#more of a textual analysis here but

[thedevilsrain]

the series would become much more low key as it went on and became more and more serious spy action, but as silly as they were i truly miss the grandeur and dare i say camp of the first few eroica chapters, so heres some panels i like that i feel capture that essence

[tofufei]

somebody needs to write a meta on bodies in lhjc

[ineffable-romantics]

Some thoughts on why and how I believe Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship would incorporate sex/why I do not read them as wholly asexual:

This is something I've seen the most discourse about in this fandom, and I've had a few thoughts of my own that I really wanted to expand upon in a full meta/character analysis post. I do understand that this can be a contentious topic, so first, let me clarify a few things:

First of all, this is going to be long. Tbh it probably won't be that organized either. I ramble and I'm not very good at editing, so just... you know. Be warned. (*Hi, it's me from 2 days after writing this; I'm really not kidding, it's LONG)

These are all my own thoughts. They might not be hot takes, because recently I've seen more than a few people come to the same conclusions on a lot of these points as I have. But I've also had these notes in my drafts for about a week and a half now, and have been continuously adding to it as things have occurred to me. This post is essentially just somewhere for me to collect the separate but related meta I've been kicking around in my head.

I fully respect anyone who does see and prefer an asexual reading of this relationship. These are my own thoughts and interpretations as someone who is not asexual. I am in the LGBT+ community, so while I do know a few things about the asexuality spectrum, I am by no means an expert.

This is NOT something I expect, need, or even necessarily want the show (or, God forbid, Neil's tumblr ask box) to address. Tonally, it's just not that kind of show. Newt and Anathema's sex scene was very much played for laughs, and it worked for that reason. If the show found a way to address it in a way that was both appropriate for the tone of the show and ultimately satisfying, then great! But there is so much more to this relationship than sex, and I didn't need a kiss to confirm their love, so I certainly don't need a sex scene. As immortal beings (as I assume they'll stay) there is so much of the rest of their lives we'll never get to see. You can headcanon them as asexual and potentially be right. I can headcanon them as not and be equally potentially right. Again, these are just a collection of my own thoughts, because I think the question of sexuality (or lack thereof) is just as interesting a facet of these characters as any other.

Note: Tbh I've been second-guessing this whole post and debated deleting the whole thing several times for being silly or unnecessary, bc I don't want anyone to think that this is the only thing I care about when it comes to this story/characters. But if nothing else, it's inspired me to write in a way that nothing has in a very long time, so I've decided it's worth continuing, if for no other reason than that.

This is going to be a mixed bag of textual reading, subtextual reading, and a full-on reach or two. It's been a while since I've been in an English class, but if my teachers expected me to find a deeper meaning behind blue curtains, you can expect me to read too deeply into the symbolism of a loaded rifle or an ox rib. (This is probably not what my professors had in mind when grading my literary analysis papers but oh well) My point is, if it feels like a reach, I'm as aware of it as you are. I am in no way saying that all (or even any) of my points made were deliberate on the part of Neil or the actors or the writers or the directors. I am no longer the delulu Apple Tree Yard child of my youth, I promise.

If anything said here is in any way offensive or hurtful to anyone in the asexual community, please do not hesitate to message me or comment and let me know exactly what it was. I promise you it is not my intention to do so, and am happy to clarify or outright edit anything that reads that way.

With all that being said, let's talk about why I think Crowley and Aziraphale would absolutely fuck nasty incorporate sex into their relationship.

Note: I am out of practice with essay writing, so I think I'll just go down the bullet points of notes I have been making, and expand on each as best I can

Food

Where better to start than with Aziraphale's introduction to Pleasures Of The Flesh? (Just a heads up, this entire post may feel very Aziraphale-heavy, and with good reason).

This might be the least hot take here. We've all seen the Job minisode. We've all seen That Scene.

Whether this was intentional or not, the symbolism here is off the charts. Eve was tempted by an apple. So why not go a similar route and tempt Aziraphale with another fruit, or cheese, or bread, or literally anything else for his first experience with food? Instead, we go with a huge, glistening slab of fresh meat that he proceeds to absolutely go feral upon, moaning and gasping into his meal while Crowley watches with what definitely doesn't look to be disgust or even satisfaction with a good temptation. There's surprise at the ferocity of Aziraphale's appetite, certainly. But ultimately he looks to be intensely fascinated by it, while the thunder crashes, the music crescendos, and the earth literally shakes around them.

(It's also interesting to note how very little it takes for Crowley to tempt him with the ox rib. One murmured suggestion, a bit of unwavering eye contact, and vavoom Aziraphale immediately meets him in the middle.)

Cut to Aziraphale devouring the rest of the meat with Crowley splayed back on a makeshift bed, drinking wine and continuing to watch him indulge through half-lidded eyes. Outside a thunderstorm rages while they're learning secrets about each other in warm flickering firelight. It's cosy, it's intimate, and if they'd thrown in a bearskin throw blanket, it might as well be a post-coital scene straight out of Game of Thrones.

The next time (chronologically) we see them discuss food is when Aziraphale "tempts" Crowley with oysters in Rome. So Crowley first tempts Aziraphale with meat and then Aziraphale tempts Crowley with what is widely regarded to be an aphrodisiac. Interesting.

And then chronologically after that, the Arrangement begins to form, which has always reeked of a friends with benefits situation. Just to throw that in there.

It's What Humans Do

In the very first episode, we're shown Gabriel's obvious disgust and bewilderment towards Aziraphale eating sushi, calling it "gross matter" and being proud of the fact that he does not sully his body with it. Aziraphale initially tries to defend his own enjoyment in it, before passing it off as something that humans do, as something he simply has to do in order to blend in (which we know very well is not the case).

He does this again in season 2, passing off Nina and Maggie being in love as "something humans do". But it isn't, is it? Angels are beings of love, and can sense it, and understand very well what it is... up to a point. Even romantic love is obviously within their wheelhouse, given what we now know happened between Gabriel and Beelzebub (we'll come back to them).

What the "humans do" that angels wouldn't understand is messy, physical forms of love.

But here's the thing: Aziraphale and Crowley love doing what the humans do. They love drinking, they (or at least Aziraphale) love eating. They love music. Crowley loves driving and sleeping and watching rom-coms and sitcoms. Aziraphale loves reading and doing magic and earning little licenses and certificates for achievement in his various hobbies. They love to playact at being human so much that they've stopped playacting and started building a genuinely human lifestyle for themselves and with each other.

Once together in an unambiguously romantic sense, why do we think they wouldn't also want to explore one of the most prominent, intimate, powerful human expressions of love and desire with each other?

Angels, Demons, & Asexuality

Here's where I really want to clarify that in no way do I mean that sex is necessary for a healthy, fulfilling, and loving romantic relationship, or that the lack of desire for sex makes you any less human. Asexuality is a sexuality as valid and human as any. What I would say is that it is definitely in the human minority compared to allosexuality.

Angels and demons, on the other hand, are predominately asexual. Sexless/genderless unless Making An Effort. (Which, btw, is a concept introduced as early as the original book; why even bring it up as a possibility? Why not keep angels/demons being sexless/asexual as a hard and fast rule, if not to open up the potential for later use? Chekhov's Effort, if you will. And isn't that something that Aziraphale in particular is shown to do time and time again? He makes an effort in French and driving and magic, doesn't he?)

And this is why I don't believe Aziraphale and Crowley necessarily need to be asexual, narratively. There is already a huge amount of ace rep within the angels and demons (and no, not just the horrible ones. Muriel also doesn't "drink the tea" and has no reason or desire thus far to Make An Effort, and there are certainly other angels and demons who aren't horrible like the archangels seem to be who likely wouldn't Make An Effort either).

The central conflict for Aziraphale and Crowley is that they are on their own side, the ones who went native, the ones who are so different in so many ways from their respective hives. It would make sense for them to also break away from traditional angel/demon asexuality.

I say "traditional angel/demon asexuality", because I would also like to note that I would absolutely not rule out demisexuality for either of them. This post is being written to as a response to people who specifically believe that they (like the rest of the angels/demons seem to be) would be sex-averse in a relationship, and that it wouldn't be a factor in their relationship. I could easily read them as demisexual, but I do think there would be no real way of verifying this, because they've never been able to form as close an emotional relationship with anyone else but each other. Certainly not in heaven, and I can't imagine they would be able to form that kind of attachment with any of the humans, who they love and emulate but ultimately regard as the separate species they are. So yes, they could either be allosexual or demisexual, in my opinion.

Then again, now that I think about it, Making An Effort itself could be a great metaphor for demisexuality, since they would be entirely sexless/asexual until they have enough of an emotional connection with someone to consciously manifest otherwise. Since the other angels and demons don't generally form those types of emotional connections with anyone, there hasn't been a precedent for it.

Except...

Brielzebub

We do have a precedent for it now, don't we? Gabriel and Beelzebub fell in love. They are a direct foil for Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship, speedrunning right through their courtship and finding their happily ever after on the other side of things.

For being such a 1 to 1 comparison, it feels deliberate that they did not kiss. They held hands, they were gooey with each other, but they did not kiss. That feels like such a deliberate thing to omit when you know what's to come at the end of the episode between Crowley and Aziraphale.

And going back to the food = sex metaphor for a moment, let's notice how even as they fell in love over the years, even when pints and crisps were there on the table in front of them, they never felt the desire to reach out for them. They didn't need to. It's a date (love story) even if you aren't eating dinner (sleeping together).

Yes, I know Jim liked hot chocolate. No, I am not counting it because I don't consider Jim and Gabriel to be the same person with the same proclivities, and Jim was highly suggestible at the time anyway.

Gabriel and Brielzebub's big happily ever after moment (as of now) was one between two asexual supernatural beings. They did not need to kiss to drive the point home. They showed what Crowley and Aziraphale could have, if they would only acknowledge it.

Crowley & Aziraphale's Dissatisfaction

But they do have that already, don't they? If you really think about it, what do Gabriel and Beelzebub do with each other that Crowley and Aziraphale don't already? They hold hands, they spend time together, they create little rituals, they give gifts, they're visibly and verbally affectionate with each other, etc. They are more or less already in a romantic asexual marriage relationship with each other, aren't they?

And it doesn't seem to be enough for either of them.

At the beginning of the season, Crowley is immediately shown to be unsatisfied with the way things are. Obviously part of it comes from living in his car, but it seems to be more than that (especially since Aziraphale makes it clear that the bookshop is just as much Crowley's as his, implying that he could have been living there the whole time and is choosing not to, for some reason?). You could argue he's feeling unmoored without Hell telling him what to do, but isn't that what he wanted? Isn't that what he still wants, by the end of the season? All season long, he's never indicated the desire for a new job, or a new project. He stopped the apocalypse because he wanted the freedom to openly spend time with Aziraphale, to spend his time on Earth however he sees fit. Until Gabriel arrives, he has exactly that (minus a flat).

So where does the dissatisfaction come from? And if it represents anything to do with his relationship, what does he want out of it that he isn't getting already?

I think Crowley only really comes to the realisation of what he's missing when Nina names it for him, not only putting them in the category of romantic, but physical (outright asking if they are sleeping together). These two posts [1], [2] go into more detail about what I mean, but I think it really pushes him into acknowledging that their relationship is more human than either of them have stopped to consider, and what that might mean as far as everything a human relationship can entail.

After all, Nina and Maggie only advised that he should talk to Aziraphale, make clear his feelings. The decision to kiss him, to tip them over the edge from nonphysical to physical, that was all him. And no, kissing isn't sex, but I wonder how taboo even that might be in the kind of all-encompassing asexuality most angels seem to identify with. (If they're disgusted by food and drink, I can only imagine what they think of snogging, much less sex.)

Aziraphale doesn't have this moment of someone observing their relationship from the outside. He loves Crowley, and as of 1941 probably even knows he's in love with him in a way that Crowley doesn't understand yet. Which makes sense, since love is technically his job, he'd be more likely to recognise it for what it is.

However, Aziraphale's reference for romance and relationships is Jane Austen. It's chaste. It's dancing and dinner and doing sweet things for each other and roses and candles and handholding. He contextualises his love for Crowley in that soft fantasy sort of way, where it's there, it's obviously there, but it's neat and easy and unspoken. Not to quote Glee in this, the year of our lord 2023, but it's all very "the touch of the fingertips is as sexy as it gets".

Someone should tell that to Aziraphale's face, then.

I'm not going to pretend I know what Michael Sheen's script notes were, but there were definitely some Choices™ made. Because yes, there were plenty of moments in both seasons with Aziraphale looking at Crowley in a sweet, loving, smitten way. And then there were moments that were yearning.

But yearning for what, exactly? All of those sappy Jane Austen tropes already apply to the two of them. So why are there moments where Aziraphale is looking Crowley up and down like the last eclair in the window and licking his lips and visibly exhaling like he's trying to get in control of himself (see: Bastille scene + Crowley telling Muriel to ask him if they have any other questions about love)? Why is Aziraphale not only unconcerned when Crowley shoves him bodily up against a wall in s1, but staring at his lips and a beat too late in noticing Sister Mary's arrival? Why are some of his lines so suggestive? I'm sorry, but the car ride after the church explosion might as well have been the beginning of a Pizza Man porn with a really weird Blitz theme. If even my mother picked up on that vibe, I can't imagine it wasn't intentional on part of both the dialogue and the delivery.

(This section may feel like more of a reach/joke, but I'm really only 20% joking. These are writers and actors who are EXTREMELY good at their jobs; they know what they were doing here.)

More importantly, I don't think Aziraphale is even aware that there is more to what he wants. He lives in the Jane Austen fantasy and it never even occurs to him that he might be interested in anything further. It never even occurs to him that, as an angel, there is anything further to be interested in in the first place. Until Crowley forces it to occur to him. Just like I believe Nina forced Crowley to confront the idea that romantic love is what he's been feeling all along, I believe Crowley forced Aziraphale to confront the idea that physical intimacy is something he's been wanting, without even realising.

Aziraphale's Hedonism

Expanding on Aziraphale for a moment. We talked about his relationship with food, but we all know that Aziraphale is defined by his love of things that Feel Good.

It isn't just that he and Crowley love human things. Aziraphale loves the best of the best, or at least his version of it. He doesn't just love food, he loves going to fancy restaurants. He doesn't just love clothes, he loves soft, cosy, warm, plush clothes, or shiny, flashy, bougie fashion. He loves the warmth of tea and cocoa, loves getting drunk, and sitting in a comfy chair in the sunlight. He doesn't just experience, he indulges.

Given the emphasis put on things that Aziraphale loves just because they Feel Good, it feels narratively strange to assume that he wouldn't enjoy the feeling of being touched, or that he wouldn't be willing to try it, at least once, with someone he cared very deeply for. And just like the ox rib, I think that once he gets the first taste of things, he would absolutely tip over into complete and utter self-indulgence.

Dancing

I also think that dancing could be construed as a huge metaphor here. After all, we're told flat-out that angels don't Dance. Except one.

I would argue that Aziraphale, in fact, Made An Effort to learn how to Dance. He threw himself into the gavotte with delight (at a Victorian gay club; noted) and worked hard to be good at it. He's chomping at the bit to Dance with Crowley, working up the nerve to ask him with undeniably romantic intent and eagerness. So, angels don't Dance... unless they Make An Effort to do so.

We are told that demons, on the other hand, do Dance, but not well. Makes sense, since they're the ones who would want to encourage a deadly sin like lust, but have as little understanding of human love and physical intimacy as the angels. Crowley, however, is shown to be an excellent dancer at the ball, especially in his compatibility with Aziraphale.

(But Aziraphale WandaVisioned the ball so everyone knew how to dance! Yes, he did. However, the rest of the brainwashing doesn't seem to affect Crowley in any way, and they did actually live through the time period where this sort of dancing was a social norm; I'd be surprised if he never needed to learn. After all, the demons can't spell either, and Crowley is at least functionally literate, as far as we know.)

As of today, it's also been confirmed that when Aziraphale asked Crowley to dance, Crowley replied with "you don't dance." Not "WE don't dance". So going along with the metaphor, Crowley is just now discovering that Dancing is something Aziraphale is interested in at all, much less with him, and not denying that he himself is interested in Dancing. In his defense, I believe he was asleep for a few years while Aziraphale was learning the gavotte, so he wasn't exactly aware of Aziraphale's hot girl summer.

Love Languages

I want to expand on that; Crowley and Aziraphale's compatibility. Specifically in regards to their individual love languages.

We all know Crowley's love language is Acts of Service. I don't think there's any debate there. He loves it, Aziraphale loves it, they're both aware of it, we're all aware of it, God and Satan are aware of it, no surprise there.

You may disagree with me, but I believe Aziraphale's love language is Physical Touch, for a number of reasons. One of which being his aforementioned hedonism. Aziraphale likes things that Feel Good, remember? He likes soft clothes, and well-worn books. Neil himself has said that they like holding hands. And any time he is taken by surprise (Brielzebub getting together, the wave of love in Tadfield, etc.) what is the first thing he does? Reaches out for Crowley. He stops him with a hand to the chest in the pub. He leads him by the hand to the dance floor. He guides him by the waist in the graveyard. He reaches out during the entire Brielzebub scene, whether he can reach Crowley or not. Despite his own turmoil, he grasps at Crowley's back during the kiss.

The one time Crowley reaches out for him (not counting the kiss yet; we'll get there), he is aggressively pushed against a wall (by someone he loves and trusts) with a complete and utter lack of concern (and perhaps some interest, depending on how you read it).

And when he isn't reaching out for anyone, or there isn't anyone to reach out to? Well, he's wringing his own hands together, squeezing his own fingers, as if to find that physical comfort in himself.

So. With that theory in mind, we have Aziraphale (Physical Touch) + Crowley (Acts of Service). Throw in 6000+ years of deep love, cherished companionship, and forcibly repressed longing, and there is a very real potential of this combination resulting in fierce sexual compatibility. Where Aziraphale would want to touch and be touched, to indulge in physical pleasure with someone he adores, in the same the way he indulges in every other fine thing in his life. And where Crowley would want to indulge him in return, to give him everything he wants, and to take pleasure in Aziraphale's pleasure, in the same way he enjoys watching him take joy in food everything else.

So Aziraphale is an angel who is insecure about his own less-than-holy desires, who would want to treat Crowley like a luxury to be touched and cherished and adored. And Crowley is a demon who has, over the millennia, been unhappy about how they've been forced to deny even their friendship with each other, who would want Aziraphale to feel comfortable and safe and encouraged to indulge in earthly delights. That sounds like a stunning recipe for sexual compatibility to me.

"You said 'trust me'" / "And you did"

Just like the Job minisode, the Blitz is RIFE with symbolism (intentional or otherwise). This one will be quick, but I did want to touch on it because I thought it was interesting. Maybe I'm reaching at this point, but I'm assuming you read the tin.

First of all, Crowley not wanting to admit to never firing a gun before; comes off as someone who very much does not want to admit to their crush that they're a virgin ("You must have done this lots of times!" / "Umm.... yyyyyeah.")

(You could make the argument that Aziraphale having a firearms license and a Derringer in a hollowed-out book is symbolic of him not being a virgin while Crowley is. I disagree, for reasons I'll go into later, but it's a valid reading. However, I see it more like keeping a condom in your wallet; it's there in case you need it, but the opportunity has not yet risen no pun intended.)

More importantly, the theme of this entire minisode is trust. We already know they trust each other with their lives against the rest of Heaven, Hell, and the world. But specifically, this is about the importance of having complete trust in your partner in a charged, physically vulnerable, intimate moment, where the only danger is between the two of you.

Aziraphale needs to believe Crowley would never hurt him if he can help it. Crowley needs to trust Aziraphale's unwavering blind faith in him. Frankly, it all feels very symbolic of two people deeply in love losing their respective virginities with each other.

The trick is a success, and they share an intimate candlelit dinner in which they reaffirm their faith in each other. Aziraphale also begins to voice his agreement with Crowley, that maybe Heaven's rules shouldn't have to be as black and white as they are, and that there are benefits to... blurring the lines, shades of grey, wink wink (at which point even my mom was like, whoa guys, this is a family show).

Btw also: Can we all agree how much it looked like Crowley was getting ready to get a lapdance in that one scene? You know the one.

Also also: "Aim for my mouth"? Come on.

The Birds & The Bees

Now that I think of it, there's also something to be said for the fact that Crowley and Aziraphale are both obviously familiar with where babies come from (how they're made and how they're born) while the other angels aren't.

Something something Aziraphale and Crowley fundamentally understand sex and reproduction in a way the other angels (and probably demons) very much do not, nor have any desire to.

Probably not important. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

The Kiss™ & Religious Trauma

The Kiss. Where to even begin?

This has definitely been the hardest one to start, because there is so much going on here that I definitely won't be able to cover it all, and will certainly miss a few things here and there.

Aziraphale's reaction to the kiss afterwards is the most interesting to me. And I don't mean directly after, I don't mean the "I forgive you" part. I mean the way he touches his lips when Crowley is no longer in the room and he no longer needs to save face, when he is completely alone. Had it been directly after the kiss, it would have been rightfully read as horror, or disgust, a shield to discourage further action.

It's not. It isn't just a touch, it's a press. As desperate and angry and unexpected and imperfect as the kiss had been, Aziraphale is pressing it into himself, recreating the feeling as best he can. Beneath all the poor timing and shock and hurt from their fight and fallout, I think it's fair to say that it was something he enjoyed. Something he doesn't think he should enjoy, something that Feels Good that he only allows himself to indulge in when completely alone.

Remember, Aziraphale's idea of love is Jane Austen and gentleness and courtship and fantasy. If he'd ever even considered kissing an option, it might have been gentle pecks, cheek kisses, forehead kiss, hand kisses. Soft, safe, chaste affection.

Crowley's kiss turns all of that on its head. He introduces physical intimacy in a very real, very messy, very human way that I don't think Aziraphale ever even considered could apply to them. Considering what other angels are like and what they look down on, even Aziraphale's Jane Austen fantasies probably would have been considered taboo.

So for their first kiss to be rough and desperate and passionate in the way it was, of course he was confused and in shock. It was deeply physical, and as overwhelming and awful as it was in the moment, it Felt Good. Enough that he grasped at Crowley and kissed back, if only just for a moment, before stopping himself. Enough that he actively pressed it into his lips afterwards, in private, to remember.

I adore how Neil has decided to evolve these characters past the first book/season. More so in this season, Aziraphale and Crowley have both become such interesting allegories for queer people on either side of the spectrum of toxic religion. Aziraphale in particular obviously, because he is the side that so desperately wants to believe, to make a difference, and to unlearn all of the propaganda he's been fed over such a long time. Just like so much of organised religion, there is so much that he is told, time and time again, that he should not want, that he is silly or stupid or outright wrong for wanting. It reminds me so much of the severe Catholic guilt one might feel for wanting/engaging in sex for the first time, and the stigma of being queer layered on top of that.

What is so critical to Aziraphale's character is that he goes on wanting, and more than that, actively pursues. He was convinced to go up against Heaven and Hell and stop all of Armageddon because he wanted to go on listening to music and eating lunch and reading books and enjoying the simple company of the person he cares most deeply for, even if that person is supposed to be the enemy.

All this to say that if angels are as generally asexual/sex-averse as I believe them to be, narratively speaking, it would make sense for Aziraphale to be singular in that regard as well. Mirroring his first experience with food, it would make sense for Crowley to be the one to first introduce this new messy, physical, human dynamic between them, for Aziraphale to hesitate (obviously we are at the Hesitation phase at the moment), and then (eventually) for him to dive in wholeheartedly, to absolutely glut himself on this new thing that Feels Good. It would make sense for his character development to show him overcoming his metaphorical Catholic guilt and pursuing the sexual intimacy most (if not all) of the other angels would scorn.

(I can't help but remember that plot idea Neil described from the unwritten sequel, with Aziraphale in a hotel room trying to watch a full porno by way of the free 2-minute teaser clips so he wasn't technically sinning by paying for it. I so hope this is used in season 3, because gosh, I wonder why Aziraphale would suddenly be so interested in observing human physical intimacy after 6,000 years. Lonely and doing a little surreptitious research there, angel?)

Crowley, on the other hand, is the queer person who has broken free from his toxic religion. He prides himself on being his own person, on their his own side. He doesn't have the hang-ups Aziraphale does. He doesn't worry that he's going to be judged or cast aside for wanting things he's not supposed to. So it only makes sense for him to be the first one to suggest/initiate physical intimacy. It makes sense for him to be the one who "goes too fast" (another fantastic example of this dynamic beginning as early as s1; what is that conversation in the car meant to represent, if not Aziraphale being overwhelmed by the intensity of their relationship, and his fear of succumbing to it when he believes he shouldn't? It's also interesting that this is the first conversation to take place in Soho, just after watching Aziraphale realise he's caught feelings for a demon, with the red glow of lust serving as the backdrop).

Do I think the kiss in and of itself was sexual? No. I think it was a passionate and devastating last-ditch effort on Crowley's part to convey the way he feels for Aziraphale. Not just that he loves him, but that he loves him in the most human way possible. But I do think that the kiss represents how they can move forward from here, and what they might want to explore with each other once they feel free enough to do so.

In Conclusion

I am sure, deep in my bones (unless we are explicitly told otherwise), that this was both of their first kisses no, I'm not counting the gavotte, and that neither of them have ever thought to do anything else physical with the humans while they have been on Earth. Like I said before, they adore the human race and lifestyle in general, but ultimately view them as a separate species altogether, and they seem mostly happy to keep to themselves and each other, unless otherwise necessary. I just can't see either of them being drawn enough to a human to pursue anything close to sex. If Crowley in particular has had anything to do with sex in the context of temptations, I'm positive he would be inciting lust amongst the humans themselves, not involving himself directly. At least not that directly.

So, like every other human experience they've had on Earth, sex is something new that they could explore together, just the two of them, on their own side. A deeply intimate, tangible declaration of their love and everything they've gone through to earn it. A visceral finger to give both Heaven and Hell. A renewed appreciation for their corporations and for each other's. A enjoyable method for immortal beings to simply pass the time in each other's company. A new and exciting way to Feel Good, and all the variations that come with it.

You might agree with this post, or you might not. Whether this is something that is ever addressed or not, it doesn't matter to me. This is a brilliant love story either way, and I genuinely feel so privileged to witness it.

But I just can't find it in myself to imagine, given everything we know about these two characters, that sex isn't an experience they would both consume with wholehearted enthusiasm, curiosity, and profound, ineffable adoration.

___________________________________

Bonus feature: the very silly notes I made to myself that inspired this post

[utilitycaster]

Here's the thing about projecting your personal experiences onto a story. It's extremely normal. People do it all the time. It's part of being alive and human. If that's the primary way you wish to interact with fiction then you can and I cannot promise no one will physically stop you but I certainly won't. We've all decided that a pop song is about our lives (or about our blorbo's lives) and I am no exception.

However, your projection is not textual. It is your personal experience. Your personal experiences inform your understanding and taste, but they are not the canon of a fictional work.

It's sort of the generalized version of this post. You can ship whatever the fuck you want - follow your heart or your dick or whatever you ship with - but some things have explicit textual support within the narrative, and some things do not. This is also true of other interpretations. Many intrerpretations can be valid. Multiple conflicting interpretations can be valid. But some are not. Some have zero textual evidence.

When, for example, I say that people are projecting their trauma on a narrative, that doesn't mean their trauma isn't valid, nor does it mean I think they're morally wrong for doing that (nor, if I did think they were wrong for doing that, should that matter, as I am not The Arbiter Of How To Experience Fiction). It does however mean that I do not think they are reading the text with an eye towards what is actually happening, but rather what appeals to them based on personal experiences that are not necessarily pulled from the text, and therefore their feelings are valid but their analysis, decoupled from that, is more likely than not absolute dogshit. And people are similarly allowed to have dogshit analysis; no one is physically stopping you. People are just saying "wow your analysis was bad," because they think it was. There is no identity or personal history that permits you to cut the line and have The Only Correct Opinion On A Work That Is Above Reproach.

[artbyblastweave]

I think about Star Wars a lot more than I post about Star Wars, and I've had some free time recently to type up some thoughts on Episode 7 that've been swirling around in my head for a couple of years. There were a few ideas and plot beats, and moments of apparent self-examination in Episode 7 which I thought were fairly compelling, even though they ultimately paid no dividends:

First was Finn’s character concept. “Star Wars as experienced from the perspective of a Stormtrooper undergoing a crisis of faith” is a rich hook; humanizing and giving a face to what's basically the platonic implementation of the faceless mook. Unfortunately, the potency of the arc was undercut by the pre-existing textual ambiguity as to what stormtroopers actually are. Star Wars extended canon has settled on the idea that each trilogy features an entirely novel cohort of white-clad mooks, each with a fundamentally different underlying dynamic. The clones and the First-Order forces are different flavors of slave army; in contrast, the stormtroopers are more frequently portrayed in the expanded universe as military careerists, stormtrooper being a thing you work up to rather than a gig for a fresh conscript. A slave-soldier who defects is a very different character from a military careerist who defects, and they invite different analysis. There's a bait-and-switch going on here, in that Finn gestures in the direction of the familiar OT stormtroopers but can't comment on or examine them because he's actually part of a novel dynamic invented for the new movies. And there's one final nail in the coffin here, signaled by the number of times I've had to invoke the expanded universe so far. When Finn debuted, the racists were of course, legion, but I also ran into a number of people who were sincerely confused as to why they'd recast Temuera Morrison. Going off the seven films that existed at the time, it wasn't unreasonable to read the prequel trilogy as an origin story for where the OT stormtroopers came from. Going only off the nine films that exist now, it still isn't unreasonable! It's muddied from so many different directions by their failure to establish the ground rules in the mainline films before they tried to put on subversive airs about it. I am still irritated by this.

Next up is how Han Solo was written. I actually liked the tack they took with him quite a bit. Because initially, right, his role in the movie is just to be Han Solo. He's back, and he hasn't changed! He's still kicking ass and taking names, he's still the lovable scoundrel you knew and loved from your childhood- and the principle cast members react to his presence with the same reverence the film's trying to invoke in the audience, they've grown up hearing the same stories about him. Except that episode 7, at least, is also very aware of the fact that if Han Solo is still recognizably the same guy thirty years on, it indicates that things have gone totally off the rails for him. We find out that the lovable rogue routine is the result of him backsliding, his happy ending blown up by massive personal tragedy rooted in communicative failures and (implicitly) his parental shortcomings. It feels deliberately in conversation with the nostalgic impulse driving the entire film- here's your childhood hero back just as you remember, here's what that stagnation costs. And it also feels like it's in conversation with what was a fairly common strain of Han Solo Take- the idea that Ep. 6 cuts off at a very convenient point, and that Han and Leia's fly-by-night wartime relationship wouldn't survive the rigors of domesticity. Obviously, that's not the only direction you can take with the character; the old EU basically threaded the needle of keeping Han recognizable without rolling back his character development gains. But it felt like they were actually committing to a direction, a direction that was aware of the space, and not a reflexively deferential and flattering one, which at the time I appreciated! The problem, of course, is that for it to really land, you need to have a really, really strong idea of what actually went down-of what Han's specific shortcomings and failures were. And given the game of ping-pong they proceeded to play with Kylo Ren's characterization, this turned out to be. Less than doable.

Kylo Ren is the third thing about Episode 7 that I liked. His character concept is basically an extended admission by the filmmakers that there's no way to top Vader as an antagonist. Instead, they lean into the opposite direction- they make him underwhelming on purpose. Someone who's chasing Vader's legacy in the same way any post-OT Star Wars villain is going to, pursuing Vader's aesthetic and the associated power without really understanding or undergoing the convoluted web of suffering and dysfunction that produced Vader. It's framed as a genuine twist that there's nothing particularly wrong with his face under that helmet. Whatever it takes to be Vader, he doesn't have it, and he knows that he doesn't have it, and the pursuit of it drives him to greater and greater acts of cartoonish villainy. The failure to one-up Vader is offloaded to the character instead of the writers, and it was genuinely interesting to watch. For one movie. The problem, of course, is that if the entire character archetype is "Vader, but less compelling," you can't try to give the bastard Vader's exact character arc. You can't retroactively bolt on a Vader-tier tragic backstory when you spent a whole movie signaling that whatever happened to him wasn't as compelling as what happened to Vader. You can't milk his angst for two more movies when it's the kind of angst on display in "Rocking the Suburbs" by Ben Folds!

There's a level on which I feel like Moff Gideon was a semi-successful implementation of Vader-Wannabe concept; he's the same kind of middling operator courting the Vader Aesthetic for clout, but he's doing it in the context of the imperial warlord era, where there's a lot of practical power available to anyone who can paint themselves to the Imperial Remnants as a plausible successor to Vader. Hand in Hand with this obvious politicking, Gideon is loathsome, which relieves the writers of the burden of having to plausibly redeem the guy; he's doing exactly what he needs to do and there'll never be a mandate to expand him beyond what his characterization can support. Unfortunately, the calculated and cynical nature of how he's emulating Vader precludes the immaturity and hero-worship elements on display with Kylo, which is unfortunate; the sincerity on display in Kylo's pursuit of authenticity is an important part of why he worked, to the extent that he worked at all, and it'd be worth unpacking in a better trilogy. As he stands Kylo is a clever idea, and that's all he is- he lacks the scaffolding to go from merely clever to actively good.

[theoretically-questionable]

really enjoying this KSBD arc with Solomon David. Abaddon is so comfortable in being consistent with characters, and it shows!

At every point we've seen him, good ol' SD exerted control. He shouted the meeting of the demiurges to order; he lambasted his progeny for not meeting his requirements; he stepped in to take over from his workers; he never actually expected anyone to ever be able to take control from him.

It's more than this, though. In the latest update, we get this line directed at him: "In your great foolishness, you have never thought to take a student".

Everything Solomon did involved his direct control - that's not exactly groundbreaking analysis, his control-freak tendencies and inability to cede power is his blatant textual flaw. No, the part of this that's been so consistently illustrated is that he doesn't know how to nurture.

He's a dogshit teacher, we've just seen that in this last arc. But him stepping in to take the burden from his workers building a structure wasn't a sign of magnanimity; it was a testament to his failure to *build a society* where dangerous and physically harmful labour wasn't a norm.

Him refusing to name any of his progeny as his heir wasn't because they were somehow all slack or idle; it's a sign that he has no idea how to actually raise children, much less successors.

He spent so much time being failed by the authority figures and structures around him, and he never learned how essential the path of guidance and succession is to *any* relationship, including that between a leader and those they lead.

Here, he's learning two lessons at once: One, that the wheel turns, and control is an illusion. Two, that the only way what you have built will endure is if you ensure it can be maintained by another.

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

part two of an odd textual mystery analysis (haikaveh focus)

(part one of my thoughts can be found here!)

immediately after wrapping things up at the house of daena, kaveh takes to finding alhaitham solely in order to tell him what went down regarding the book (i've heard that in the CN, kaveh apparently looked for alhaitham for half a day??? help. the dedication)

alhaitham is shown to leave his perusing of a book stall to approach kaveh when called, which is an extra animation? (for me this is similar to the extra animations in the flashback scene within their house in cyno's story quest ii, with alhaitham putting the book down when interacting with kaveh)

kaveh teases alhaitham, making him guess what he has in his bag - to which alhaitham goes along with, with his own dry sense of humour, guessing that it's the book, to which kaveh counters, but actually confirms by telling him that it's The Book

kaveh tells alhaitham about the circling of names being due to him as an inadvertent instigator, to which alhaitham replies that he knew something like this would happen, ever since he saw Kaveh having circled the murderer's name - to which kaveh questions, because kaveh recalls returning the book to the house of daena after doing so?

only for alhaitham to reveal that he read the book (previously?/after?) in the house of daena.. and that kaveh left the book in the study, after he circled the name of the killer. meaning that alhaitham saw the book that kaveh took out of the library, and was comfortable enough to open it, because he knew kaveh would be fine with it, because the study is their shared space??

(this reminds me a parade of providence where kaveh stresses that it's fine to look through documents that alhaitham has left out, since alhaitham wanted kaveh to look through them, but now it seems that the study is canonically their shared place? im thinking of kaveh's birthday letter calling it 'my' study, due to him being so comfortable with his residency with alhaitham... oh :D)

kaveh being embarrassed about being caught out, but not annoyed with alhaitham looking through the book. they really are at so much more ease with each other!!

kaveh then asking if alhaitham if circled a name, to which alhaitham confirms, saying that the second one (green ink... being the complimentary colour to kaveh's red ink okay...) is his, all in order to signal a red herring to throw off the people checking out the book after kaveh, in order to avoid kaveh spoiling the killer

kaveh then questions why alhaitham only circled one, in contrast to other people, to which alhaitham rationalises by saying that circling two names is more than enough to avoid a spoiler, considering that kaveh used permanent ink when creating the spoiler

kaveh pulls alhaitham up on this and says that alhaitham only circled one name on the first page, too, because he thought it would be funny - to which alhaitham agrees, saying it's more fun that reading the book, and kaveh agrees!

in the line with their new rapport in bickering in cyno's story quest 2, this truly is just inconsequential bickering, they're enjoying each other's responses and chasing it, not misunderstanding the other and actively getting hurt. they've improved so much!!

alhaitham congratulating kaveh on officially owning the book, to which kaveh dismisses dejectedly - the camera pans out onto the traveller and paimon, but we see alhaitham say something to kaveh, continuing their banter outside of the player's knowledge

this quest essentially happened because alhaitham and kaveh are that comfortable in sharing things with each other, and believing the other to want to share things, such as alhaitham perusing through a book that kaveh checked out from the house of daena, and feeling comfortable enough to interfere with one of kaveh's actions - using permanent ink to spoil the killer, in order to avoid spoilers for the next person, and, perhaps dually, repercussions on kaveh's part. kaveh shows no upset with this action, nor alhaitham looking through the book he left in the study

it nicely ties together the beginning and the end - kaveh and alhaitham dually act as the catalyst for the quest in their actions regarding the book, and we immediately cut to kaveh going to tell alhaitham about it when the problem is sorted. we start with alhaitham and kaveh, although we don't know it at first, and we end with them? it's an inconsequential quest, v fun, and v silly, but i love how we get lil insights into haikaveh's life in their home outside of the player <333

[theraprism]

Class subtext thoughts on Gatsby, Flatland, and Bill.

So broadly speaking, we've had some idea of what Bill's home dimension was like since the 2015 in-character AMA, when the idea that it was nearly (if not fully) identical to the world of Flatland was first introduced. During the Weirdmaggedon 4-parter, we finally learned that Bill had obliterated his home dimension and called it liberation. (From what I recall the fan concensus on this information was that it was a malicious act of evil on Bill's part -- up until the Book's release, I don't think the idea that it was a tragedy or accident ever had much ground to stand on.) Journal 3 picked up on this again when it established the existence of Exwhylia, which (importantly!) also reinforced the hierarchical nature of existence that Flatland presents.

I'll own up to the fact I've never read Flatland myself (it is on the neverending list of classics that I still haven't gotten to yet) and will be instead be relying mainly on Wikipedia and Sparknotes clones for this analysis, but the good news is that canon Gravity Falls materials have given us the basics of how Bill's home dimension operated at this point, and so knowledge of the work seems less required and moreso recommended. Similarly to Gatsby (the book as well as the character). More on that later.

To be more specific, the important info that Hirsch has given us about Euclydia is that it was repressive in the extreme. The exact ways that it maintained this are left up to the imagination, to an extent (e.g. there is no evidence of the upper echelons of Euclydia carrying out public executions against the lower classes, as there are in Flatland), but the Book does directly pull an image from Flatland that illustrates the class hierarchy there.

Since Flatland was written originally as a satire of the stratification in Victorian society, the work goes to great lengths to specify and elaborate on the different social roles of each shape (for example, women as lines, though the gender stratification isn't relevant in Bill's case). More relevant is the way that the work considers upward mobility through generations, and the fact that isoceles triangles (working class) are considered among the lowest beings in existence, just above irregular shapes. Bill has been referred to and drawn inconsistently as both isoceles and equilateral, but based on what we learn from Exwhylia in Journal 3, it's possible that this distinction is not relevant in the GF multiverse's reinterpretation of Flatland. See:

I'm sure a part of this reduction of the hierarchy in the original Flatland has to do with the work needing to be at least somewhat accessible to younger readers, but it does textually ensure that, regardless of the specific details of Bill's geometry, he comes from a background where, in spite of his exceptional ability to see the third dimension, he saw those around him receive resources more freely. His singling out of irregular quadrilaterals reads to me as a form of internalized classism; he needs someone to punch down to.

And earlier:

He describes his regular shape as an out-and-out "power". Bill explicitly carries with him the classist ideals and values of his home dimension despite its destruction. The way he internalizes different ideas about himself and who he is is probably a subject for another post, but the point is that these qualities Bill is emphasizing aren't simply a matter of arrogance. Bill is trying to sell himself as a gentleman, a respectable individual from an upper-middle class position.

This is where Gatsby becomes relevant, because The Great Gatsby is all about a man who wants more than anything to cross the threshold of inborn greatness and become a true upperclassman. Bill appealing to his innate biological qualities as evidence for his own greatness relates back to the notion that such greatness is an ontological trait which cannot be given, but can also not be taken away. Note what he explicitly says here about the themes of class in Gatsby:

If you walk up to any college English professor and ask them what Gatsby has to say about the American Dream, I really do not think you are going to hear them say the word "bittersweet". The American Dream is a false idol and illusion; Gatsby himself is utterly miserable and meets a miserable end. There is nothing "sweet" about it.

At the same time, it makes sense that Bill would describe it as bittersweet, because for all his powers of sight, Bill cannot imagine a future where he is happy. Throwing crazy parties every night (for Gatsby at his home, for Bill on the Earth's remains), staring at an unreachable desire far out in the distance -- that's his end goal. He emerged from a position where he was repressed and since then his life has been a steady climb/crawl in the direction of power and control. Both Gatsby and Bill seek to reclaim a lost sense of fulfillment and purpose through this ascent, and both seek to become untouchable as gods are, but both are brought down in the end due to the consequences of their own actions, stemming directly from the violence they bring into their worlds of their own volition. In case you've forgotten, or if you've never read it, Gatsby's money is not clean. We may not see Bill use money, but his social currency is not clean either.

I think it's telling that Flatland can be understood as it relates to Bill's character through summary, but with Gatsby, there is so much subtle incentive to actually read the thing. From the GIF originally posted by Hirsch that I included at the top of the post to the PDF link on ThisIsNotAWebsiteDotCom.com to the fact that the gag in the Book itself goes on for multiple pages when it could have ended after one or two, the intertextuality is paramount. I think that's really cool. It's rare to see intertextuality this well-considered in genre fiction, and I think it makes the whole analytical process more fun.

[nataliaphantomhivesblog]

Prince Soma: possibly being the key that causes Ciel to have a conflict with Sebastian?

I don't know if im the first one to notice how Anime!Abberline and manga! Prince Soma have some very striking parallels when it comes to their relationship to O!Ciel, which made me realize a few things.

First of all, I do think that some concepts of season 1 in general do parallel to the manga. Here's an excellent analysis on the topic if you want to dive deeper on that area.

Alright, let's start with me drawing some parallels to make this analysis more digestable, and then explaning how this will theoretically give us a conflict between the demon butler and our petty child.

Basically, Abberline drawing the similarties with our earl due to a shared trauma/tragedy: They both lost their families, but one learned to heal from the event, and the other completely refuses to accept happiness. (guess who's who, lol)

Fundamentally, O!Ciel is creating a hypothetical comparassion: If he hadn't gone through his personal tragedy, then he would've been as naive and innocent as Soma.

Something to consider about this parallel: The narrative in both cases textually highlights the similarities between Ciel and Abberline/Soma.

O!Ciel saying he only needs pawns, and that he has no time to have real emotional connections with people.

O!Ciel saying he uses people as pawns and doesn't see Soma as a friend, he doesn't need him by his side.

Notes to take here:

In both of these instances, o!Ciel refueses to form real human connection.

Both of these convesations spark up due to confrontation about o!Ciel's true intentions and nature.

His face is turned on both scenes/pannels, making us question how genuine o!Ciel's words are.

"Keep your distance from me, or you'll get killed" - Ciel to Abberline, season 1 episode 20

o!Ciel explicitly stating why he kept Prince Soma at arms lenght. He didn't want him and Agni to get hurt/killed in result of their closeness to our earl.

Things to point out:

o!Ciel's entire reason to push people away is because he doesn't want them to get hurt, so his earlier refusal to cut ties with others is due to fear and hestiance to accept love.

Abberline got hurt because of his relationship with o!Ciel, likewise with Soma. Causing our earl to display emotional reactions in both cases, demostrating he does care for the people close to him.

While Abberline ended up dying due to his closeness to our earl, Soma did survive the attack in chapter 125, but a part of him died with Agni as shown in the image below:

Remember when o!Ciel said that he would've turned out like the prince if it weren't for the amount of abuse and grief he went through? Well, isn't it ironic that Soma is turning out exactly like o!Ciel after losing Agni: Turning his back to salvation, his heart longing for revenge after the injustice he was put through.

(I also want to point out, Yana had made a statement that Prince Soma was originally going to die instead of Agni, but changed her mind in respect for Agni's character.)

Now, lets run back to the title of this post:

"You do have a chance to move forward, to build a brand new future for yoursef. Don't ever forget that, promise, you won't." - Abberline, Black Butler season 1, episode 20

Before our dear investigator dies, he states that he wants o!Ciel to open up his world despite his desire for revenge.

How does this connect to Soma's resolve and his relationship to Ciel? Well...

Here, our prince boasts that he wants to become o!Ciel's "Agni." In other words, he wants to provide his friend with love and protection, creating a positive worldview for the earl, who continues to turn away from the light.

It's important to note that this was before Soma thought o!Ciel killed Agni! But of course, I feel like his initiaal intentions to help o!Ciel will come back when he finds out o!Ciel isnt the true killer. (also, Soma now has Agni's powers, so atleast physically, he already has his strenght that he will hopefully use to protect the ones around him.)

So, now what?

Anime!Abberline and Soma having a similar resolve for o!Ciel, as well as their relationship with him. (as if it isn't clear enough, Abberline died protecting o!Ciel, making the earl realize his own life has value).

Prince Soma has his back turned away from the light, and o!Ciel will witness this eventually. I think it's crystal clear that our earl wouldn't want the prince to make this decision, but wouldn't that make him doubt his own quest for revenge?

Circling back to Yana intending for Soma to die, there could be a chace for him to die while becoming o!Ciels "Agni", causing o!Ciel to realize how Soma died protecting him due to love and not bc of revenge, making him question everything about his own resolve??? Plus, if o!Ciel willingly gives his life now, then that would make Soma's sacrifice worthless.

There could be a slight chance, Prince Soma survives this whole ordeal, and completes his mission of protecting o!Ciel without dying. In this hypothetical, he would then decide to florish again and go back to india, which could give o!Ciel a similar relazation that maybe, his life is worth living, just like Soma's.

In the anime, Abberline's sacrifice causes our earl to truly question his contract with Sebastian, as well as his need for revenge.

This causes the demon to feel obvious anger towards his master. And throughout the following episodes, he desperately attempts to make the earl feel hopeless again. (he clearly doesn't want to lose the meal he has been working on for years).

In conclusion:

Theres plenty of textual evidence that Soma and the earl have lots in common, especially now that the prince lost someone and vows to get revenge.

o!Ciel and Soma's relationship with revenge as of now are in a similar stance, but Soma's initial idea of protecting o!Ciel and living for love instead of revenge will come in fruition soon enough.

What would be the point of having glaring obvious parallels, and not taking advantage of them to further create a long awaited conflict between the two main characters, additionally developing them?

Anyways, that's all I have to say folks! I hope you enjoyed my take and please, let me know your thoughts:)

[three--rings]

to get back to ofmd bitterness for a minute, I'm increasingly over the oh-so-plentiful variety of post that's like:

oh but OFMD S2 is actually perfect, it's only problematic to people who OVERTHINK THINGS.

Like, hi, this is fandom, have we met? THAT'S WHAT WE DO HERE.

And no one is saying you can't enjoy it for what it is and enjoy gifs of actors being cute and kissing and everything, have a blast. You don't have to get deep into textual analysis to be a fan.

BUT, while OFMD has always been a funny, cute show that tells a brisk story, but what I really, really appreciated about it was that when you interrogated it more deeply, it HELD TOGETHER. In fact, there seemed no end of depth to it. Everything WORKED symbolically, thematically. I became used to looking at the story on that level.

And S2 came out and it SEEMED like it was the same. so much depth, so much seriousness it seemed to be treating things with.

And then...it all fell apart in the last half. And that's SO FUCKING FRUSTRATING.

As an example, when the opening scene was Stede's dream of killing Izzy and running to Ed on a beach, looking dashing and manly, MANY MANY people in fandom immediately were like, OH. This is the show telling us what's NOT going to happen. This is the schlocky, cliched version of things. Where the hero is masculine and violent and the evil are punished and the romance is easily happily resolved.

This is the show saying we're not going to do the expected thing.

And then the end of the show killed Izzy and had Ed and Stede run to each other on a beach while doing violence, Stede looking capable and rugged, and they didn't really have to work at resolving their issues they just were Fine Actually.

So it felt kinda like spitting in the face of all the people writing meta about the show. It was playing INTO expectations instead of against them, and that felt like a betrayal of the show's core Thing.

But if you're not someone who was thinking about that kind of thing, then sure, probably it felt like 'oh it's a happy ending, cool.'

And I'm just sad that when I try to analyze these characters and their arcs in this season in detail, as I really on some level feel I NEED to, I'm left holding a bunch of parts that don't fit together. I thought I was being given a bunch of cool puzzle pieces that was going to make a pretty picture but when I was told it was done it was just some random shapes.

And again, if you're a casual viewer, like my husband for instance, you can walk away going "I thought it was pretty good" and be satisfied and that's great.

But I'm here trying to write fic set in a post S2 canonical universe and I CAN'T MAKE THE CHARACTER PIECES FIT RIGHT. and it's driving me nuts.

[thydungeongal]

Do you game design should be taught in school? After all, there are arts classes, music classes, literature and poetry are talked about in language classes (I'm mainly looking at this from a German perspective, of course public school curriculums are different everywhere), and games are just as much an art form and part of culture as those things.

I haven't thought about this before but at least on the surface it seems like a good idea. I do know that here in Finland first language education (my context is Finnish here, might be different for Swedish and other minority languages) involves teaching media literacy and textual analysis at least to some degree. Games are an increasingly more important part of culture and being able to apply the same sort of critical reading and analysis to how games utilize their mechanics would be useful.

And hey like it'd be pretty cool, once again in the Finnish context, to study Max Payne and Alan Wake and Control alongside the classics of Finnish literature (a bunch of boring books written by a bunch of guys who didn't even have video games)

[ghnosis]

hey you. yes, you. queer Ghost fan, or Ghost fan who is some type of witchy, or both.

I'm a PhD student at Falmouth University and I'm writing my dissertation/thesis on queer Ghost fandom on tumblr.

my study aims to explore queer fan participation on Ghost Tumblr through discourse/textual analysis of Tumblr posts, links to academic subcultural theories, and the experiences of myself and others in the fandom.

interviewing Ghost fans will help make sure I “get it right” - this dissertation is our project, not just my project.  

I'd like to invite you to take part in my research by participating in an online interview, over tumblr chat. you will be kept completely anonymous.

you can find more information about my research here, as well as the consent form I'll need you to sign - copy and paste the bottom part back in an email to me.

if you're interested, or if you have questions, please email me at aj263780 at falmouth dot ac dot uk or reply to the post or reblog it!

reblogs are HUGELY appreciated!!!

[adickaboutspoons]

Oh boy. Okay. Here we go

A totes calm and measured response to this post over here by @themetabridge. Forgiveness for the whole new post. I had too much to say to fit into what Tumblr apparently thinks is an appropriate length for a re-blog.

First? I mean. Text just means the words and actions as they are said and shown in a given piece of media being analyzed. Which is what I’m here to do with my meta – textual analysis. That’s why I insist on textual support for any argument interpreting the media in question. Naked assertions do nothing to explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Vibes aren’t good enough. Show me what IN THE TEXT made you think what you think, and I will do you the courtesy of the same. Otherwise, I don’t see how we could possibly have much to say to one another.

The fundamental breakdown we are having is that you have failed to provide a textual basis for why you think Ed is a bad person. While I respect your assertion that a person’s essential goodness is predicated on the actions that they perform, I cannot respect the corollary supposition that there are actions that are either “good” or “bad” in a vacuum, as this completely ignores circumstance and motivation. WHY someone does something is AT LEAST as important as WHAT they did.

For example - Stede killed Ned Lowe in cold blood. Does it matter that he did it because Ned “shit-talked [his] friend and damaged [his] ship,” and “fucked Calypso’s birthday”? Does it matter that Ed, the person whom Ned’s shit-talk actually impacted, told Stede not to do it? Twice? Does it matter that Ned was a subdued enemy combatant, and as such could have just as easily been gagged like Hornberry and the overtly racist Wellington, who survived imprisonment and went on to watch Ed and Stede sign the Act of Grace? Do we compare Ned to the French Captain who got flayed for his racist rhetoric, though Ned’s comment was, strictly speaking, about Ed’s class rather than his race? How far are we going to go to disentangle class and race when one absolutely informs the other?

How about a more straight-forward example; Stede set an unnamed man on fire and quipped about it like some asshole 80's action hero. Does it matter that he threatened Stede’s life? How about if, when he did so, he was twenty feet away, armed only with the bottle he had just broken over his head, and there were half-a dozen pirates between him and Stede who all thought Stede was hot shit, and so Stede was in no immediate danger? What if Stede has a long history of people making attempts on his life, and being unsure that he even deserves to live, and this is meant to show that, now that he has something to live for, he’s done with the part of his life where he lets anyone try to take that away from him?

This is what I mean when I say that the show is careful to never outright condemn the use of violence. The narrative tells us clearly that, within the context of the show, some things are more important than an unnamed or one-off character’s life – preservation of one’s own life or the lives of one’s loved ones, dignity in the face of racially-based persecution, resistance to colonial oppressors. The reasons for and direction of violence matters. Context matters.

And speaking of context, you misunderstand me when you suppose that only what literally appears before our eyes counts can be “read into the text”. I refuse to give extra-textual sources of information (such as the historical reality of sergeant recruiters and being pressed into service or the historical Golden Age of Piracy) any weight unless they can be validated by in-text support, because the show itself cares fuck-all about historical accuracy. But extrapolations about the in-show universe based on in-text support are fine.

So, considering that the very first thing we hear in the show is Frenchie’s little ditty about the violent reality of a pirate’s life, and considering Jack’s comment at brekkie about how pirating is an "ugly profession”, and considering what we see of the raids in 1x5 and 2x2, we can reasonably conclude that pirate culture is steeped in toxic masculinity where the expectation of performing violence is de rigueur. Because Ed has carved out a successful reputation as Blackbeard, and because we see the ease with which he can go from being casually conversant with Stede to “giving it some oomph” to scare the location of the treasure out of the French captain in 1x5 with the THREAT of violence, we can reasonably conclude that he can successfully perform the required violent displays of piratical society (or at least, given that we know by his bathtub confession that he has not personally killed anyone since his father, he can adopt a convincing enough posturing that no one would doubt he COULD). From his interactions with Jack and familiarity with “yardies” and “whippies”, and his ruminations about “the old days” of “drinking all day and biting the heads off turtles or making some poor bloke eat his own toes for a laugh”, and Fang’s assertion that Ed made him kill his dog, we can reasonably assume that Ed has a history with casual violence for the sake of fun and cruelty for cruelty’s sake.

However.

I think “the old days” is an important qualifier there. Season 1 Izzy may be frustrated that Ed is not performing Blackbeard sufficiently well to suit him (on that point we can agree), but even by his own deathbed confession “for YEARS I egged [him] on, even though I knew [Ed] had outgrown [the Blackbeard persona]” (emphasis mine, and pin in that for a moment). In 2x1, Fang is crying into his cake saying “I’ve never seen Blackbeard like this” - indicating that the conditions of the Kraken era are NOT the norm. The slivers of Ed we see in 1x3 before the Spanish raid are marked by him speaking calmly and rationally to Izzy (in stark contradiction to Izzy’s insistence that he’s half-mad) never even raising his voice much less using threats or any actual violence to get Izzy to do what he wants. In fact, it is Izzy who suggests a course of action involving very normative piratical violence (“Do we open fire? Or would you rather we just attack them, kill them, throw them out to the sharks, sir?”), which Ed counters with a genteel proposition - inviting (not even ordering!) Stede aboard for a face-to-face meeting. Izzy being comfortable enough to push back against orders (“Oh, Edward, can’t I just send the boys?”) even suggests that he feels no threat from Ed at all. Every indication is that by the time we meet Ed, well before he ever meets Stede, he’s already well past done with violence for violence sake.

When Ed does meet with Stede, before he’d fallen in love (Even though the are the U-Hauliest, I would argue “fascination” with a possible side of “infatuation”, but certainly not yet love), one of the early conversations they have is about the depiction of Blackbeard in Stede’s book of pirates. Ed expresses revulsion and anger that the persona that he’s worked so hard to cultivate has been twisted into a hyper-violent parody - a “Vampire Viking Clown” that’s barely even human, with a head of smoke and overladen with weapons and hardly bears any resemblance to the real man. We’re meant to understand that this is not a valid or accurate representation of who he is. Violence is a normative part of pirate life, but he has “one knife, and one gun JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE” (emphasis mine, again) - he doesn’t shirk from using the tools of violence when it’s necessary, but he is NOT excessively or wantonly violent. 

And we SEE the evidence of this because of how Stede reacts to the way Ed acts around Jack. Jack keeps Ed drunk all day, decoupling his inhibitions from his decision-making processes and, in spite of Ed explicitly saying that he’s mellowed out, Jack eggs him into the kind of hyper-violent Jackassery that is excessive even for pirate society if the nervous reactions of Stede’s crew are any indication. Of course, this is all part of Jack’s plan - to manipulate both Ed and Stede and force them apart - and the reason that it works is because the way Ed acts around Jack is NOT the way he chooses to act under his own volition, hence Stede’s frustration and disappointment.

While I agree that piratical violence is not political praxis, I would argue that, considering that every raid we have witnessed Ed participate in has been against a representative of colonial power and, more often than not, specifically the enforcing arm thereof, it’s not unfair to conclude that Ed’s reasoning goes that if piratical violence is to be done, better against someone who deserves it than not - i.e. those who perpetuate the violence of colonialism. Regarding instances of violence outside the context of raids, here’s where we take that pin out of Izzy. Izzy and Ed are locked in a cycle of abuse over the first season, wherein Izzy decides that Ed is not Blackbearding hard enough, and, because he feels entitled to controlling Ed’s actions, bullies and harasses him into capitulating  - typically in the form of performing violence. Afterwards, Izzy performs some form of deference - apologizing and/or acting as though he’s going to leave, which Ed “talks him down from” and mercifully allows him to stay. It’s why, when Ed sees Izzy packing up a dinghy (lol. With what? It’s not like he’s on his own ship or would have brought his things with him, or sacked plunder from the Revenge. Clearly he was just stalling until Ed noticed him and swooped in to do his part of the cycle) he tells Stede he “should deal with this,” as though it’s tedious, but normal occurrence. I think an important part of this cycle as the season progresses, though, is how Izzy keeps upping the stakes.

So by the time we get to the end of the season, when the last iteration of the cycle starts up again (when Ed is once more insufficiently Blackbearding by being emotionally vulnerable and open with the crew following his return to the Revenge and his stint in the pillow fort (note that Izzy is apparently FINE with Ed not being Peak Pirate, just as long as he hides it away from everyone), and Izzy once more bullies and threatens Ed) this time it is especially cruel - Izzy is a thumb in the wound, attacking Ed at his most vulnerable and saying it would be better if Ed was DEAD than “pining for his boyfriend.” This iteration now also brings with it a history of escalation (first in Izzy bringing Fang and Ivan in to force Ed's hand about killing Stede, lest he look "weakened by the love of a pet" before his crew, and therefore in danger of mutiny, and then by bringing in the British Navy to force Ed to take Izzy back - or rather, to force Izzy back into Ed's life because the terms of the agreement see Ed remanded into Izzy's custody as though he is property to be distributed at the will of the Brits) - an established pattern of the lengths to which Izzy will go to get what he wants, and so a very real threat implicit in Izzy’s warning that “Ed had better watch his step” as Izzy serves only Blackbeard. So Ed gives him what he wants. He Blackbeards it up just like Izzy insisted, and lets Izzy know in no uncertain terms that the insubordination is done. It’s not a "frat boy prank" when he cuts off Izzy’s toe and feeds it to him, or even something from which he's deriving pleasure as he might have in the old days; it’s a calculated, proportional response, done under duress and against his own inclinations, but exactly the tool required to get the message across clearly.

As to the question of why it matters if Ed is bad, first and foremost, because saying that he is bad requires you to explicitly read contrary to the text. If you’re not going to engage with the text on its own terms, I don’t see how you can do any analysis of what story it’s trying to tell. I already discussed the ways in which the narrative is specifically about how Ed is NOT bad, even when he himself thinks he is. I have also discussed how, while “violence is never the answer” may be broadly understood to be the correct way of comporting oneself in real life, the show never condemns violence across the board. The show condemns cruelty, both on an interpersonal and societal level, but positions the use of violence as an acceptable and reasonable response thereunto. It treats circumstance and motivation with nuance and weight. Living within this context, Ed’s use of violence by the time we meet him is well within the normative acceptable application thereof. Judging him by standards outside the context of the story within which he exists makes as much sense as judging the Stede from the show for being a slave owner because that’s historical fact - that’s just not applicable to who he is in THIS story.

But more importantly, it matters because Ed is a POC character. Describing him as “cruel and perverse” for utilizing violence, particularly when the violence he uses is NOT excessive or impulsive, perpetuates negative race-based stereotypes about hyper-violent men of color. Characterizing him as “bad” for his use of violence when other (white) characters, such as Stede, use violence in similar ways, or are cruel or petty, but can still be considered, on balance, “good” means that Ed is being held to a different, higher standard than those white characters, and perpetuates the frankly racist criteria of expecting POC exceptionalism for POCs to be considered for the base-line assumptions of acceptability that are afforded to their white counterparts. Saying that Stede’s love is what changed Ed’s behavior from cruelty to wholesale abandoning piratical principles is not only antithetical to what actually happens in the show, but suggests a read that POC Ed needs a good white man to show him how to behave, a real white knight to tame his savage heart. That’s some real White Man’s Burden shit there, bro. I highly recommend you put it down.

[stellar-mop]

The Coffin of Andy and Leyley has me thinking about gender and gender roles a lot. I know other people have done more in-depth analysis of this, but I'm just gonna throw my thoughts out into the void of tumblr (the void is welcome to yell back, just be nice please)

I think one of the things that makes these characters fascinating especially for me as a vaguely-agender nonbinary person is like the places I can see where their gender is impacting their interactions and choices. Like changing the gender of the characters would fundamentally change their story and personality (love y'all's genderswap AUs tho, this is not an objection).

Something I'm not sure how to articulate super well is how the game interacts with like neurodivergence gender stereotypes. On the surface level they line up with the "women are emotional and men aren't allowed to show feelings" set of gender stereotypes. But I think there's another layer if you look at it through the lens of how societal pressures around mental illness and gender intersect especially in like school-aged kids/teens. Like Andrew being the "easy child" and Ashley being... Ashley. In not-particularly-nuanced terms: "boy" neurodivergence shows as acting out and being a problem child (which Ashley does), and "girl" neurodivergence gets hidden via masking and passivity (which Andrew does). I think it's neat that this is contrary to societal expectations - like this would be a very different story if Andrew was a pushy chaotic mess and Ashley was apathetic but seething under the surface. Because gender! What's even up with that?

Less sfw thoughts under the cut, including some coffincest stuff. Warnings for unhealthy relationships and attitudes towards sex:

The way Ashley and the mom talk about sex is fascinating. I've read some really good analyses on here about Ashley thinking about sex as transactional and I think she gets that from her mom. In that one scene ("you fuck her") the mom asks Andrew something like "what does she give you to make it worth it?" Like, the only reason she can think of for why Andrew wants to spend time with Ashley is sex. That says a lot about the mom as a person (also wow she really does see zero value in Ashley as a person wtf), and probably the way Ashley was raised to think about sex. And that's a very gendered (like cishet women specifically) view of sex. Like sex in a relationship as something to be tolerated, and for Ashley "another way to keep him around".

But I'm also wondering about the flip side of that, like is the mom only tolerating the dad for sex? Because I don't really get the impression that she likes him very much, but they textually have a very active sex life. If so, this is also sort of counter to societal gender roles/expectations. I really don't like the parents but they're such fascinating characters too.

I guess my point with all this is like we got distracted by the cannibalism and murder and incest and demon summoning, but there's some really neat and subtle stuff about gender in here that I want to talk about too! It's just so well written there's so much depth

*slaps roof of game* this bad boy can fit so much dysfunction!

[the-light-hum-by-the-lonely-sun]

(cough cough everything here is my interpretation etc etc dont get mad at me)

The Mind Electric isn't really a diss track. I mean, it sort of is, but not really.

I think it would be far more applicable to call it a vent post. Mind, despite pretty much constantly trying to give off the impression that he is in control, kind of isn't ever, really? In Whole, he's left on the shelf, and during Cacophony he is the "Ruler of Everything", but doesn't really rule... anything?

Sure, he has a degree of control over Heart. To my understanding, he only has control of the Vessel through Heart. During Just Apathy, he tells Heart what to say, and Heart relays it through the Vessel's mouth. (Assuming that's why Mind is telling Heart to say things. It makes more sense than Mind 1984ing Heart.)

Even in his songs, he never gets anything across. Be Born is pretty much him pointing out Heart and Soul's faults, and neither of them listen. He immediately must cave to Soul's will during The Soul Eclectic, where Soul refers to himself as a "lord" over Heart and Mind.

He's also the one that most consistently brings up the issue of time. After Mucka Blucka, with the notable exceptions of The Bidding and Taken for a Ride, they largely don't acknowledge the Time Loop, with the exception of Mind. He brings that shit up constantly to the point where it's kind of funny? Look at his lines in TWW&Y.

But overall, he's real goddamn frustrated. He *is* actually decently logical, but emotions run over. The guy that shot him, textually his only friend, vilifies him (NOTE: i don't think Heart is unjustified in this. It's pretty reasonable. It's just not the point right now), everyone is ignoring him. He is 100% ready to combine throughout the majority of Cacophony. Like, it's just towards the end of STAAS and most of TME that he isn't.

So yeah! He got pissed! He started flinging petty insults because that's what he thinks Heart is doing. He's basically yelling, "FINE! If this is how you want to treat me, I'll do it too." It isn't even completely petty! Towards the ends, he clearly calms down. He's still bitter, but like. He closes it out by saying that Heart almost murdered him and plays victim, that he too is necessary, and that despite being harsh he wants the best for everyone.

Okay. Essay over. I might read over this later after I'm fully done with my total analysis, but I think this is pretty alright. Feel free to correct me on anything I got blatantly wrong. Again, I don't think Heart is completely in the wrong or anything, it's just. This is about Mind, lmao.

[merlinmerlot]

Discworld character analysis is a can of worms because frequently, throughtout all the books, there is inconsistent characterization.

In broad strokes a character will remain the same — utterly static, in fact — but in the nitty gritty Pratchett will take whatever name and archetype is necessary and go baby-on-pottery-wheel with it. Satire over persona.

Which is why I cannot fault the fandom characterizing Vetinari as the sees all, omnipotent, always correct, 20 steps ahead 5-year-plan ankh morporkian mastermind. Because there is some textual evidence for it. But dear lord, it is the most boring interpretation possible for him.

Anyways, to further my point that Vetinari's character is simply what you make of it, here's a quote from Men at Arms:

"A great many rulers, good and bad and quite often dead, know what happened; a rare few actually manage, by dint of much effort, to know what’s happening. Lord Vetinari considered both types to lack ambition."

And here's a quote from Jingo:

"After all, you couldn’t plan for every eventuality, because that would involve knowing what was going to happen, and if you knew what was going to happen, you could probably see to it that it didn’t, or at least happened to someone else. So the Patrician never planned. Plans often got in the way."

The first quote implies he plans for the future. the second implies he doesn't bother. what is Really going on here is that Vetinari's Schrödinger's Plan is whatever Pratchett thinks is funnier/cooler in any given moment.

I've lost the plot a little. My main point: Broaden your horizons when it comes to vetinari's characterization! I find it much more fun to view him as a man with a flawed worldview and a capacity for mistakes! It's much more entertaining to see him as frequently not 100% knowing what's going on. This is the man who was so caught up in his big picture, all-men-are-cruel inner monologue that he missed when Leonard mentioned his Plot-bearing submarine! This is the man whose two last ditch efforts in a city he couldn't control were 1. Hiding in his own dungeon and 2. Running off to another country in the aforementioned submarine.