does not see stabbing as a sexual act, he does not see Ed's past with Jack as having bearing on their present. It is Ed's shame that makes the relationship with Jack important later on, not Stede's.

So Jack's internalized homophobia is a reflection of piracy's attitudes towards gay sex in general, and Ed's own shame about his desires and feelings. Jack was intended to bring Ed back into the fold of piracy, rejecting the more fluid gender and sexuality of Stede and the Revenge in favor of hypermasculinity and rigid sexual roles. The plan backfires, however, as Ed successfully embraces his softer feelings for a gentle man with no interest in exerting power over him.

[variousqueerthings]

A Smallish Masterpost On The Doctor And Asexuality/Aromanticism

Back in 2019 I apparently made this post about The Doctor and asexuality and aromanticism on my other blog and I have nooo memory of it. so, updated version that's got a bit more going for it:

A small masterpost of various people talking about The Doctor's "Asexuality" - feat. asexuality, aromanticism, demisexuality, demiromanticism, allosexuality, alloromanticism, and a whole squiggly set of queer concepts, as well as discussions about sexism

NOTE: additions are welcome, and forgive the rambles

So classic!who presented the Doctor as a type of asexual, in which the asexuality was a facet of alienness, rather than necessarily based in any community identification of the label -- in the real world, there's documentation of the word asexual since at least the early 1900s (so in tandem with the increasing use of homo, bi, and heterosexual, if not as widespread), as well as overlaps with other communities and labels, such as bisexual and lesbian communities (which both include/d ace people), dandyism, etc. -- so a rich, complex history bubbling beneath all of this (the most famous coining of asexual is in I believe a manifesto from 1978 off the top of my head)

this real world stuff was not what was going on in the world of Doctor Who when it was called Asexual as far as I'm aware - although, I mean... I'm sure there were actual ace and aro fans...? - but it's interesting to know that it was definitely going on, and so no matter what the intent was (alienness, the doctor intended as patriarchal/teacher-like, the doctor intended as for children, etcetc) there is some real overlap with actual asexuality at the time, including within the word itself

and then a bunch of people got really pissed off when the Eighth Doctor broke the rule that the Doctor must always be totally disconnected from romance- waaait but that's not asexuality. And yeah, that's the other thing. Asexuality is used interchangeably as being both aromanticism and asexuality and aroaceness, because people just don't know better- we'll try to make distinctions, but it can be difficult, with how others were conflating, so be Prepared for that in below

in Nu!Who the doctor seemingly got a bit friskier, so let's take a look at that as well

1. First some general Doctor Who – the first asexual Doctors:

The question of the Doctor's sexuality was a controversial one. It was fanon for decades that he was asexual; fans used the Fourth Doctor's line in City of Death that Countess Scarlioni was "probably" beautiful as proof. Sixth Doctor actor Colin Baker agreed with this theory, saying, "Love is a human emotion and the Doctor isn't human." (REF: The Television Companion) Both Matt Smith[6] and Tom Baker (DOC: Getting Blood from the Stones) have identified that their respective Doctors are asexual and clueless to human sexuality; both exploited this for visual humour

(note: Steven Moffat made the comment that the eighth doctor “hit puberty” which were very controversial, but Moffat has often made controversial statements in regards to asexuality, suggesting that he finds it “boring” to write in relation to Sherlock Holmest:

It’s the choice of a monk, not the choice of an asexual. If he was asexual, there would be no tension in that, no fun in that – it’s someone who abstains who’s interesting

(it's ironic that Sherlock Holmes is his other show considering Holmes himself as an asexual icon being sexualised more and more in recent iterations -- but also that arguably Elementary's Sherlock was kind of aromantic and allosexual, which is a Very Very Rare Thing To Write)

These gifs of Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy pretty much sum up the idea of classic!who smooching People

CB: He's an alien, so what's he doing messing around with human women for? For heavens sake SM: You know Doctor Who had been very successful for 30 year without canoodling anywhere

Both of these have a tad of the "asexuality is for aliens" + "allosexuality as a whole is not for this show" (which isn't quiiite true, considering the objectification of several of the companions, who did canoodle with some people... just not the doctor)

This video is a great little rundown of the queer history of Doctor Who and includes this nugget from Steven Moffat back in the day of Discourse around the Eighth Doctor being a bit less Asexual than previous incarnations:

"What on Earth (or elsewhere) is the fuss about the Dr snogging his companion? Nowhere in the series does it *ever* state that the Doc is asexual (it's purely an assumption on the part of the fans) and the fact that he has a a grandaughter might lead the pedants among us to conclude otherwise (and no it wasn't a term of affection - that's just another assumption and an entirely baseless one at that.) We know that humans and Time Lords are mutually sexually attracted (Susan and Whats-his-name, Leela and Thingummy, The Doctor and that-Aztec-woman) and that the Dr favours bimbos in mini-skirts (what, you think he was choosing them for their brains?) The most you could conclude from watching the show is that he's a little reticent about involvement (not surprising when your inability for commitment extends to your entire home planet!) So if the Doc's vow of celibacy is a fan assumption which flies directly in the face of the established continuity, why would you think a new series would pay any heed to it? Steven Moffat P.S. I mean, the guy has one snog in thirty years of saving our planet and you're all complaining! You utter, utter bastards!!

I think what's also interesting about this comment is the inevitable link between allosexuality and sexism that also exists in Steven Moffat's tenure as showrunner. how does one show a [man] into a [woman?] By making her wear short skirts and having the dude make comments about it of course

Also very funny it actually hits upon a very good point -- there are allosexual Timelords (I'd disagree about the Doctor and that-Aztec-woman) (second note here about how even in this message it's kind of clear how secondary romance was for DW, the romantic partners are Not memorable characters), so if the Doctor is sort of... not like the other Timelords, then the asexuality and aromanticism is not alien... it's the Doctor

2.  A bit about the show's attitude towards writing the Doctor as asexual and how that interest has waned over the years:

But that was then and this is now, and the discussion over whether or not the Doctor is still an asexual character has certainly become very heated. Many fans have asked whether or not the Doctor can still be considered asexual, given the nature of the current show. John Richards, in a brilliant and surprisingly funny essay for Queers Dig Time Lords titled “The Heterosexual Agenda,” lamented the aggressive assertion of the Doctor’s heterosexuality

This is the Confidential episode around The Girl In The Fireplace around the Doctor and "snogging" and ways in which fans might read it (fans can "explain it away" as "she kissed him")

In it we get a bit more about Moffat's whole... deal... around women and the Doctor. It's interesting because he argues that it works because Madame de Pompadour is a "match" for the Doctor due to being well-educated and civilised and multi-talented... "if the Doctor was going to settle down, it would be a girl like this," in the season in which one might argue the main romance is with Rose, a working-class woman who never finished highschool

so a bit about the ways sexism, classism, and heteronormativity also play into the writing of a "more allosexual" Doctor...

It also includes DT saying they had an extraordinary relationship that was over before it began -- I just like how he refers to it without attempting to label it

the framing of the confidential episode is very romantic, just so you're prepared. It also has more unintentional framing of the Doctor's potentially "falling in love" as a more "human" emotion (in contrast to alien emotions of not falling in love)

as you can hear, it conflates allosexuality and alloromanticism throughout

3.  Eleven, He's A Little Confused But He's.... kinda? Got the Spirit (and an unfortunate slice of sexism/heteronormativity):

One thing has been a constant, though — the Doctor himself has been entirely asexual, save for the notorious on-screen kiss during Paul McGann’s performance as the Eighth Doctor in the one-off special made during the show’s wilderness years, a kiss that had fans outraged precisely because it was so out of character and proved that the producers behind the telemovie had no idea what they were doing.

It’s interesting how recent Doctor Who has, if anything, emphasized this idea of the Doctor’s asexuality; Matt Smith said earlier this year that his version of the character was “more asexual than some of the others,” and in 2011 he answered a question about whether his version of the Doctor is at all interested in sex as follows: “No. The Doc’s idea of an orgy is playing chess with an ostrich. His brain doesn’t work in that way. He would find it weird and peculiar. He finds women peculiar. He is quite asexual.”

The idea that the Doctor “finds women peculiar” is probably one that says more about Matt Smith than it does about the Doctor’s character — 30 years of Doctor Who history rather contradict the idea that the Doctor finds women any stranger than men, and in general he has been characterized by his enduring affection for humanity in general, regardless of gender.

In general the way people talk about Matt Smith’s doctor to me, often has a bit of infantilisation along with it - of course we can read him as ace, because he’s boyish, hyperactive, and distracted... he's weird and alien

There's also this cute little fan-video that has some Nine, Ten, and Twelve but is mainly focusing on Eleven's asexual Vibes in a couple of scenes, which actually is something I've always struggled a little more with, because Moffat had Eleven doing sexist shit occasionally and was also soooo male-gazey, but it's also got one of my favourite ace moments for the Doctor period ("I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS!????")

(the scenes with Amy in this exemplifies so much of what I dislike about Moffat, but it's also fascinatingly The Tightrope Of Asexuality -- Amy is essentially violating the Doctor's consent over and over, but it's fine because "he's" a "bloke" -- she then goes on to show the Doctor's former companions on screen.... but notably only the women, and making a biiig mistake in including I think both Zoe and Ace, who were teenagers when they travelled with the Doctor... implying that that was... idek......)

I will also acknowledge here that while I don't think Moffat ever got... super comfortable writing queerness, he did get much, much better and stopped constantly referring to the doctor as a "bloke," who does bloke-y things (like objectify women, care too much about machinery/the TARDIS, and be a playboy who whisks away young girls in order to seduce them, I guess?)

and I personally think that the gender component plays into the Doctor's increased asexual vibes in his run (which is ironic considering where Moffat started lol), but I'd have to do wa-HAY more of a deep dive to actually confirm that... just a theory.... but also interesting that asexuality and aromanticism is more fine, because the Doctor is not a bloke......

it's complicated

4. Ten, The Jessica Rabbit Effect (just because you think they're hot doesn't mean they want to fuck)

[Patrick Troughton and Sylvester McCoy] would hardly have been much cop as Casanova; the 2005 TV role for which Tennant won much praise. Perhaps that's why the Times christened him "the first Timephwoard". "That's the Times?" he boggles. "It's, er, quite surprising..." Or why the Pink Paper voted him the Sexiest Man In The Universe, above Brad Pitt and David Beckham.

in general, it seems unequivocal to me that ten doesn’t like getting hit on, even playfully [...] not only does he seem consistently uninterested in these advances, but in most cases, a bit confused and/or unsettled by the idea of being hit on by anyone. contrary to the ‘space casanova’ narrative frequently espoused by magazines and interviewers, in reality ten is no stud. far from it. apart from with rose, he never reciprocates flirtatious behavior, nor does he ever seem pleased to be on the receiving end of it. 

https://tenscupcake.tumblr.com/post/126914939560/dunderklumpen-that-smug-face-needs-to-be

[Link to a gifset in which The Witch in The Shakespeare Code tries to seduce the Doctor and he answers “now that’s one form of magic that definitely won’t work on me.

the second/third/fourth gifs are of David T saying: “she nearly kisses me. I don’t nearly kiss her. It’s an important distinction.”

This interview is around the time the final RTD/DT episodes were beginning to air

Interviewer: Lots of snogging you've done, there was- DT: Not lots Interviewer: More- I'm trying to think now I don't remember any of the previous doctors- DT: More than Jon Pertwee did, yes Interviewer: Yes a lot more than Jon Pertwee... what-how come...? DT: I can't help it if the ladies of the Universe are flinging themselves at me, you know? Its not, you know, it's just part of the job I have- It's- usually it's not a sexual thing with the Doctor. He's a fairly asexual character. Interviewer: So what's with the kissing then? DT: Well, I don't think- there's a genetic transfer as it was once... or, and you know these women just can't help themselves, I don't know-

5.  12, Too Old To Be Romantic?

Capaldi talking about his relationship with Clara, noting the age-difference as reasons why they would never be a romantic couple (the subtext here is non-sexual as well, although it conflates the two).

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/15/doctor-who-needs-lots-more-kissing-according-to-peter-capaldi

[Capaldi] said there was “no romance, but deep love” between the Doctor and Clara, played by Jenna Coleman.

“It would have been completely creepy,” the star told the Radio Times. “It’s fine if you have handsome young men like Matt [Smith] and David Tennant, but as a father I felt it would be inappropriate.

Capaldi laughed off complaints that his first full episode last year was promoting a gay agenda after it featured a kiss between a lizard woman and her human wife. “I think it was good,” he said.

“Actually it’s not just lesbian. It’s across species, which is even worse, presumably. It’s crazy if people get up in arms about it. There should be lots more kissing in Doctor Who. So long as it’s not the Doctor and Clara.”

Honestly I wonder how much the hype died down because he was no longer young and "hot." Skill issue honestly

6.  The Doctor and The Master/Missy 

I feel like I don't have enough on this, and that's also a facet of the whole "is the Doctor now allosexual and alloromantic." It seems to only really come up in relation to the [seemingly] het relationships

I don't really see much in relation to the Doctor and Jack (who's canonically in love with the Doctor) or the Doctor and Simm's Master -- I mean, fanfic, yes, but not bigger article-worthy discussion...

(and Jamie and the Doctor and Adric and the Doctor and Alan Turing and the Doctor......)

so if anyone has a bit to add on that

Most of it is in relation to... Moffat's sexier "Missy." (sigh). However very interested in what Michelle Gomez (who was excellent as the character!) had to say about it:

She added a female time lord "blows open all these new possibilities for different relationship that couldn't have happened before" but denied the idea of sexual chemistry between Missy and the Doctor.

"You're reading into it something I've never even thought of," she said.

The Scottish star added: "With [the Doctor’s young companion] Clara, it would have been straight away, ‘What is the romantic connection, does the Master fancy her?’ No. We can move past that, into something much more interesting, much more detailed, which is life. That’s what life is. It’s not all black and white."

Idk, she seems to get something intrinsic about the possibilities of all this that many others don't

Gifset of The Mistress (being questioned by Clara on the nature of Missy’s/the Doctor’s relationship): Try, nanobrain, to rise above the reproductive frenzy of your noisy little food chain and contemplate friendship.

I find the whole post quite charming actually, it's a small moment in Doctor Who fandom from a specific person. I don't even remember how I originally found it

7. Misc

I don't really have anything on Thirteen currently, because I haven't seen all of those seasons yet. I know Yaz/Thirteen is very shipped, I assume I'll prooobably feel similarly to all the other Doctor/Companion ships in that I'll be going at it from an aromantic lens

I have seen discussions about how the Doctor’s perceived romantic and/or sexual relationship with this person or other (insert your preferred person here, Rose, Madame de Pompadour, River…) has made him too human, too normal. Discussions that assume that romantic and sexual attraction is an inherent part of human experience, so removing them from a character makes him alien.

This is about the way "Asexuality" (meaning aroaceness) applied purely to alien creatures isn't... great... for aroace people

I have lost count of the number of times I’ve heard fans discuss wanting a more alien “asexual Doctor”, which is generally taken to mean “no romance in the Tardis.”

It often goes back to the same questions: is the Doctor's "Asexuality" (that is, asexuality and aromanticism) purely used to indicate the alien? When John Smith is human he falls in love and asks "what sort of a man" the Doctor is that falling in love didn't occur to him. Many classic actors (whom I have a great deal of affection for) tend to use alien as the reason for the so-called Asexuality, and that seems to lie at a lot of the fans discomfort with a more "sexy" Doctor of nu!who, rather than anything to do with character or portraying asexuality and aromanticism in sci-fi

and on the flipside, people who very much like an alloromantic and allosexual Doctor dismiss aroace Doctor reads because of things that are absolutely within the purview of an aroace experience (I've seen anything from having a grandkid to being hot to caring about others to knowing what sex is)

I wonder if actually consciously writing an aroace Doctor would make people really uncomfortable as well, since it would remove the "alienness" from the idea of it... also it would make people who really really like allosexual and alloromantic Doctor angry too... so no winning I guess

I wonder how Ncuti Gatwa alongside RTD's queerness will redefine the subtext of it all once again...

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

So, here's the thing. Back in the day, RM would get snarky when reporters asked him about recording an album in English. Did we all just forget that? There are so many examples where BTS demonstrated their determination to stay true to their artistic integrity and Korean roots. Once upon a time, that was a point of pride for Army.

And here's Jimin. Has an album that is a critical and commercial success--one that is almost entirely in Korean, created and produced in Korea by Koreans. Gets a Billboard #1 with a Korean song by a Korean artist. And now his 1 Billion Spotify streams. Not the first Korean of course, nor the first Asian, but, from what I've read, the first to achieve this milestone in his native language.

This was always the BTS dream, so why isn't Army celebrating? This isn't a solo victory, it's a BTS victory!

Jimin breaking this particular glass ceiling doesn't take anything away from the immensely talented Jungkook, the other equally gifted BTS members, or the K-Pop industry as a whole. Unless they have their knickers in a twist because it's little Mochi paving the way and showing them how it can be done.

I'm going to be charitable here and interpret this sudden campaign to get all BTS members into the Billion Club as an acknowledgement of Jimin's amazing achievement.

Also, #DiversityWins.

The fandom dynamic and landscape has gone through some really big changes. Same as the group and the members. It's just a fact, I'm not agreeing or pointing judgement at it.

Face was a milestone and an achievement, particularly as it was a fully Korean album that was released to all markets targeted by K-Pop now, not just South Korea. Indeed, it wasn't pushed for the American market as much as what came later for Jungkook, but I guess that wasn't their plan.

I also think it was a critical success particularly because it was a cohesive album with an identity. It's not about the language or having only Korean producers. It's about having a vision that makes sense and works for the artist. Jimin decided to start his solo career with a personal album which showed all these facets of himself, not just as a performer, but also as a songwriter and producer. He proved all he had to prove from the beginning.

My guess is that this second album will be a bit more traditional, as in it will show more of Jimin as an idol and it could lean more toward commercial pop. As K-Pop usually is. It's not a bad thing. I don't think he will repeat the Face formula and he will challenge himself.

I said this before when Jungkook released Golden. It's not the language or the foreign producers. The problem is when the music is completely disconnected from the artist. I always have Key or Taemin in mind because they work like that, but they have their own identity. I expect Jimin to follow a similar path and surprise us in the near future.

[rivetgoth]

I don’t even have the energy to get into goth being a music subculture discourse I can’t do this again. If you think being goth isn’t about music you just simply are so far removed from what the topic being discussed even is that you’re not worth the energy atp. Real ones stick with real ones in the end and I’m just gonna keep to my corner of actual goths who love music and go to the club or concerts or otherwise find ways to support their local scenes and the wider scene because once you’re going out/engaged in local community/interacting with the wider goth subculture it’s literally undeniable that it’s about music. That’s quite literally the reason this stuff exists at all. Goth is a community identity, it’s called a subCULTURE for a reason, if you’re that disconnected from the community that you’re not going out to actual goth community events or supporting the goth community then your opinion about what goth means is just genuinely irrelevant lol. Plenty of nuance about what “goth music” is and the interconnected non-music facets of the subculture and their significance (style/fashion/DIY, mysticism/magic, kink, politics, non-music goth art/literature/media, Halloween spooky aesthetic, different subgenres or sister genres like delineating between post punk and death rock and darkwave to industrial to ebm to minimal synth to… etc) to get into that may vary person to person and even region to region but if we’re not starting from a place of understanding that the crux of this community is historically built on music I’m not even interested in discussing it with you. Real eyes realize real lies. Listen to Specimen and get out of my sight.

[galahadenough]

I keep thinking about Sidon, and how totk handled him. I really can't help but wonder if one of the higher ups at Nintendo stumbled onto a fic for which he was very much not the intended audience. Because while no individual thing feels like it's horrendously bad, when it all comes together something does seem a little... fishy.

First and most obviously, there's Yona. At the most basic level, that is a classic reaction to having too much shipping. Throw a fiancee into the mix. And her design is interesting. It ended up working for a lot of people, it seems, but the head shape is almost edging into a cartoony look in comparison to the other Zora, and there are no other Zora with that vivid of a color. And for me personally, the english verbal aspects (yes, yes; sure) was somewhat grating. Sidon is also a distinct color, though, and it could be an indication of royalty. But it is still such a vivid green. But she is also lovely, helpful, supportive of both Link and Sidon, and really stands on her own as a character. All of these things ended up working really well for her, but it makes me wonder about the intentions behind the design.

So, we have tick one in the fishy column. By itself it wouldn't really stand out to me, but it keeps going.

With every other sage, you find the sage and proceed to work together. It is such a feeling of companionship, and support, especially in a franchise such as Zelda that is built on solitary questing for the most part. With Sidon, he sends you off on your own for nearly every step of the way.

He sends you off to talk to Jiahto at Toto Lake.

He sends you off to find the king.

He sends you off to figure out Floating Scale Island.

Oh! Finally! He goes with you to check out the beam of light... but he stays behind when you go through the whirlpool to the Ancient Zora Waterworks. Nevermind.

He goes with you to Wellspring Island, but immediately suggests splitting up until you reach the Water Temple.

So this is fishy point number two for me. It doesn't really fit his personality and actions in the last game, and it feels very distinct from the other sages. By itself, not too weird, but we're doing math here.

The water temple feels kind of off to me too. With Tulin, you have the Stormwind Arc, a Rito myth and children's tale come to life with a thrilling ascent into the sky. With Yunobo you have the Fire Temple, a gorgeous monument to the history of the gorons, rooted in the very depths of Death Mountain itself, buried among the rocks and lava of the earth, feeling so symbolic of the earth the gorons come from. Even with Riju, with the game not quite committing to the contentious history that the Gerudo have due to their association with Ganon, you have this epic and ancient temple rising from the sand, a monument to the Gerudo's past, a part of their history consumed by the very desert they call home.

The water temple is... pretty enough. I might have been a bit more impressed if it were my first sage. But it's not that big and it doesn't feel very connected to the Zora. It's in the sky. They are fish. It uses the low gravity mechanism. Which is fun. But why?? Why here, why for the Zora who are built for water more so than running and jumping? There isn't even that much water involved outside of the vases you fill to dump on the muck. No rivers. Nothing very deep, nothing with currents, nothing involving large or natural sources of water. Just. Water facets. And weird Zonai (Zonai, not Zora) water bubble machines.

That makes fishy point number three, and in my opinion the worse point against it (tying with my next point, perhaps). A lot of this post is based on opinions, and things that could be explained away. But it feels wrong that this temple is so disconnected from the Zora.

Fishy point number four. The Mucktorok. It... I have no real issues with it existing in a Zelda game. It wasn't my favorite, and I can see how people could enjoy it. I've enjoyed hearing other's perspectives on it. It's goofy and silly. It's interesting, in a way. But it's placement in the game is what makes it feel like a deliberate snub at Sidon and the Zoras. It is the only boss that isn't cinematic. It isn't dramatic or epic, and it doesn't give a sense of danger as much as a sense of comedy. We've had enemies like that before, but they are mini-bosses. On top of that, from what I've heard, you don't even get a cool fuse weapon when you defeat one in the depths. That, to me, feels a bit deliberate.

My last point doubles as an idea for improvement, and is somewhat connected to my issues with the Water Temple. And that is Sidon's sage power. Outside of the temples I get the most use out of Tulin's ability. Then Yunobo. I don't really use Riju's ability often, but I can really see the use. But Sidon's ability really doesn't seem that useful. The shield feels like a worse version of Daruk's Protection due to the fact that you have to activate it by tracking down Sidon's shade (and I think it expires if you don't use it quickly enough?), and while not useless, I don't think a lot of people plan to be hit. And the water projectile probably isn't useless, but it seems like more trouble than it's worth when you can use an arrow, or just throw something.

Inside the Water Temple it feels even worse since that is where the ability is supposed to be showcased. I had so many splash fruit, and that was so much easier than remembering to talk to Sidon and waiting for his ability to reset. I think I only used his ability for the water spout wheels. Maybe a couple of times in the boss fight, but that felt more difficult than using the splash fruit, too.

My idea for improvement is a bit of a rework of the temple and a different ability. Sidon is shown to be able to manipulate water and currents, so his ability could be the ability to do just that. He could create a current that runs up or down a river (or through still water), the current could be a stream of water that rises up above the water, straight up or at an angle. That could be a method of travel in the temple. Instead of using those odd Zonai bubbles to travel it would be a Zora ability in the Zora temple. That would also give more of a reason to have more or larger bodies of water. You know. Having water in the Water Temple. And this is all without even considering adding some mechanic for going underwater, like is so common in Zelda games. But that is another option that would have fit so well.

I could see this temple being either in the sky or on/under ground. And this ability would be so useful outside of the temple. You could travel more easily in the water. You could use it to travel up into the air above water to get a boost up, and that could fill a little bit of the gap from the lack of Revali's Gale. It would be interesting, it would fit the character, it would be useful.

So that's five fishy points. That.. kind of got away from me, but it's been cycling through my head for a while now. And like I said at the beginning, all of these points feel fairly innocuous by themselves. It's just so many things that add up to the feeling that someone in the creators really didn't like Sidon. And that bothers me because I really like Sidon.

Despite this (not) small rant, I truly love the game and so many things about it. And the funny thing is, I don't think I would have gotten so worked up about it if I hadn't gotten the thought of some horrified high up Nintendo executive reading shark-dick porn stuck in my head. I still find that thought hilarious.

And with that, I'm off!

[jlhynde-insanitybrilliance]

UDLTTOM Worldbuilding rambles: UNFORGIVABLE CURSES—Why are the so unforgivable?

This is a thought that’s been bouncing around in my head for awhile. (It’s going to be a little rambling.) You know that saying that a person dies twice, first when they die, and second when the last time someone says their name. Well, this thought is sort of a mix of that and some sort of personal philosophical views on death that I have. I’ve reasoned to myself that there are 3 different sides to death, not just two. Essentially, when I think of death, I separate it into the following 3 parts:

Death of the Body: The most visceral and visible of the three, it’s the physical process of the body wearing out and shutting down. It’s a disconnecting from one’s own flesh, an inability to do what you once could, aches and pains, paralysis, etc.

Death of the Mind: Not as noticeable as the body shutting down, but the mind also shuts downs during death slurred speech, loss of awareness/memories, in ability to distinguish reality from disillusions, etc.

Death of the Soul/Spirit/Will-to-Live: Most common example of this I can think of is chronic depression or someone suffering through extreme, physical, emotional, or psychological trauma. Essentially it’s someone who’s given up on life spiritually, but might still mentally and physically still be able to function.

Over the last year, I’ve been thinking a lot about these 3 facets of death. I’ve watched my mother go through them as she battles terminal cancer. And I guess maybe I had a sort of epiphany when I started thinking about this in relation to the Unforgivables in HP.

Why are they so unforgivable?

At the surface level they seem like kind of basic spells, right? The killing curse kills, the torture curse causes pain, the mind control curse controls peoples’ minds, yada… And I think most people agree that killing, torturing, and controlling people is morally reprehensible and just on that context alone we as the reader can understand why they are illegal. But then you see other spells or potions that kill, and torture, and control people and you wonder why these sort of spells aren’t treated with the same severity as the Unforgivables.

So why? I asked myself: What makes the Unforgivables so Unforgivable? And then I thought about Neville’s parents and the after effects of the Cruciatus and how they had to be held in St. Mungos for the rest of their lives. On the surface my first assumption was that they were obviously driven to madness from the hours of torture, and suffering from severe PTSD, paranoia, etc. But what if the cruciatus has physical symptoms? What if the reason Neville’s parents had to be kept in a wizard equivalent to a psychiatric ward was not only because the trauma but because the spell altered something fundamentally about their bodies in relation to pain?

Which brings me to my first theory. That the cruciatus curse’s intention is not to cause pain. I propose that, in fact, it does the exact opposite under long durations. Cause think about it, the body can only handle so much pain before a person goes into shock or passes out, right? And a person’s tolerance to pain can also increase with repeated exposure to it. So following that logic, I think the cruciatus curse would only hurt for like a few minutes at most before the body would go into shock. And once the body is in shock I think something funny would happen with the pain and pleasure centers in the brain (I’m no neurologist btw, but what little I know of this sounds plausible to me) that the wires could get crossed and the body would start associating pain for pleasure. And afterwards I feel like when your nerves get fried in a fire and it creates a numbness in the body, a detachment from one’s own flesh that can only be relieved by experiencing intense pain. Except the person doesn’t actually associate the pain as being painful, but with pleasure and so they develop a compulsion for self-harm and self-mutilation. Which adds such a horrific context on to this curse. Because this compulsion is incurable. The brain has been irreversible rewired to associate pain in this way, so either you go through life being physically numb unable to feel your own body or chasing some kind of feeling through torturing yourself.

And jumping off of this thought, I then considered if the cruciatus disconnects you from your body, the Imperius curse has to disconnect you from your mind, right? I think you have some sort of awareness when you’re under the imperius to be able to resist it. But again maybe that’s only for the particularly resilient wizards? It makes sense to me that for most it would be like a total blackout, dissociative state. So prolonged exposure I think would not only effect short and long term memory, but also a persons ability to be fully present in their day to day life. I think of the after effects being similar to a dissociative disorder where the person is constantly being disconnected from their own conscious reality.

And finally there’s the Killing curse, which rips the soul from the body causing the person to just drop dead. And obviously because the person dies there’s no real after effect, right? But then I remember that scene with Slughorn and TMR discussing horcruxes:

TMR: And how does one split his soul, sir?

Slughorn: I think you already know the answer to that, Tom.

TMR: Murder.

Slughorn: Yes. Killing rips the soul apart. It’s a violation against nature.

Which my first thought seeing this scene is that if Slughorn thinks killing is a violation against nature, he’s clearly never watched a nature documentary. I mean if Casual Geographic has taught me anything is that the animal kingdom is naturally violent and the kind of shit animals get up to in their spare time is what would put any human in prison on a life sentence, but I digress. So I had to think about this from a different perspective. So then I think about what the purpose of Horcruxes is, to split the soul and place it into object and tether yourself to the physical world. And what curse do we know that severs the soul?

The killing curse. Slughorn says killing rips the soul. But I think Tom misinterprets this to mean murder, when the professors is in fact talking about the killing curse itself. And what we know from the Unforgivables is that you have to mean them to successfully cast them. So following that line of thought, in relation to LV’s horcruxes, Tom would’ve had to cast the killing curse on himself repeatedly. Which means that Tom Riddle had to have an incredible sense of self-loathing, and there had to be something—a personality trait or the like—that he despised so much that he wanted to kill it and cleave it from himself forever. Which in that context, suddenly Slughorn’s words make a bit more sense because suicide is going against that inate survival instinct that all animals have. And for Tom in particular, it squaring up and facing the one thing he is most afraid of (which might explain why it took him so long to make the first horcrux to begin with.)

And the degradation of Tom Riddle into Lord Voldemort as he makes more and more horcruxes is the effect of the killing curse & why it is so unforgivable.

I have so many thoughts on this topic of horcruxes & Tom’s deeply ingrained feelings of self-loathing, but I’ll probably save those for another post.

[neotrances]

i’m not even apart of punk subcultures but the disconnect or rather the difference between white punks and black ones is so blatant like yes punk is typically a leftist ideology but a lot of black punk politics is based in “black radicalism” and the recognition of race in regards to action, so then you’ll have characters like hobie that outright say they lead protest and fight fascist and feed the poor in their communities and ull have white punks or just white ppl in general either water down what he means / does or erase his blackness having an impact on his character, a easy facet to like discuss is him having freeform wicks, while obv not all ppl who get them r black radicals doing freeform with 4c hair is a pretty large part of pro black movements centered around celebrating black ppl, choosing to be freeform is actively choosing a to love and celebrate black beauty and not conform to white expectations, it’s saying “my hair is done and good” when ur called unprofessional or dirty for just keeping ur hair how it grows out of ur scalp and im already seeing nonblack artist make his hair looser or just straight entirely 😭 like his blackness (just like miles) is intrinsic to his character him being a BLACK punk is important, yall r forgetting the black part

[thatgirl4815]

I personally think none of the three pairings are in love love with each other the idea of said person is the primary draw for all of them. Ray wants someone to take care of him and give him the love and affection he lost via his mom dying and Sand fills that void he mothers him. Sand's savior complex has him wanting to be useful ergo he falls for someone who needs to be saved from themselves. The disconnect is ultimately Sand cannot save Ray because Ray doesn't see a problem in his behavior. Top is drawn to Mew's innocence and optimism and moments in which Mew fucks up he's quick to discredit it to Ray and himself not seeing Mew as flawed. Mew was interested in the fairytale trope of I can fix him with Top but is quick to dismiss any other facet of Top like his fire trauma and his drug addiction. Mew also just has no clue who he is. Nick is drawn to Boston because he's a free spirit sexually, verbally just 0 filter but ignores that Boston has boundaries within that he also deflects his own bad behavior with well you are filthy so i'm not so bad. Boston is drawn to Nick because he's the first person who genuinely sees him for more then just sex and he felt safe with but his trust in Nick's innocence is gone the moment he finds the wire tap.

The way each pairing is pulled to each other is very fascinating, because it does reflect a lot of what they crave most, in addition to the simplest want of just being loved honestly. For Mew, it's the satisfaction of having changed someone for the better; for Top, it’s a real chance at something serious; for Ray, it's being cared for and shown that he matters; for Sand, it’s having someone to care for; for Nick, it's finding someone who enjoys his company; for Boston, it's being cared for on an emotional level rather than a purely physical one.

…I realize I just pretty much reiterated your points, lol. But I really really like the thought of each character seeking something they are currently missing in their lives. For some characters, that's more obvious than others. But I think those desires were only the first step—I’d argue that we've moved into the "second stage" so to speak, where those initial attractions have been given much more depth. What might've drawn the characters together in the first place is still drawing them together now, but there are other emotions being built on top of it I believe most characters see their partner for more than what made them so desirable in the first place. And for some of them, that’s part of their conflict.

[procrastinatorproject]

I think I might have had a bit of a revalation this fine morning.

Last night, @horizonproblems and I attended this truly amazing talk in a public lecture series on Star Trek that my uni is hosting this term. (It was all about the Third Age of Star Trek and some very valid, nuanced perspectives on hope and optimism and writing utopias under neoliberal capitalism and it was just... amazing. But that's not the point right now XD)

Afterwards, we chatted with the presenter about "Trekademia" (I love that concept so much!). I mentioned I'd seen the call for papers/talks for this lecture series that went out over a year ago (I was working for the English dept. at the time), but I never applied, because the only remotely Trekademic writing I'd ever done was my in-universe essay on holo-sentience and holographic food "The Cake is a Lie". And he asked me to send him a link, even though I never managed to finish writing and it's essentially missing the most interesting section.

But I took the opportunity to reread what I have posted and then look through my WIPs and I realized something: One of the reasons I think I was never able to finish writing the findings section of this "paper" is because I had So Many Ideas that I wanted to weave in. So many little moments with the holos, so many character facets and worldbuilding snippets. And it doesn't work with the extremely academic tone I'm going for.

And after sleeping on it, it occurred to me: I can still post all the outtakes that don't make it into the actual paper! I can keep the tone and focus of that essay and cut out any extraneous bits that don't work in that fram -- and then post a separate work that's like... the researchers field notes or something, where I put aaaalll the little details that didn't make the cut of the official writing!

It will be in bullet points and disconnected and self-indulgent as all heck -- but I'm sure there will be at least a handful of people out there apart from me who would still enjoy that particular take on various holo-headcanons. And even if I'd only be writing it for me, that would still be allowed!

So, no promises that anything might happen, but I just wanted to put it out there as a reminder to myself, if nothing else. Being deeply attached to your ideas and self-indulgent bits of writing is allowed! And even if you need to cut them from the concrete story you're trying to tell because they hurt the pacing or structure or tone, that doesn't mean you have to completely abandon them. There are always ways to share your outtakes and additional notes, on AO3 or tumblr or Discord or whatever, and you're always allowed to share them. Even if nobody but yourself will get a kick out of them, you're still allowed!

(And chances are, somebody else will be interested in reading your rambling thoughts and delighted to find them, actually.)

[ilovebylersblog]

okay there used to be discourse regarding whether fitz or keefe puts sophie on pedestal. but the truth is- they both do. but its not their fault. It’s a natural human instinct to put someone you really like on a pedestal, especially when you are faced with a lot of trauma.

starting off with fitz- he is incredibly lonely. At the start of the series, his only friends appear to be keefe, and his own sister- biana. He has never been able to fully trust anyone or share everything with them. But then he meets Sophie, this girl who, over the series he fully trusts. He says it himself- she is the only one he trusts. His first REAL and true friend, that he shares his fears, worries, feelings to. Naturally fitz sees her as this amazing, wonderful girl.

Similarly for Keefe, so many people have let him down in his life that he has never been able to fully trust anyone. Then he meets sophie, someone he can open up to, someone who validates all of his emotions. someone he gets desperately attached to. you can’t help but viewing the person you like in a pedestal, your brain immediately attaches an extremely positive image to them.

Now fitz has been placed on a pedestal by practically everyone, Sophie and fitz both saw eachother on pedestals, but over time, and especially after they dated, they realized that their visions of eachother, and what dating eachother may be like was not real at all. Now fitz is quite ambitious, particularly because of this pressure placed on him to be the best, to be the leader, by his family. Naturally one facet of sophie’s life he admires, is her powerfulness. He adores the fact that they are cognates. He has over romanticized the fact that they are cognates. He wants them to be this powerful, beautiful, telepathic, wow, power couple. Which is understandable. But... they have an emotional disconnect. Particularly because Sophie....well... likes Keefe, and she trusts him more.

Now for sokeefe- sophie most definitely does not view Keefe in a pedestal, mostly because she saw him as just a friend for so long. Of course keefe may have romanticized what his relationship with sophie could be in the past. But in the most recent books, he has mostly given up on trying to make her like him. He just wants to be there for her, hes pushed aside his feelings for her. So now, he’s just glad to be with her. Keefe sees her in a pedestal to some extent, but not in the way that fitz does.  But i also think people are misplacing the difference. keefe does not see her in a pedestal per se, but it is more so that he has severe attachment issues, avoidant attachment LOL. he is super attached to sophie, like they are borderline codependent. anyways.

Now Keefe and Fitz both see sophie on somewhat a pedestal,it’s not their fault. and no. it is not the healthiest, but its a result of their trauma. Both of them have been betrayed, are lonely, have self - esteem issues, and a number of other things wrong. OF COURSE they are gonna see this beautiful kind amazing girl who finally makes them feel special, on a pedestal. Sophie has made both of them feel seen, for once in their lives. Now sophie broke fitz’s heart, by liking keefe this whole time, so I definitely don’t think fitz will see her on a pedestal anymore, which is a good things. Now their friendhsip can truly rebuild. As for keefe, i dont think he sees her on as much of a pedestal as fitz, but... he still does to some extent, only therapy and working on his self esteem issues can save him from that at this point. 

[emeraldspiral]

Top 10 Invader Zim Characters Besides Tak, Skoodge, and Zib Who Should've Made a Comeback in No Particular Order:

#1 Ultra Peepi

There's like a million Godzilla movies + giant robot anime to draw inspiration from for a sequel. We saw at the end of Hamstergeddon that Peepi crash landed back on earth somewhere. So he could be in hiding, burrowed underground, or he could've mutated further and grown gills to hide deep in the ocean. Just invent another monster so there's an excuse to go and awaken Peepi to fight it and make the concept as stupid as you want. The show even already established that a giant Santa monster revisits the planet annually, so the return of Ultra Peepi could double as a sequel to the Most Horrible Xmas Ever. Give me Ultra Peepi King of the Monsters.

#2 Iggins

A big issue with Gaz is that being apathetic and wanting nothing to do with Zim or the paranormal as core facets of her character makes it difficult to create interesting storylines for her. So she mostly ends up just existing to be someone Dib delivers exposition to and to make snide remarks at his expense. GameSlave 2 worked really well for her because there was actually something for her to care about and you got to see how Not So Above It All she is compared to Zim and Dib when it comes to the few things she's passionate about. So it seems like if you want to do more episodes centered around Gaz it'd be a good idea to bring Iggins back as a recurring thorn in her side. Maybe it starts off with her not taking him seriously and beating him without much effort, so she can still see herself as not being like her brother. But then Iggins starts to really get under her skin and she feels like she has to teach him a lesson, but he just never learns. Like Zim, Iggins is too egotistical and overconfident to admit defeat, and it starts to drive Gaz crazy after awhile and eventually she becomes just as obsessed as her brother with trying to beat him and prove once and for all that he sucks.

#3 Service Drone Bob

I would love an episode about him fleeing the empire after they attempted to kill him and joining the Resisty. Actually, what would really be funny is if they did the concept I came up with where they do a Resisty story, but troll the audience by only showing them little slivers of what sounds like a really exciting story as cutaways from a silly, inconsequential no-stakes story completely disconnected from it. But like, in those brief glimpses, you'd get just enough references to what's happened off-screen to form an impression of this whole Zuko-esque character arc that Bob's been through of having his eyes opened and unlearning Irken propaganda and being at war with himself before finally deciding to join the Resisty and then having to win their trust and establishing deep bonds with the rest of the group. And then it all ends with one cutaway indicating that they're about to go into the final all-or-nothing battle and then the last cutaway reveals that everyone died and their actions made no impact on the status quo and will never connect back to Zim in any way.

#4 Chammy Wamboo

I think there was a lot of missed potential with Chammy's first appearance. It's hinted that she has actual supernatural abilities, which makes her vaguely unsettling, but the story didn't really go anywhere with it. I think a good way to bring her back would be if she just appeared with no explanation and started harassing Zim and Dib again but this time it seems like it's actually working and it's freaking them out. Eventually, they figure out that Chammy got back to earth by using her powers to brainwash everyone in her path into being her friends and cooperating to help her get home. Now that she's back she's not going to try to reason with Zim and Dib anymore, she's going to make them be friends whether they like it or not. So it's no longer even a question of whether Chammy's just wrong about their relationship or if Zim and Dib are just being stupid, stubborn idiots who can't see that their lives actually would be better if they became friends. The issue now is that their free will is being violated and she's treating real people like dolls she can mash together and make kissy-noises with.

#5 Invader Tenn

I think a lot of Tenn's popularity is owed to her being one of very few female Irken characters and one whose brief appearance in Megadoomer gave rise to a lot of speculation about what might've happened to her next. The earliest versions of the fake fanon Invader Dib storyline involved an attempt to rescue Tenn from the Meekrob, but I kinda like the idea of her ending up in Moo-Ping 10 and teaming up with Tak to escape. Really though, there's an infinite number of possibilities for whatever happened to Tenn after Megadoomer. Was she left for dead? Did the Tallest blame her for failing her mission even though it wasn't her fault and banish her to a place like Dirt or Foodcourtia as punishment? Did she ever find out Zim blew up her Megadoomer?

#6 Zorphic aka "Madness"

The dog that terrifies Zim turning out to be an alien was such a good twist and I wish we could've seen him make good on his promise to get revenge on Zim for his betrayal. I think he has an interesting personality that sets him apart from a lot of the Zim cast but we never got to see what he's like in retribution mode.

#7 Bill

Outside of Career Day I think we only see Bill once more briefly in Chickenfoot and then again in the Lil Meat Man story, where I don't remember him really doing any of his usual schtick of wasting Dib's time and making his field of expertise look bad, they just kinda drive around together trying to catch Zim but always getting to where he's been after he's already left. I think there could've been some more funny episodes with Bill stepping on Dib's toes. Like Dib needs to follow Zim into a location but Bill is blocking him because he thinks there's a real monster in there and Dib's trying to convince him that it's just a cereal mascot and the real threat is Zim. Or Dib and Bill are investigating the same phenomenon but they disagree about what's causing it. What it actually is is plainly obvious to Dib, but people either believe Bill instead because some poorly timed coincidences make Bill's theory look right, or they just buy into his absurd leaps of logic because they think the complexity of the theory makes it more well thought-out than Dib's simpler, more straightforward explanation. Basically Bill is like a YouTube pop culture theorist making garbage arguments and Dib is the person making debunking videos that unpack all the logical fallacies, glaring omissions, and outright lies used to support his flimsy thesis that ignores what's overtly communicated by the text.

#8 Dwicky

I feel like there's a bit more mileage that could've been gotten out of getting Dib's hopes up and teaching him a harsh lesson by having Dwicky repeatedly promise to help him, only to flake out, until Dib finally realizes that just because he's an adult and he believes him doesn't make him reliable or a worthwhile ally.

#9 Membrane's parents

We only see them briefly in the comics but I really want to know more about Dib and Gaz's grandparents and what relationship they have with them. Are they even still alive? Do they visit ever? Membrane apparently chooses to believe in Santa because he can't bear to think his parents would give him socks for Xmas, so he must otherwise have positive feelings toward them which makes the disappointment of getting socks feel too contradictory to his perception of them to reconcile with. But then again, Dib and Gaz seem to be pretty fond of Membrane, but as outsiders the audience can see that he's a terrible parent and hope that when they get to be teenagers they'll start to realize it. I just feel like if we got to know more about their grandparents we could understand better why Membrane is such a bad father. And who doesn't love a good story about unpacking generational trauma?

#10 Snarl Beast

It's a fucking crime this space cat didn't become a regular cast member. Like I've said before, Snarl could've been like Dib's GIR. An adorable-on-the-outside-but-actually-horrifying little creature who fucks things up for Dib more than he helps, but Dib would never dream of parting with it, and Hot Topic could print money off of it.

[brucenorris007]

@generic-sonic-fan

If you’re writing Sonic, a character with so many iterations and variants across comics, anime, cartoons and games as to rival and even surpass some mainstream superheroes, his motivations are perhaps the most reliable facet to keep in mind as a near-constant. Said motivations, in order of how he prioritizes them, read as:

1. Doing what is Cool

2. Being a Friend

These two are the mainstays and always juuuuuust neck in neck, occasionally switching places depending on the circumstances and which moment in Sonic’s storied career you’re working with. And finally

3. Being the Hero/good guy

Which is such a distant third to the first two that it probably isn’t actually what he ranks third in terms of motivations, if you see what I mean.

The exception is Fleetway, who, on appearance, puts Being the hero 2nd instead of 3rd.

Granted that’s just how it appears; it’s more about his ego and that he likes having that reputation. In a crisis that makes the mortality of his friends Too Real and Apparent to him, his true feelings shine through. He’s not nice, but he very obviously cares immensely about their safety. That’s actually a significant, if not the primary, facet of his character arc.

ANYWAY, you can pretty consistently grab most any Sonic from any point in his history and those motivations will fit him pretty well. The reason Being a Hero rates lower than Doing what is Cool despite Sonic’s status as Mobius’ hero is due to his priorities and self-image. He identifies as just Some Guy, not a Hero with a job to do; that he does heroic things is almost incidental. By his own definition, smashing robots, adventuring, stopping bullies, protecting his friends and saving people are Cool; his definition of what Cool means just happens to coincide with most of Mobius’ image of a hero. But he doesn’t follow any kind of black and white moral compass. He does what HE believes is right in any given situation.

Note that this list is comprised of his motivations, which are separate from his priorities, ideals and personality. The list informs his actions, they don’t dictate them. It’s hard to say that any one or even three things dictate what Sonic will do, because he’s all about freedom; his self-image as Some Guy provides him that freedom.

Freedom from things like Duty or Fate. Not that Sonic’s necessarily irresponsible, but he doesn’t fight Eggman or any of the rest of his rogues out of some belief that he’s the only one who can or some love of justice. Stomping bad guys is cool, ergo, Sonic is cool. If he’s a hero because of that, hey, all right. If not, he’s probably not gonna lose sleep over it, barring any instances of people getting hurt as a direct consequence of his actions. Even then, he’s the fastest thing alive, he can course-correct and sort things out in time for chili dogs.

Again, Fleetway is an exception with regard to Fleetway Super Sonic, but as he’s treated as both a unique character and as Sonic’s chaos-induced alter-ego, that falls somewhat more under accountability than responsibility. I love both characters, but Sonic is not Spider-man.

And this is why, when writing Sonic, if you try to knock Doing what is Cool down from top of the list or at least neck-in-neck for number 1 of his motivations, you start to run into a disconnect, particularly if you try putting Being the Hero in the number 1 slot.

So much of what makes Sonic Sonic stems from his confidence, his attitude, his initially inflated and gradually more mellow ego that lets him identify as not just Some Guy but the Coolest Some Guy ever. Like I’ve said, he doesn’t go around humiliating Eggman and decimating his machines and bases because he thinks no one else can, but because he wants to do it, because he thinks it’s cool and fun; though he does enjoy having a partner or two working with him, or even making a party out of a good throw down. It’s half the reason why you can-and in the 2000′s, SEGA more often than not did-toss him into any scenario for a story and he can carry it.

He doesn’t save people who are in trouble because it’s “right”, but because not saving them would be Lame.

[radkindoffeminist]

There's a social media influencer/political commentator that I follow on Instagram. She hates the Tories and I agree with her on 99% of things. But today she's put a 7 slide post up containing statistics showing transphobic crimes but with no context, the last slide just says Fuck Terfs, and half of her post is just going to town about feminists who don't include transwomen in their feminism.

It's just sooo disheartening. How can you profess to be a trans ally and yet send all your vitriol towards women who say biological sex matters actually, rather than the men committing these crimes? How can you put up statistics showing the rise in homophobic crimes at the same time as transphobic crimes and not see the potential link? As per usual, anyone who tries to point out that not agreeing with every facet of trans ideology doesn't make them hateful, gets piled on. I really think if people could post anonymously on Instagram, there'd be far more people willing to speak out against this nonsense. But as it stands, you just end up getting thrown to the wolves.

When will this nonsense end 🙄

Yeah, it fucking sucks. Especially when they put up the numbers with no context or comparatives to make it out like trans people are suffering so much. Like, the worst one is the people who put up that list of all the trans people who are murdered in a year as evidence that they’re so heavily victimised, but then when you work out the numbers you realise that trans people are murdered at lower rates. They simply ignore that fact because it doesn’t feed into their delusion of being the most victimised group ever.

It’s also just funny, though really sad, that people have this massive disconnect when it comes to trans people. Like, with every other movement we have evidence and historic stories. We have mothers who couldn’t leave abusive relationships, we have statistics on domestic violence, we have laws which prevented financial freedom. PoC struggle with police brutality and poverty, among a host of other issues. Trans people… don’t feel validated and believe that they’re targeted for being trans and that’s enough evidence to make them the most oppressed people ever? Oh, and let’s not forget how much it feeds into then ignoring women’s issues and silencing them.

[dinoburger]

I've had these conversations with people where they've asked me to funnel my sense of activism into a story, and it's like... of course my beliefs and my identity colour my work, but I think what I'm really being asked is that I take reality and make it into something easy to understand and individualistic. If I take someone else's life and culture and make my voice the center, or write their stories for them, it bypasses any authentic exchange that could be shared.

I don't think a lot of us know how to approach that, we just want to write ourselves back in as a disconnected audience member, we don't know how to discard that individualistic desire and strengthen a broader sense of intercultural connection.

What are we really doing by enforcing that?

A lot of media is designed to put us in the center and tell us stories that appeal to our western sensibilities. By never challenging that, we carry that around and it colours our ability to connect with work and culture that doesn't center us.

It also means having to develop a sense of self that extends beyond that, by confronting our place in the world, but also having to put more thought into our own heritage and cultures.

It sounds complicated but in practice it's exceedingly simple. Art is never one static thing, it's multi-utility.

I think the problem is, it's easy to get hung up on the facets of it that are easiest for us to engage with and make that a pivotal part of ourselves, which we need to vigilantly defend from criticism.

Art doesn't have to be one person's story, or everyone's story, but a piece in an ongoing story. We don't have to condense it down into that.

All you need to do is look and be curious and be open.