#nonetheless they are tied by the narrative

[lilbagdermole]

It's common knowledge that Zuko and Aang, throughout the duration of ATLA, are a mirror of one another; a reflection of each other - not necessarily opposites but parallels.

So whilst I was analyzing the finale of the show, I noticed a really interesting parallel between our two protagonists:

Zuko was close to dying in his final confrontation with Azula and what pulled him back up, what saved him from dying was water. More necessarily Katara's healing abilities - but nonetheless, his opposing element saved his life.

On the other hand, Aang throughout his harrowing fight against Ozai utilizes Earthbending time and time again to save himself, techniques that we've come to associate with Toph (rock armor and seismic sense). And to access the Avatar State, that had since been blocked, Earth had been the ultimate catalyst to unlocking his Seventh Chakra.

And if we take into consideration what Guru Pathik told Aang - to unlock the Seventh Chakra he would have to let go of Katara. In a sense, this could have been a visual representation of how Aang lets go of his love for Katara, and how Toph (Earth) could take up that role.

Earth, his opposing Element, saves his life.

It's also interesting that our protagonists' conclusions and destinies are integrally tied to the aforementioned girls. Destiny and Fate are two major themes in ATLA, alonside the moral lesson shared to us by Uncle Iroh about the unity of the four elements and how each element can learn and grow from the other.

Zuko's destiny to bring honor to Fire Nation whilst also challenging his conflicting natures (Sozin vs. Roku; Ozai/Azula vs. Iroh) would have never come into fruition had it not been for Katara. Katara was the first person (other than his Uncle) to show him genuine compassion and humanity, she was the first person to glimpse into his true, kind and gentle nature. Additionally, had she not fought alongside Zuko to defeat Azula and save his life, he would have never been able to step up to the Throne and fulfill his destiny. Thus Katara is linked and bound to Zuko's destiny.

Aang's destiny was to restore peace to the world and end The One Hundred Year War. The Aang we meet during Book One - is timid and soft, a strong bender and with limitless potential, but he lacked the confidence, the back-bone, the grounding to step-up to his duties as the Avatar and defeat Ozai. Katara coddled him and never challenged him to look beyond himself. It's only after meeting Toph does Aang begin to confront his opponents with a different viewpoint, he gains a certain matureness in himself and suddenly we see him step up into his role and responsibilities. Toph's Earthbending not only saves him from death but it also gave him the strength to face his destiny. Thus, Toph is linked and bound to Aang's destiny.

It would have tied a lot of unexplored themes as well as provide a more satisfying conclusion (Aang entering the Avatar State because he followed through with Guru Pathik's lessons instead of pointy rock triggers it) and it would have been cohesive with the narrative thematic of ATLA.

I'm still astonished at how badly Bryke fumbled the bag with their romantic sub-plots. 🗿

[saionjeans]

ok so. miki’s sunlit garden is the literal sunlit garden where he and kozue played piano together as children. it’s the defining version of this narrative device, and in a way, it’s the most straightforward. miki is leaving the garden and entering the world of teenagers. he is scared of growing up, and he misses the effortless, uncomplicated bond he shared with his sister when they were children, before being inculcated into a world of sexual power and abuse, before his parents divorced and his beautiful nuclear family was rent asunder by real-world complications. i genuinely think every 13-ish year old goes through this grief and a desire to hold onto the past, to remain in this perfect nostalgic bubble through which you view your childhood. it’s probably the most universal and identifiable instance of the motif of the sunlit garden.

then it gets more complicated. nanami’s sunlit garden is her memories of short-haired touga, of her big brother showing her his affection, making her feel special, worthy, and loved. but unlike miki, she doesn’t miss being a part of the ideal nuclear family. for one thing, both she and touga are adopted. of course, she doesn’t actually know that, but it nonetheless problematizes the bioessentialist logic upon which the nuclear family [abuse factory] structure is predicated. secondly, it’s clear that she was always the scapegoat to touga’s golden child. which is why it’s not that she loves her sibling as an extension of her childhood nostalgia, but that her entire value system fundamentally revolves around touga, because he was the only person in her formative years who ever showed her the slightest sliver of affection. and in all her memories of him, he has short hair (like dios, like miki), because subconsciously she doesn’t even want him to be her Prince, her patriarchal savior, she wanted him to be someone who loved her because she inherently deserves love. she does treat him like her prince in the present, but that’s only because it’s how her love for him must take form in ohtori. deep down, she doesn’t want a prince, a lover, or even a brother; she wants a friend who will love her for nothing. but she has no way of expressing that, not in a world that claims true friendship is for fools. so instead she values him for their biological ties, for his status as a kiryuu, for his patriarchal role as the eldest son in their perfect nuclear family. and she refuses to acknowledge how she demeans herself in the process of worshipping him, how she’ll drown herself and cook herself and cage herself, debase herself and dehumanize herself for his illusory love. and that is what the sunlit garden means to nanami.

as for saionji, the sunlit garden also constitutes his memories with touga, of a “before” that is much more definable in the sense that there is clearly a moment where it becomes “after.” one day they are riding their bike through the rain after kendo practice, and they decide to take shelter in a church. and saionji sees touga become someone he fears and also envies. someone who wields the power to project something eternal, to inspire, to save. and he exerts his power in a subtly violent way, by transgressing invisible boundaries. saionji cannot harness that power, so he attempts to exert it clumsily, through immediate, obvious, physical forms of violence. it never quite packs the same punch as touga’s manipulation, no matter how hard he tries. but what saionji really longs for is not to possess touga’s power, but to go back to the way things were before touga decided he wanted power. touga thinks true friendship is for fools, but like nanami, all saionji wants is to be touga’s true friend. and isn’t that just tragic?

of course, that’s not all saionji wants. but his desire is complicated by the fact that he clearly also resents the sexual acts he is being put through by touga, even if in other circumstances, it could be what he wanted. juri’s situation, her sunlit garden, is similar to saionji’s in this respect. all she wants is shiori, but she doesn’t want the shiori she is being presented with. she wants the shiori from an illusory idealized past in which they were true friends, before shiori betrayed her and revealed her ugly feelings in the process. like miki with kozue, nanami and saionji with touga, utena and anthy with dios, mikage with mamiya, juri is idealizing a version of the object of her affection who never really existed. shiori’s ugly feelings were always latent. unlike miki’s sunlit garden, nanami’s flashback to touga’s party and sea of photographs, or saionji’s memories of touga tenderly wrapping his hand, juri does not even have memories of shiori that are not defined by her betrayal. yes she has shiori reaching out, holding a rose, saying “believe in miracles and they will know your heart,” but it’s an obvious fiction. juri doesn’t know shiori at all, and the shiori juri knows is not the shiori she loves. the sunlit garden is always a garden of illusion.

utena’s sunlit garden, which opens many episodes, is perhaps the most obvious example of this fact. she completely rewrote her own formative memory to better suit the dominant patriarchal narratives she was forced to adopt all her life. and you can say that akio actively tampered with her memories, but functionally speaking, that’s the same thing. even more so than the others, her sunlit garden is a palimpsest; she idealizes a past and a prince that never actually existed. sure akio and anthy exist, but her “prince” is not either of them. the locus of her will to live, that eternal thing, is a fiction. but her desire to help others in need is genuine. and that is what differentiates utena’s sunlit garden first and foremost. it is not founded on a selfish desire to cling to a perfect past of illusion, but on the selfless desire to keep moving forward in hopes of a better future. they all want to hold onto something eternal, including utena in her desire to keep her parents with her, and all of those desires are perfectly understandable and eminently sympathetic, but utena is different because that day that akio showed her anthy’s suffering, utena’s desire shifted from a memory to a telos.

mikage’s sunlit garden thus becomes a cautionary tale to all the members of the student council who wish to live in a memory, perfectly suspended, pinned in place like a butterfly on display. just as a caterpillar must become a butterfly, a child must enter the world of adults. mamiya is beautiful because he has the luxury of dying young, of being immortalized on a carousel, of never losing his innocence. mikage is what happens to people who idealize eternity through escaping into nostalgia. the world keeps moving on without them, and they become ghosts, trapped in a past that no one can recall.

so what of akio? he uses people’s sunlit gardens against them, he manipulates time and memory, feeds off nostalgia and the grief of lost childhood. he cultivates his garden to resemble golden days, and as he invites you through his gates, ensnares you. so what does that mean, when his goal, too, is to achieve eternity? above all he wants to forge a sword that will break through the closed gates and reinstate his former glory. of anyone in ohtori, he is the one most deeply entrenched in his oh so cozy coffin. for all that he knows his promises to be illusory, he also clings to that logic, he also mourns dios. he longs for his golden days despite knowing that they’re untenable, despite being well aware of the toll it took on anthy. and even fully aware of the extent of his exploitation, of the fundamental illusion of eternity, he still attempts to attain it, he still instantiates himself in a cycle on the carousel, condemned to ghosthood, a butterfly pinned in place.

finally, we must look to the absent figure, the outlier. what, or rather who, is touga’s sunlit garden? the movie tells us it is utena, that he embodied the princely role in the truest sense and that this is his deepest aspiration. but i don’t know if that’s necessarily how i read him. anthy and touga are foils, two sides of the same coin. anthy doesn’t have a “sunlit garden” per se, because she has long given up on the idea of returning to a time when she loved dios, before the swords of hatred pierced her heart. but she has a literal sunlit garden, and her role is to tend the flowers in it and never leave. she has a literal coffin, guarded carefully in the chambers of her heart. anthy knows better than to cling to an idealized past, but still, she cannot find a way to move forward. so she gets stuck in a circular present, where both past and future are illusory concepts. it is not enough to simply know that the past is gone, one must also strive for a better future. it is why utena and anthy’s promise to drink tea and laugh together in ten years is just so powerful within ohtori’s timeless walls. i’d bet anything that touga also doesn’t have an idealized past. if, again, we use the movie to inform our understanding of him, he was always aware of the abuse that pervaded his world, he was never an innocent. but instead of desiring reform, like utena, of wanting to save those suffering, he wants to be the one inflicting that suffering as much as possible. to cope, he accepts his abuse as a necessary consequence of existence, and assumes that anyone capable of abusing him is simply more powerful, and thus deserves to exert their power over him, just as he deserves to exert his power over those less powerful than he is. so like anthy, he doesn’t have a sunlit garden, but he has a coffin, and a garden, and a carousel. and like anthy, he must choose for himself whether he wishes to remain a complicit victim, or to leave his cozy coffin and find a way to move forward. and that, only time can tell.

[hanafubukki]

Before I really do go to sleep again

I find it interesting how we get a SSR Silver (bday) and SSR Malleus (tsum) card in parallel/released together again in the same month. On Silver’s bday month nonetheless.

The last time they released two ssrs of these two together was last year in January.

With SSR Malleus Bday and SSR Dorm Silver on Malleus’ bday month

And we get a tsum event with them together in one event as well.

Where we can see diasomnia be a family and have cute moments together.

They really are saying these two are tied together by their bonds.

These narrative foils

These brothers loved by one precious fae

Precious Family

[comradekatara]

Interesting. In your vision, would it have fit more if Mako had been Bolin's agent instead of his teammate? An agent who just so happened to be crazy good at fire bending himself? Bolin could soak up the spotlight, Mako would work behind the scenes on his behalf, just as later he would do the same for Korra. I like your thoughts on Mako being autistic, but I still feel like he needs to bring something unique. Maybe he's the team's spy or organizer?

okay so reiterate for the thousandth time, when i talk about "rewriting" lok to make it good, i'm not suggesting tweaks to the mechanics of the plot to "improve" it, but rather to tease out the preexisting implications of the narrative to make it as compelling as it has the potential to be. when i say that mako could better function to critique the patriarchal neoliberal system that necessitates familial order and exploitation of the marginalized/underclasses to operate, i'm not saying that his position in the show would necessarily need to change, but that his role already suggests these critiques, and that the writers simply lacked the insight to explore their own implications properly. just as when i say that bolin could better function to critique the neocolonial implications of republic city through his relationship to his earthbending as a mixed child, or that the implications of asami's abusive upbringing should have been teased out in a meaningful way, i am not suggesting that the structural elements of their characters be changed, but rather that those elements that are already established simply be explored properly.

mako being a pro-athlete in book 1 actually makes a lot of sense, because unlike bolin, who enjoys the attention such a profession brings (again, could that be tied to his formative trauma of being dismissed and ostracized by society due to his poverty and orphanhood? perhaps!!!!!), mako allows himself to be physically and financially exploited for the possibility of relative stability. before getting this gig, he was homeless, and so allowing himself to be exploited and put his body at risk for the chance to live under a roof (the gym where he works) for the first time since early childhood is his primary motivation for continuing to allow his own exploitation. obviously there are secondary factors, like the fact that he gets to bond with his brother doing something that bolin enjoys, the fact that he's being appreciated for his skillset by beautiful, powerful women (again how many times do i have to say that mako is innocent for fumbling korra and asami like i'm sorry but you would all fumble them too), the fact that he's been reintegrated into a more acceptable social form (by which i mean, no longer doing the books for a street gang). but we see that he doesn't actually make enough money in this career to support himself, that he's being financially exploited as well as physically (we even see him take a second job doing factory labor even more exploitative than the first), so the perks are largely the relative stability (of a nonetheless highly exploitative job) compared to his prior life experiences.

this is an interesting tension! the fact that mako feels like it makes more sense to choose asami over korra due to her wealth (as if korra isn't also immensely materially privileged, which mako even points out to her) is also interesting! book 1 does establish these tensions in mako's character, but never actually goes anywhere with it (hint: the issue rhymes with "shmapitalism"), which is the actual problem. he's not "boring" because his character is weak, but because the actually fascinating implications the writers establish with his character kept being negated by their own poor writing. if the structural critiques being implied throughout lok weren't constantly being veiled by a revolving door of wacky yet forgettable side characters and confusing ideological implications muddling our understanding of its own thesis, the show had the potential to be really good. the animation and music is gorgeous, the fight scenes are beautifully choreographed, the protagonist is deeply lovable, and there are enough compelling aspects to the show buried beneath the rubble of its own failures that teasing them out is genuinely worth exploring. mako, as an ostensible primary character whose role nonetheless largely feels like filler despite being highly compelling on paper, is one such example. so no, i would not change his character, i would simply give him the necessary room to shine.

[bowtiepastabitch]

Let's Talk Costuming: It'd take a miracle to get anyone to see Hamlet

Huzzah huzzah, we return to the Renaissance for part two! You can click here to see my analysis of Aziraphale's costume through the lens of Elizabethan sumptuary laws, aka our angel is a bit of a fop and we love him for it. As a reminder (or if you don't feel like reading the other at all) we're towards the end of the Elizabethan period, around 1599-1601, and England is protestant now!

Guys I absolutely love these costumes. Chronologically, this is the first time we get to see Crowley being stylish. I mean you could count Bildaddy as being... something, but I'm not sure I'd I would not consider it to be vogue or on trend. It is, as I pointed out for Az, highly indicative of his building an identity on and appreciation for Earth.

Silhouette-wise, he's pretty on the nose, and he continues to follow the trends to some degree for many centuries up until around Y2K. He's learning to blend in with the humans and properly enjoy what they bring to the table: clothes, wine, plays, et cetera.

He's not particularly ostentatious, especially standing next to Aziraphale, but his costume speaks more to a quiet luxury. Black, for example, was a very expensive color to dye things, and the buttons and leather accents betray some level of fashion sense.

( The Royal Progress Of Queen Elizabeth I, 1740)

I think one of my favorite things about this costume is the way they took all these elements of the period and then just had them... in black. Even the little ribbon garters on the stockings! It's one of his rare outfits that's entirely and exclusively black and I love that for him. There's a variety of materials, leather detailing and buttons for example, giving the garments a lot of texture and detail nonetheless (and keeping him from looking like a black void on camera). From the first season, this is one of my favorite fits.

According to this article, these costumes are actually borrowed from the Globe's costume archives! Which makes a lot of sense looking at them, they're very elaborate and theatrical, plus I just have a soft spot for costume collections and things that have been worn for multiple productions over time and the way it ties theatre and people and artsists together. Plus, look at those shoes!!!

As per usual, the two costumes compliment each other beautifully. Their historic costumes highlight their narrative foiling of each other in a slightly different way than their modern ones do. Most notably here, at the Bastille, and in Edinburgh, their clothing has a lot to say, were they human, about both social and economic class. We see Crowley demonstrating a significantly higher level of class awareness than Aziraphale, both in their dialogue (virtues of poverty) and in their dress (Aziraphale showing up to revolutionary era Paris in full aristocratic style). Here, in the Elizabethan era, Crowley blends in much better than his angelic counterpart (see again my analysis of Aziraphale's costume in this scene).They really don't look, to your average human unaware, like they belong together. If they weren't staring at each other with puppy dog eyes, it might would be rather believable that they're not friends.

(Portrait of Sir Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury, circa 1613-1614)

I also found this incredibly slutty portrait while I was researching for this post, which bears similarities to Aziraphale's dress, so I figured y'all might enjoy seeing it.

For further reading: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1577/clothes-in-the-elizabethan-era/

Please note that I did write all of this intermittently over several days, and though I've done my best to proofread I'm rather tired so if it's not perfect just look the other way

[qqueenofhades]

Is it selfish and entitled to be optimistic? I know a lot of shit is happening but a lot of good stuff is happening to and I just feel like their are people who are not right wing who just want the rest of us to give up.

Er..... no????

Sorry, this is just the exact kind of question that, when I see it, makes me wonder what sort of insane terminally online brainworms are invading the Discourse (tm) now and both be surprised and not at all surprised that you feel the need to ask. So much of online culture is about nihilism, especially in social media: everything's terrible, everyone's doomed, if you don't recognize that it's Doomed then you're either delusional or "lol neurotypical," and any attempts to change that narrative, push back on it, point out the good things, or insist that meaningful action is both necessary and able to make a difference are somehow Morally Wrong. It's tied into the entire idea that doing nothing is the best course of (non) action, we're all doomed anyway, and that it's better to accept that and aggressively insist that others agree, because conveniently, if everything's terrible and past hope anyway, there's no obligation to try to fix it. It's the real-world corollary of the grimdark fiction insistence that only evil, depression, death, and cruelty are "real," and everything else is naive, stupid, simplistic, saccharine, or otherwise unrepresentative of the "reality" of the Big Mean World. And just like... come on. That's not true. We all know it's not true. Shut up.

It's the same kind of culture that glamorizes depression and poor mental health, insists that any basic steps to help yourself are "ableist," or otherwise does its best to cling to its negative and disempowered mindset, rather than taking any responsibility for either an individual or collective situation and attempting, however small, to make a difference. I'm not surprised that therapy-speak has been yet again weaponized to insist that anyone who has any amount of hope or positive outlook is "selfish and entitled," but as your Local Wise Tumblr Elder, I can safely assure you that it's bullshit and you're under absolutely no obligation to believe it, listen to it, or incorporate it into your worldview or actions. Giving up and throwing up your hands is easy. The hard part is actually trying to change things, accepting that we live in a flawed world, and that it nonetheless does not need to be unmitigated misery at all times. It will not be everything, but it will be something, and it will matter. It will also make you feel better, and very probably, other people as well.

Anyway: you're right. There ARE good things happening. They don't get nearly as much press or play as the bad things, but they still exist, and they should be pointed out. If you're participating in discussions or groups that are pushing the idea that only the bad things are valid, and you're "selfish" for insisting otherwise, I suggest that you drop them or otherwise cut way back or set healthy boundaries. Because, it's just not true, it deliberately disheartens and demoralizes you from trying, and the only people who benefit from that are the fuckwits who are largely responsible for ruining shit in the first place. So don't let them get away with it even more and automatically apply this mindset to yourself before you even try. Etc. etc. you are not obliged to complete the work, but nor are you free to abandon it. So yeah.

[dostoyevsky-official]

Why the Kremlin will fear Dagestan’s anti-Semitic mob

Local officials have been trying to walk a delicate line between alienating local Muslim sentiment in the turbulent North Caucasus and doing anything to stir up further inter-ethnic violence. [...] But this incident may force them – and Moscow – to take a stronger line. [...] The other is the degree to which this issue is being weaponised. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quickly turned it into a propaganda point, blaming the incident on what he called Russia’s ‘widespread culture of hatred toward other nations.’ Conversely Sergei Melikov, head of the Dagestan Republic, has suggested that the violence was instigated by Ukraine.  [...] Of course, it suits Moscow to paint the protests as the result of sinister Ukrainian machinations just as much as it suits Kyiv to use them to demonise Russia as a land of prejudice and hate. Nonetheless, the Kremlin clearly fears that rising Muslim violence will not only further complicate its relationship with Israel but also risks destabilising the North Caucasus. It also fears that Ukrainian allies and intelligence agencies, which have already demonstrated their willingness to commit acts of sabotage and subversion within Russia’s borders, have little reason not to exacerbate this problem. This makes the crisis a serious security issue.

The Storming of Uytash

The attempted pogrom is not just rooted in antisemitic messaging, but in systemic dynamics in the region. General socioeconomic conditions in the republic continue to deteriorate. Basic necessities to live such as electricity, water, and gas are irregularly supplied, which led to sustained small protests only a few months ago. Additionally, Russia’s war in Ukraine has impacted Dagestan heavily, with significant casualties. Public appeals and small actions do not regularly succeed, with the authorities sweeping them aside. In some cases, residents have appealed directly to President Putin because of Governor Melikov’s unresponsiveness. [...] Melikov has all but eliminated channels for moderate public expression. This leads to tactical outbidding that favors dramatic, extreme actions. An inability to protest built up pressure until a mob emerged. Expressions of solidarity with Palestinians are effectively banned, despite both Russia’s growing ties with Hamas and that the attempted protests are not anti-state. Nightly prayers are essentially the sole form of collective support for Palestine permitted by the state. Analysis of the event’s causes should be wary of overemphasizing individual actors’ roles in organizing it. The popular «Utro Dagestan» Telegram channel has received considerable attention for amplifying antisemitic narratives and purportedly instigating the attempted pogrom. Previously, it played a major role coordinating the anti-mobilization protests. However, its repeated calls for greater and continued resistance in September 2022 were not acted upon after a couple of days. [...] The influence of Utro Dagestan deserves focus, but assigning it causality would be misconstrued. The security services’ strategy came across as, at best, poorly executed containment, at worst, active passivity. They largely refused to intervene, other than attempting to keep the mob out of the airport and off of the tarmac.  There are three apparent explanations for the non-engagement strategy. First, instructions came from the top, with the authorities deciding they could maintain sufficient control over the situation, while allowing the mob to release its built-up emotions. [...] Second, non-engagement could suggest that the security services supported the mob’s actions. As such, they decided to not stop the attempted pogrom. Finally, the authorities could have decided non-engagement was the best strategy to avoid escalation, considering the threat of an armed mob.  [...] The arrival of a military convoy in Makhachkala indicates the government’s preparation for continued troubles. As seen in the anti-mobilization protests, Dagestan’s young men are typically prepared to clash with police, so violence at the airport was not entirely surprising. However, the tarmac breachers went further than the usual brawling, with them firing shots into the air. This fact will not be overlooked. The authorities have been closely watching dynamics related to youth radicalization, calls for partisan action, and militant activity. Dagestan, and likely the rest of the North Caucasus, is now facing heightened repression as a result of the storming of Makhachkala’s airport. This repression will not address actual problems or mobilizing factors, but add pressure within a strained system. The increase in antisemitic incidents reveal the potential for an explosion, as they represent uncontrolled violence beyond the state’s control—but, for now, it is not targeting the authorities.

[tianshiisdead]

Found while cleaning old drafts: some meta on Robin, Lovell, Griffin, their relationships, and the all-consuming many-sided nature of empire:

I'm really fascinated by Griffin and Robin's similarities to Lovell and their reactions to it: that they are polar opposites both narratively and in their roles and relationships, that Lovell is a simple villain and a clear evil while Robin and Griffin are victims of his actions, but that none of them can escape the fact that being raised by him has horribly imprinted onto them traces of Lovell as well. Griffin taking his last name and defiantly giving name to what Lovell refuses to acknowledge, Robin getting mistaken for Lovell by his son, all the places where Griffin is mentioned to be similar, and most of all the fact that Lovell himself is the one most discomforted by the similarity. Lovell both intentionally makes them in his image for the sake of convenience but also avoids it, because his ability to use them as tools hinges heavily on his complete dehumanization of them based on race, the similarities reveal something he isn't ready to confront. It reminds me of the concept of 'total empire' according to 'Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism', where colonization is as defining for the colonizer as it is for the colonized, and the colonizer brutally enforcing their will on the colonized has the flip side of the colonizer becoming changed by their own consumption of the goods of the colonized, goods projected onto the racialized bodies of the colonized, making their own identities through what they've taken. Babel brings that up over and over very blatantly through comments on how the British define themselves with foreign goods, but Lovell and the tension in his similarity and relationship to Griffin and Robin read like a sort of microcosm of that as well. He cannot acknowledge what he's imparted onto them because it would say something about himself that he can't accept. On the other hand, Robin doesn't directly confront his own connections and similarities with Lovell for most of the book, but Griffin does, he's the only one out of the three of them who forces it into the open. It's very telling that the beginning of the end (of Lovell) is tied to Robin doing the same, forcing their connection into the open and making Lovell look it in the eyes. I think there's something so compelling about Robin-Griffin-Lovell and their relationships, a multifaceted dynamic that tends to get glossed over for painful reasons I can understand, but one that nonetheless has a lot to say about the themes of the book, presented a little more subtly.

[daydreamycrustacean]

you cant just threaten me with narrative parallels to big boss and not deliver. i need this

AHEHEHEE....( •̀ ω •́ )✧ Ive spent all noon going insane over char and ive listened 3 times to beyond the time, so you chose the perfect time for this.... Okay. so basically,

meme comic aside, here's a more structured and elaborated version of these points, taken from something that I wrote in my notes app at 2 am, plus some other points. Sorry if this doesn't make sense. Im not good at putting my thoughts into words.

----------------------

-they are both soldiers who end up being idolized and turned into a symbol. this idolization makes people want them to be in a position of leadership.

-being better known for their nom de guerre, "the red comet/char aznable" (which also counts as this, since it's a fake name tied to his identity in the one-year war) and "big boss", adds to this idealization, and with it also comes depersonalization, as their identity becomes just an image of a war hero that exists in peoples heads. a legend, rather than a real person.

-the artificiality of this legend is brought home in the way that it is taken, replicated, and put into other people, showing that anyone can be "the red comet" or "big boss". that's right baby. clones! Be it The Patriots making supersoldier clones of big boss for war purposes or Sunrise making Char after Char for anime purposes. But Char does also have actual in-universe clones???

-And also phantoms... the much clearer example of the artificiality of these legends/identities. I don't know anything abt Gundam Unicorn and so the only things I know abt Full Frontal are from the wiki. but he's just Venom Snake. Hey, what if we took this random guy and altered his appearance and mind to be the red comet/big boss?

-Okay its time to talk about The Boss and Zeon Deikun. Their deaths turn them both into symbols that represent the ideals that they preached. Ideals that everyone else takes and misinterprets for their own purposes. Their deaths also kickstart Big Boss and Char´s...everything. In a way, both Big Boss and Char dedicate their lives fighting for the ideals that their mother/father represented. Are they any good at this? Or are they yet another person taking these ideals and twisting them beyond recognition? Let´s say that´s up for debate.

-"So both Char and Big Boss ended up being idolized just like The Boss and Zeon Deikun? Even though it's something that they did not want and tried to avoid?" YES! Unavoidable fate. Repeating mistakes of the past...Sins of the Father... one of the key themes of Metal Gear. THE theme of metal gear. Big Boss more consciously tried to avoid the fate of The Boss by leaving the US military and hated being seen as a hero/called Big Boss because of The Boss. Char never outright states that the reason he does not want leadership is because he does not want to suffer his father´s fate...but his choice of accepting leadership is tied into his father´s fate nonetheless, with "Maybe human sacrifices run in your family" and Char casting himself as that human sacrifice in Char´s Counterattack. Is the reason as to why thinking about Char makes me so insane because his narrative of not being able to escape his father´s shadow taps into one of Metal Gears main themes? who knows...

-I said that Char´s "The Boss" figure is Zeon Deikun...but I think Lalah is the emotional aspect of this. She is the more clear Mother Figure whose death scars and haunts Char the way The Boss haunts Big Boss. Yes, Char also lost his real mom when young but shes not as important as Lalah.

-They just miss their mom bro :(

-cue millions of jokes about Oedipus complexes (more prevalent in the gundam fandom. for some reason.)...not gonna comment on this but they are there. and I can't ignore it if I'm talking abt comparisons between them.

-Okay, mothers/fathers talk aside. Their relationship to war and conflict. Not much else to say that I didn't say in the image. Its all they know and and all they think themselves capable of. Though thinking about their similarities on this did remind me of something that Beltorchika said in Zeta about Char, about how she thinks he's someone who is incapable of living without war and how definitely similar things are directly said about big boss in metal gear. there's more to this and about whether this is true and why...but my eyes are starting to hurt. I need to finish this.

-Lets go back to leadership. despite the fact that they both do not initially want this position of power, they do eventually give into it to help soldiers/Spacenoids respectively. Big Boss wants soldiers to not be used by governments like he was used (but he does end up using them nonetheless. oops) and Char wants Spacenoid independence from the Federation, although Char´s motivations in cca are more complex than just this, I do believe part of him does genuinely see helping spacenoids as his "duty" and something he needs to sacrifice himself for.Okay that was my last big point. finally this is done. more stuff:

-the_man_who_sold_the_world.mp3

-I don't know. all war criminals know these days is be bisexual and lie. <- all there is to say abt their heavy homoerotic subtext. which yes they also both individually have. although big boss´ is stronger bc he's in metal gear. I also can't ignore it. It's still a character aspect.

-forgot abt Quess...use of child soldiers ig. awesome.

[destinationtoast]

On writing messiness, genre expectations, and satisfying endings

(AKA why did I mostly like the Ted Lasso finale?)

I found the Ted Lasso finale more satisfying than many people seem to have – which is not to say I found it perfect; it was an imperfect end to a messy season – but it made me feel a lot of big & enjoyable emotions while watching it, and it didn’t contain anything that left me feeling too frustrated afterward.  But I know a lot of people had a much more negative experience (and I feel empathy and compassion for that, as someone who has been deeply disappointed by past shows I was hugely invested in *cough* Sherlock and Game of Thrones *cough*).  This meta is me noodling about why I found the finale mostly satisfying, while not critiquing anyone else’s experience or expectations.  

It's been funny watching the Succession finale and the Ted Lasso finale in such close proximity, for a number of reasons (I loved both shows, in such different ways).  Maybe I'm just not tuned in enough to the Succession fandom to see it, but I didn’t see people saying things like, "I can't believe Succession set up X to stay in an abusive dynamic with Y," or “Z is in such a mentally unstable place and didn’t get help! So unhealthy.”   OTOH, I see a lot of people feeling unhappy that their favorite Ted Lasso characters weren’t given ideal/healthy/happy endings, which seems to be where a lot of the finale dissatisfaction arises.

A lot of this obviously comes down to tone expectations – people were presumably not expecting Succession to be kind to the characters in the end, because it's never been about kindness or healthy relationships, whereas Ted Lasso has often been.  But this got me thinking about how I nonetheless seem to have had different expectations for the Ted Lasso finale than some (many?) fans did.  Looking at some of the criticisms I’ve seen from people who were disappointed by the finale, I think I had different writing expectations from some fans, different genre expectations, and perhaps a different idea of what qualifies as a satisfying ending.  

Writing expectations. I didn’t think the finale could possibly fix most of what was wrong with S3, which was a mess.  S3 was often lovely, and I will enjoy rewatching it, but it was still a mess structurally – featuring weird pacing, odd choices of where to focus, and some unsatisfying storylines & character moments.  And because writers are only human – and also working with a lot of behind-the-scenes constraints & S4 negotiations & late rewrites – I didn’t think the finale would be able to do any last-minute miracle saves.   I didn’t expect any grand plan to become clear, or all/most of the loose threads to get tied up.  But I went in open to the idea that I would enjoy the finale for where it took the characters, given the messy journeys they’d already been on by the end of episode 3x11.  (This was tempered by my having hoped in vain for the writers to miraculously make sense of everything/tie together all the messy threads neatly in a finale before, and having never seen that happen!)

Genre expectations.   I think many fans watching Ted Lasso were expecting that the show was going to give an unambiguously happy ending to all the main characters for genre reasons.  Some saw it as a rom-com – a story leading to romance(s) and some form of happy ending for all the main cast – because the show featured a number of rom-com elements and references, as well as some romantic storylines.  And I think some (an overlapping set) saw it as a particular kind of hurt/comfort narrative – a story about triumphant personal growth, about overcoming adversity & trauma, and receiving only comfort & joy by the end of the story.  I can see the ending being disappointing with either of those genre expectations.  But the show I thought I was watching was about imperfect people trying to grow, to improve, to build better relationships, and to find ways to thrive – but doing so imperfectly.  I expected progress for most characters, but also backsliding – and for some characters to improve in some dimensions but not in others.  I thought the show was more about hope and effort than about success.  (And the show also wasn't about romance to me, even though I enjoyed Roy/Keeley in the show and want to read/write a ton of shippy fic about my OT3 and several other ships.)

Satisfying endings.  Given my genre expectations, what I wanted was not for the characters to all end up perfectly happy, nor for all the relationships to end up healthy or resolved.  I wanted characters to behave in ways where I could understand their motivations, and that were consistent with their behaviors through 3x11.  To me, the finale succeeded better at this than a number of episodes earlier in S3, where I was left scratching my head about why characters had made various choices.  And I wanted many of the characters that Ted had influenced to show some kind of growth/hope for the future, however imperfectly, because that fit my expectations for the kind of narrative it was (as described above – not complete happy endings, but messy and imperfect growth).  For me, the finale succeeded there, too.  To address a few endings that caused specific sore spots for other fans:

Beard/Jane: The one thing that seemed impossible to believe about Beard’s wedding was that Ted wasn’t there.  (That’s the main thing that makes me open to the “it was just a dream of Ted’s” theory – I think that theory has other difficulties, but it’s fun to consider, and I’m open to it.)  I know some people were upset that Beard & Jane ended up together because it’s a toxic relationship.  But while I don’t disagree, that doesn’t seem like a dealbreaker to me unless the show is a rom-com.  Beard has been on & off with Jane the whole show, and I didn’t see any signs that he was about to break that pattern.  It made sense to me that he would feel very conflicted about whether to follow Ted or stay with her, but also seemed believable to me that he would ultimately choose to stay.  I was very sad that he was leaving Ted, but it actually felt like personal growth to me, for him to feel like he could thrive without Ted.  (Lots of room still for personal growth in other dimensions.)  

Roy, Jamie, and Keeley: Roy and Jamie fighting about who should be allowed to try to date Keeley was stupid of them, but not unrealistically stupid, given that they're trying to figure out how to preserve their new relationship while also both loving her.  That’s backsliding, but they’ve also both grown a lot.  (Well, Jamie clearly has; Roy allegedly has, and I can see signs of that in a couple of episodes especially, but S3 has not served him that well overall imo, and I will require fic to fill in some blanks.)  I’m glad Keeley didn’t choose one of them – that shows growth on her part, I think.   I very much headcanon the three of them getting together eventually, but I feel like her choosing to focus on herself & KJPR for now (especially while they’re both being idiots) is a satisfying outcome.  

Jamie and his dad: As with Beard/Jane, a lot of the critiques I saw of the (dream?) montage reunion between Jamie and his dad were of the form “But that relationship has been toxic.” And I can understand wanting Jamie to be fully done dealing with the source of so much past trauma.  But I can easily imagine Jamie trying to cautiously have some limited form of relationship with his dad again.  I am not saying someone in Jamie’s position should do that, nor that it’s likely to lead to a healthy/easy dynamic.  But it does not seem inconsistent with where Jamie is as of the finale.  I think he’s grown a lot, and has more agency in his life now, but he clearly showed he was having trouble just ignoring his dad.  And many people revisit relationships that have caused them pain and have lacked resolution, for better or worse.  I hope and expect that with a strong set of friends/found family supporting him, Jamie will ultimately be okay.

Nate:  Okay, here I admit my headcanons are doing some heavy lifting, and I would have been happy if they’d clarified more of this onscreen.  But I cannot imagine that Nate was not offered a coach role when he returned – and I can easily imagine him refusing that offer and asking to be a kit man again for the short term, so that’s my headcanon.  He seemed to really be enjoying working at Taste of Athens as a waiter – for multiple reasons, not just because Jade was there – and this seems consistent with that.  I think part of what he learned from this season was that prioritizing fame & recognition doesn’t lead him to happiness, and that he has an unhealthy need to be admired/praised by the Twitterati, the press, etc.  I can easily believe that he’d want to step back from the limelight and prioritize working with a team that cares about him while figuring out what’s next.  (Especially as he has been pretty bimodal; overly humble and shy at first, and then overly recognition-seeking and angry about perceived slights – I can easily buy him backsliding into too-humble mode for a while).  I fully expect he’ll keep building more confidence again in a healthier way, and that he'll coach Richmond again shortly (even if the montage was just a Ted dream).  And if Roy was truly made head coach, I headcanon that it happened after a discussion about who should fill that role, and Nate turning it down.  I also would have liked a fuller resolution between him and Ted, but I bought the brief scene between them as consistent with where they both were emotionally at that point (I would not be shocked if Nate mailed Ted the full 60 pages later, though).

Rebecca:  Love that she’s truly over Rupert and figuring out whether she still wants Richmond in light of that – and I love the decision she arrives at.  Her running into the Dutch guy was the most rom-commy piece of the finale for me, but I didn’t mind it.  I’d been trying to figure out how on earth they could wrap up the whole messy psychic storyline (which I hated), and I had vaguely wondered whether – if she was indeed fated to be a mother – she might end up co-parenting with Bex, or whether she might end up with the Dutch guy.  I also started to think during the finale that she might go back to Kansas with Ted, but if she had done so, I wanted that to be the first step on a journey of world travel and self-exploration – not her getting together with Ted and co-parenting Henry. (I wasn’t ever opposed to T/R, but I personally felt it would have felt unearned if that relationship had only started up in the finale.  I personally really enjoyed the double trolling at the beginning of the episode, though, with Ted and then the bethonged Beard in Rebecca’s kitchen – amazing! XD )  Anyway, I’m fine with her ending up surrounded by her Richmond family and dating the Dutch guy.

Ted: I expected Ted to return to Kansas at the end, and I think that was the best choice, though a hard one. I think Ted adores Richmond and will be back visiting all the dang time, and I hope he may eventually move back.  But the “choice” Rebecca offered him to move Henry to Richmond now was an unrealistic one – Ted would have to negotiate that change with Michelle, and it’s a HUGE ask her (and possibly Dr. Jacob) to uproot like that and leave her family/friends/job behind.  So the right thing for Henry right now is for Ted to go back and be with him.   And I think that choice is very consistent with what we’ve seen of Ted’s struggles with anxiety last season and his more explicitly worrying about where he should be this season.  I think it’s a bittersweet choice for him, and he’s going to miss Richmond a lot, but I’m not worried about him being all alone.  With the way Ted makes friends, I am sure he already has a bunch of good ones back in Kansas, and that he’ll keep making more.  I very much look forward to a lot of reunion fic with everyone he’s left behind, though.  And I want AFC Richmond to come visit him, as well as the other way around!

I’ve read/been influenced by some good meta about some of the above points, and I’ll reblog some of it later.  But that’s the gist of where I’m at – the characters we love are growing and changing in some very good ways, but they are definitely still imperfect, and still themselves. And most things don't wrap up tidily with a full resolution, but that's okay.  For me, that all holds true whether or not the montage was Ted’s dream, and I am happy for that to be ambiguous (except for the part where Ted would totally be at Beard’s wedding).  But I’m very interested in hearing about the whole gamut of experiences people are having (and to hear alternate theories about genre expectations, etc)!  I can’t wait to read more meta, as well as so much fic, fix-it or otherwise. I continue to be delighted to be a part of the fandom for this show. <3

[omegalomania]

not to get top surgery and then Immediately start rambling about ybc again but like the thing about ybc is . the thing is. the thing is that it's this direct fucking correlation to fob's career trajectory and the turbulence of the hiatus. and i dont know how much of this was intentional or not but the THING about the hiatus is that it seeps into everything they do in this weird wild unfathomable way. like it or not, it is a very distinct "before and after" point. like it's the darkest point in the band's history, and in many ways in each member's individual histories, and ybc is basically a whole narrative crafted around this because it was about their resurgence and return and the phoenix rising from the ashes.

ybc as a narrative starts because of a briefcase. a not insignificant portion of this narrative revolves around this case, and it contains something that we never see. the case contains something terrible. it contains something that the band members are afraid of but overjoyed to have and nonetheless fight and kill each other to protect (pete could feel the band slipping away but wrote about it anyway. patrick and joe were disillusioned and tired and wanted a break from it all). pete clings to this briefcase and shields it with his body at the very end, DIES to protect it (pete was the only one who didn't want the hiatus and didn't know what he was outside of fall out boy). patrick physically ties the case to his body and it has to be cleaved from him, painfully (killing the band arguably nearly killed his career in music). this is a story that starts with the band's faces bathed in a radiant golden glow of something full of so much promise...that subsequently crushes them beneath its heel, mangles them, tortures them, drags them through hell, divides them again and again and again and again (the band became so much bigger than any of them dreamed and yet if they'd never taken the break, it would have broken the band eventually). their lives are uprooted and ruined and ruptured because of it. they tied themselves to this thing that pulled them apart, brutally, in more ways than one.

did they mean it? did they mean it when this case became stained, literally, with their blood? did they mean it when, immediately upon obtaining this case, the band was separated from each other and were quickly captured and tortured? when the case was seized by forces other than themselves? did they mean it when a group of literal kids beat the shit out of the band and left them for dead (it's been years and pete still calls us that - the kids)? when patrick was warped into something uncontrollably monstrous, possessed of a deep-seated hatred toward music as a very concept? when patrick was the one to kill joe, who then went to the platonic ideal of sex drugs and rock and roll hell? when andy died alone, defending something without any backup or hope for resolution? when patrick and pete were the last two standing who murdered each other over this thing, coughing blood in the dust while the spectators gathered around to root hungrily for their demise? when the pair of them died side by side, seemingly unable to survive without one another?

it's this briefcase that contains something ruinous and horrible that rises to tear the band apart (again) but at which the band members do not so much as flinch as they face this fucking thing down. this thing that became so much bigger than they were and threatened to consume them. this thing that they protected and fought and died for and swore to love and defend even as it wanted to rip them apart. and did they mean that? did they mean it when they chose to forgive one another for all their wrongdoings without hesitation and walk back into a world that had been nothing but unkind to them, and fight for it regardless? did they mean this glorious and inexplicable conclusion, white light crashing into red and sending forth a wave of blood that lapped up against the very fucking gates of heaven?

the band had been together for something like a year when this story ended. and i think at this point there was no real knowing whether there'd be a resolution. and maybe on some level they will always feel that push. that adversity. there will always be something they must go up against, some by their own design, some external. but if they have each other -

well. you know how it goes. they've got each other. and that's enough.

fuck, but as long as they have each other, it's enough.

[utilitycaster]

I want to expand on the role of Brevyn, because I think Madeleine Roux had a really tough task, to humanize Lucien without compromising him as, well, the campaign BBEG who betrayed every last alliance in the pursuit of power, as well as drawing parallels to Molly (and even setting groundwork for Kingsley), and I think she did it wonderfully. I also want to talk about how Brevyn parallels Molly both within the canon and externally, which I honestly don't know is deliberate (the external part; the in-canon part I assume is on purpose but I have to imagine Roux stayed out of fandom things in order to avoid being unwittingly influenced by fanon).

I assume if you're reading this you've read the book but in case you're not, Brevyn is a friend and lover of Lucien's from Shadycreek Run. She's his oldest friend other than Cree, and notably, whereas Cree is always a follower of Lucien, Brevyn is someone Lucien follows. She's why he ends up going to the Claret Orders - she gets kicked out of her mother's house, where Lucien and Cree also often stay, so they all go to the Claret Orders. When the Claret Orders find themselves lacking in contracts, Brevyn is the one who branches out and ultimately builds a working relationship with Vess, and along with Lucien is the one who brings together the original Tombtakers (she and Jurrell die before we meet them in Campaign 2). She ultimately dies trying to retrieve the Somnovem journal for him, of her own accord.

As a result, Brevyn serves something as a lost Lenore, and as the tether that snapped at just the right time. It underscores why Lucien's response to Vess is so particularly brutal, why he became so tied up in the Somnovem in the first place, and because while Brevyn's death, like those of all of the Tombtakers, ultimately is because of the Somnovem, she's the only one who dies purely of her own free will. Lucien forces the rest to follow him, in the end, and lets them die one by one. He neglects his sister in favor of ambition, and then is devastated that she decided to build her own life in his absence and won't leave for a long-lost brother. But Brevyn dies as herself. She's that one last shred of humanity that was not present in what we saw of him in the show. And the shard of Molly latches on to that, understandably, as the one good thing Lucien had, because in the end Lucien is someone we know from Campaign 2 will ultimately leave even Cree, his oldest companion, to die, in order to buy himself a little bit of time. We need one relationship he actually cared about; and that one is Brevyn, with whom he stayed as she died.

Now, the fun thing for me is that the book is written in a third person limited viewpoint. The opinions presented are Lucien's, for the most part, so we see Brevyn through his eyes. She, understandably, becomes idealized to him even though it's clear she's got plenty of flaws (willing to make some sketchy deals with the Assembly, impulsive to the point of adrenaline junkie levels, rather too trusting, ruled heavily by emotion over logic) because, well, he has feelings for her. And then, of course, after she dies, he idealizes her within the narrative, because how could he be anything but loving and generous with the woman who gave her life so he could continue to live?

It's remarkably close to how the fandom and the Mighty Nein themselves responded to Molly's death, with his worst traits, the condescension and fickleness and manipulation, all washed away because he did, in the end, die for them. And this is a pretty common trope, to come up with a far more perfect version of someone after they've died, particularly if they died in a way where it feels like you owe them something, so again, the way it parallels the fandom lionization of Molly might be a happy accident - but it's a really fun metatextual reflection here nonetheless.

[saionjeans]

anthy and saionji both have long wavy hair, but anthy mostly keeps it pinned up and saionji mostly lets it loose, and they have have inverse hair and eye color schemes. the colors of purple and green operate symbolically within utena in a far less immediately noticeable way than the colors of white, red, or yellow, but they nonetheless perform a necessary symbolic function within the narrative.

we are told in ep 13 ("tracing a path") that the "green duels" (ie, utena's first two duels against saionji) represent "amitié" and "choix" (friendship and choice), while the duel called "révolution" is dark purple. in her initial duels, utena fights for friendship (for wakaba), and then makes the active choice to win so as to keep anthy from saionji's clutches. but "raison," "amour," and "adoration" don't follow this pattern. miki is the one who fights out of "reason," juri is the one who fights out of love, and nanami is the one who fights out of adoration (for touga). you could of course also argue that utena mirrors their desires in various ways: like miki, utena thinks that her desire to participate in the duels is logical rather than driven by ego; like juri, utena is a closeted lesbian who fights for an idealized love object; and like nanami, utena fights out of adoration for her prince. but they are more superficially describing miki, juri, and nanami’s motivations than utena’s. moreover, utena's fights against touga, "conviction" and "soi," go back to primarily representing utena's emotions and motivations for fighting. and finally, the duel called revolution is, of course, not only utena's revolution, but, arguably more importantly, anthy's.

thus, reading these labeled ascribed to color symbolism is not as simple as attributing them 1:1 to different ideas. after all, red is an extremely prevalent color in utena, and reducing it simply to "conviction" and "soi" as akio does is willfully playing into his game of ignoring its significance as it functions as the color of [sexual] violence, among other things. the definitions of symbols we are presented with are not simply what the symbols "mean," but rather what the frame is indicating, and often obfuscating, and the onus is on us as viewers not simply to "decode" certain symbols present, but also to interpret and actively complicate them.

when it comes to saionji's duels, i think you can read these labels both ways; both as utena fighting for wakaba and then for anthy, but also as saionji choosing to fight due to his own complicated friendship. his sunlit garden is, after all, his memories with touga, and his primary motivator and desire for "eternity" is his infinitely complicated desire to both surpass touga – beating him in a duel, acquiring the power he believes touga to already possess, etc. – and regress to a simpler point in their childhoods, which is why he also just refuses to let touga go despite actively loathing the person touga has become.

his hair is green and eminently noticeable, both because it is genuinely beautiful, and also because he basically only ever ties it up when practicing kendo. kendo is when he is most in his element (arguably the only times he is ever in his element and not painfully awkward and cringeworthy), and is also the one thing he actually has that proves that he is superior to touga in some concrete way. but in his student council uniform, he keeps his hair long and loose, like an open wound bleeding out everywhere.

anthy, on the other hand, keeps her long, beautiful, purple hair tied up, and only ever lets it down in her most intimate and vulnerable moments. unlike saionji, who is a pathetic open book, anthy never wears her heart on her sleeve (she claims she doesn't even have a heart). she is always guarded. when she lets her hair down, she looks like an entirely different person. she looks far younger, far more girlish. akio exploits that youth and vulnerability, while utena connects with it as her peer who feels empathy and compassion for her friend's suffering. anthy's purple hair signifies revolution both in the sense that as the rose bride and an "extension" of akio, she perpetuates the infinite cycle of futile stasis, and in the sense that she ultimately does emerge from her coffin and leaves ohtori behind.

so why are her eyes green, and saionji's eyes purple? this inversion is deliberate, of course. to be reductive, anthy has the eyes of "friendship and choice," and saionji has the eyes of "revolution." if hair represents how characters are perceived and interpreted by the gaze of the other, then eyes represent the character's internal gaze projected outwards — or more simply, their worldview. anthy's purple signifies both the coffin as eternal prison and its revolutionary potential upon leaving it. who is most insistent that we must leave our coffins prepared for us by end of the world? and who is given the opportunity to egress through expulsion, but also finds that even as he wishes to escape his coffin, something keeps him miserably moored in ohtori, even as he resists its thrall?

saionji is the character most vocally outspoken against the system, and not only the system of fighting to possess a girl, which is obviously, gratuitously objectionable, but the very premise of ohtori in itself, the system of school as coffin. but he is also the first character we are introduced to who participates in it, and he subscribes to anthy's abuse and exploitation wholeheartedly, almost demonically. even those within ohtori's walls can condemn saionji's blatant, uncouth mode of abuse; unlike the covert and obscured sexual violence permeating ohtori's hallowed halls, saionji's physical violence cannot be obfuscated, and it makes him a target of punishment through satisfying humiliation. everyone enjoys schadenfreude at the expense of a violent misogynist. meanwhile, touga is equally as pathetic and humiliating if not more so, but his methods of violence are less obvious, and due to wholly subscribing to the narrative (ie, akio) and operating within that frame, he cannot be made an object of ridicule as saionji is. saionji is both ridiculed because it is funny to watch a perpetrator of domestic abuse get turned into a monkey, and because his cogent insights must be undermined through mockery within the confines of a narrative he actively attempts to resist.

anthy, on the other hand has green eyes, as does akio. anthy's sunlit garden, if you can even call it that, was her memories of dios as prince. such a memory is only depicted through the falsity of theatrical shadows, an illusion projected onto the literal stage quite like the illusions akio projects across his entire domain. we are then given insight into a "truer" memory (still nonetheless complicated by anachronistic signifiers and the haze of allegory and illusion). but, we are told, anthy made the choice to sacrifice herself for dios. she bore all the pain and suffering of humanity's hatred for years out of love for her brother. what is utena if not a show about friendship and choice? who is anthy if not a young, scared girl who loved too deeply and paid the ultimate price for it?

utena wants to be dios, but touga wants to be akio. anthy attaches herself to dios-as-akio, and saionji attaches himself to touga-as-akio. "you remind me so much of dios when i loved him." the memory of a person you once truly loved, taking on a completely different name in memoriam of that past version, trapped in the perfect stasis of memory, the sunlit garden of the mind, that will never go to seed. the touga of nanami's memories, the touga of saionji's memories, and the touga of the present, are three different people, functionally speaking (and this isn't even getting into the touga of utena's memories in adolescence). just as anthy resents the akio of the present who conflicts with her ideals of dios in the past, saionji attaches himself to a memory of touga, doing everything in his power not only to break free of his own coffin, but to help touga escape his. if anthy fears that utena becoming dios will result in her turning into akio proper, saionji's fear is even more potent, as touga is already in the process of becoming akio, and there is seemingly nothing left to do but become his rose bride.

there is also the obvious fact that, while a distinctly different shade, ohtori school uniforms, especially the boys' uniforms, are largely green. and saionji's kendo outfit is partially purple (albeit a lighter purple than anthy's hair) and partially black (like utena’s shirt). akio/anthy's green eyes can thus be read as their entrenched roles within the walls of ohtori, while saionji's purple hakama when he a) is situated in his element (kendo) and b) says "no matter how you may be abused, you're always happy to be near the one you love" (for which he is immediately dismissed) may signify his latent "princeliness," both as he participates in the system of exploitation and abuse, and as he attempts to resist it.

ultimately, saionji and anthy's inverse color scheme constitutes merely one facet of a much larger tapestry of color symbolism, which could be analyzed endlessly, and lies far beyond the scope of this single post. i merely wanted to draw attention to anthy and saionji's roles not only as visual foils, but also as thematic complements. two coffin-dwellers, trapped in a system that explicitly harms them and harming others in the process (including each other). two sides of the same rose bride paradox. two self-destructive cynics. two idealists who, no matter how they may be abused, are always happy to be near the one they love.

[melrosing]

JAIME IN THE RIVERLANDS I: Exploring the 'Limits of Redemption'

Or: I HATE YOUR JAIME META AND HERE'S WHY

[Note: So this long fucking post is actually only the intro to what is (I think) a three/four part essay; the other parts are in editing stages at the moment but I figured if I don't post the first part now it'll be a WIP forever. Hopefully the rest will follow relatively soon as I'm literally sitting around with covid rn doing approx. nothing else but whatever watch this space I guess. anyway]

“I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what’s the answer then?” George R. R. Martin (!!!)

‘Redemption’ is broadly considered to be the most significant theme in Jaime Lannister’s narrative, with most arguing that the conclusion of his story must reach one verdict or another in terms of whether he has achieved it. For those that believe he won’t, Jaime’s chapters in AFFC and ADWD are most commonly used as evidence. 

However, Jaime’s Riverlands arc (which I will here distinguish as beginning in Jaime III AFFC, and ending in Jaime I ADWD) is one I think is too often broken down and compartmentalised, with few takes managing to consider it holistically. Scenes are often isolated from their context and from the preceding and succeeding chapters, with fans nonetheless reaching their verdict on Jaime’s broader story based on this limited analysis. So the arguments go, here’s Jaime doing bad things and fighting for the wrong side after all he went through in ASOS: after choosing to change, and then failing to do so. If Jaime truly wanted redemption, why is he still fighting for the Lannister regime? Why are all his efforts for good so pitifully small-scale? 

Here I want to consider this arc not just through isolated scenes, but within the broader narrative of Jaime’s story. For, as with everything else, GRRM is rarely interested in presenting a straightforward story of its type: Jaime’s struggle for redemption in the Riverlands is treated with as much complexity as other arcs in the story, such as Dany’s governance in Meereen, or Jon’s on the Wall. Characters are often trapped by circumstance, forced to compromise or made to contradict their own ideals in an effort to achieve their goals. The result can be ugliness and strife where a reader expects catharsis. In a series with two volumes to go, this is not to say that catharsis won’t come for Jaime’s story, but its delayed arrival has seen fans frequently contrast it with another POV: Theon’s.

Theon is another character for whom redemption is a guiding theme, though his is often favoured above Jaime’s owing to the more straightforward catharsis it affords. When we last see Theon in ADWD, he has fought sizable demons (both internal and otherwise) to escape Winterfell and save Jeyne Poole in the process. From here, a reader anticipates Theon will continue to fight for the right causes, and carve out a new identity separate from that as Balon’s heir, or Ned Stark’s hostage. No reader expects that Theon will turn around in TWOW to return to his old ways, because he has no cause to look back: the work is done, his old trappings gone, and the only direction left to him is forwards into something new.

Theon’s arc begins slightly ahead of Jaime’s, kicking off in the second volume where Jaime’s gathers pace in the third, but even accounting for this variance in pacing, the differences between their two redemption stories are notable. Theon begins the series as a relatively isolated character, estranged from his family and superimposed into one where the patriarch might take his head at any moment. For the most part, it doesn’t seem as though anyone even likes Theon all that much, apart from the mother he has largely forgotten about. It’s unsurprising, then, that over the course of several conflicts in ACOK we see Theon’s ties and allies diminished to practically nothing: he’s abandoned by his own house, becomes an enemy of the Starks, and is kept hostage by the Boltons who view him as a useful piece of dirt. 

Theon is ultimately removed from grander disputes besides as a pawn, too afraid to claim his autonomy for fears of painful consequences from Ramsay. He remembers his wrongs, but feels helpless to atone for them, left instead to ruminate in Winterfell. Theon’s redemption is then pursued through courage and reclamation of identity: a growing irrelevance to the new powers of the plot, his story is to reclaim his name and autonomy in the background, acting not for any house or name, but on his own renewed instincts for right and wrong. No family or political cause is left to rely on him, and so Theon ironically has the freedom to act on a purely individual basis, fighting instead for the single person who does need him now: Jeyne Poole. His act of heroism at the end of ADWD carves a checkpoint viewed by most readers as a decisive move towards redemption.

Jaime’s arc and Theon’s have more in common whilst Jaime is imprisoned by the Bloody Mummers in ASOS, where he too relies largely on instincts and courage, and develops the desire to change through tormented self-reflection. But the crucial difference is the scope each are afforded from here on. As discussed, Theon, on point of reflection, is essentially alone. The only choices he can make are those he makes for himself, and indeed he has nothing to lose but his life, for even his name has been stripped from him. 

This is not so in Jaime’s case. Far from Theon’s reduced existence, halfway through ASOS Jaime has returned to all his old trappings, as well as new positions of power he never asked for. He’s now in a position to make choices that were never his before, whether they concern the makeup of the Kingsguard or the safety of his house, and each choice has a domino effect that can ripple throughout the realm. Indeed, rather than estranged from his family, Jaime is inserted directly into the midst of their affairs - at precisely the time when the threat to their house proves existential. This is not a character who can look only to his own personal hopes, ambitions and wellbeing for guidance - rather, this is someone in a prime seat of governance. Ironically, this sees Jaime’s  personal autonomy greatly diminished as a result.

Not all of this is new, of course. Jaime has been born with stakes in these institutions - or acquired them at 15, in the case of the Kingsguard. The fate of House Lannister has always mattered to Jaime because the Lannisters are his own family, and owing to the precarious position Tywin has left them in, that same family are now in mortal danger. Plenty of words are shed amongst the Lannisters on the importance of maintaining Tywin’s legacy in keeping the security of their House, and unfortunately, Jaime has inherited this legacy at precisely the time he has hoped to escape it. Though he emerges from ASOS with personal ambitions to rescue Sansa, become a knight like Brienne, reclaim his fatherhood to his children and restore peace in the realm, what he wants has to be balanced alongside the security of the Lannisters collectively, and the delicate regency that sustains them.

As Ned tells Cersei as early as AGOT, there is no safe escape for House Lannister now: Robert would’ve hounded them to the ends of the world if he knew the truth, and certainly by AFFC both highborn and smallfolk alike long for their downfall. It is here that Jaime finds himself upon his return to King’s Landing. So from ASOS onwards, we see Jaime attempting to continue the arc he began with Brienne, and struggling to do so within the confines of his new elevated roles, risking undermining his family even as they undermine him at every turn. What deeds he does manage, such as instigating rescues for both Tyrion and Sansa, need to be done covertly, whilst everything he does in the public sphere is subject to Cersei’s whims. 

By Jaime III AFFC, Cersei declares that Jaime’s role now is to restore peace in the Riverlands (that is, to quash the Tullys), and Jaime, reluctantly, gathers his men and goes. So begins a balancing act between his private ambition and public persona, where he knows the slightest misstep might be the downfall of his family. 

(Of course, the grim truth is that the fate of House Lannister was sealed by Tywin long ago.)

JAIME AND THE LANNISTER LEGACY

As mentioned, readers often simplify all this to argue that Jaime is simply fighting for ‘the Lannister regime’ in AFFC; that he is flying the colours for his family because that’s the easier thing to do than pursue redemption and the greater good. I’d disagree. 

Firstly, we should note that Jaime has always had a healthy disregard for Lannister rhetoric and his father’s view of the world. This is not to say Jaime is not aware of the power his name holds, and that like his brother Tyrion, he won’t use it occasionally as a crutch, performance or excuse:

"White is for Starks. I'll drink red like a good Lannister." [JAIME V, ASOS]

"If you know me, Urswyck, you know you'll have your reward. A Lannister always pays his debts.” [JAIME III, ASOS]

He was a Lannister of Casterly Rock, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard; no sellsword would make him scream. [JAIME III, ASOS]

That would show the realm that the Lannisters are above their laws, like gods and Targaryens. [JAIME III, ASOS]

“The Father Above has more time than I do. Do you know who I am?" [JAIME IV, AFFC]

And to say the least, Jaime is no stranger to a gold plate armour. Simply put, this is a character quite capable of talking the talk and walking the walk when it suits him, but his broader POV shows one far more sceptical than Tywin or Cersei. 

To start with, Jaime actually shirked his lead role in House Lannister at fifteen, giving up Casterly Rock and the propagation of his house for the promise of his sister’s love. He declines Tywin’s offer to restore him to this position in ASOS (even despite his disillusionment with Cersei) and immediately sets about undermining both his father and sister by rescuing Tyrion and Sansa. Jaime has also from a young age rejected Tywin’s diatribes on his brother, spending his life regretting the one instance he aligned himself to them (see: Tysha). As a young Kingsguard he does not advocate allowing Tywin into the city, even knowing his father would win decisively, does not join his father at the last minute either - and in fact did not even raise Tywin as King given ample opportunity:

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father [...]?”

[...]"Proclaim who you bloody well like," he told Crakehall. Then he climbed the Iron Throne and seated himself with his sword across his knees, to see who would come to claim the kingdom. [JAIME II, ASOS]

At this crucial moment, Jaime adopts a neutral stance, leaving the politicking to other men - and this is a stance that comes to define him up to AGOT: given all he has seen, Jaime no longer has faith in the rights of Kings nor the honour of good men, and so retreats inward where the only rules are his own. Ultimately Jaime’s natural inclination is to stand as an individual: for his own values, rather than as a representative for his house or any institution. 

And his general disdain for his father’s doings and teachings is seen everywhere in his POV - or occasionally, by omission. Whilst Cersei and even Tyrion frequently reflect on Tywin’s methodry and lessons, Jaime, the key subject of those lessons, seldom considers them - except with resentment or reluctance:

"Father," he told the corpse, "it was you who told me that tears were a mark of weakness in a man, so you cannot expect that I should cry for you." [JAIME I, AFFC]

Indeed, in much of AFFC we see Jaime wandering the Riverlands, disturbed by the ruins his father’s campaigns have left behind. This is a character reiterated throughout his POV as one who runs on passion: he entered the war for Cersei and Tyrion, albeit recklessly and in the midst of a conflict of his own making. Meanwhile, Tywin’s work is cold-blooded, calculated and brutal, and reminds Jaime of his enemies rather than his allies. 

In fact, the only aspect of House Lannister that Jaime seems especially concerned with seem to be his loved ones within it. In the beginning this appears largely limited to Cersei and Tyrion, the two he asks after when seeking news from Catelyn. News of a distant uncle and his losses at war are dismissed out of hand, and Tywin himself is asked after as essentially an afterthought:

"It's Cersei and Tyrion who concern me. As well as my lord father." [CATELYN VII, ACOK]

Later, of course, we encounter family like Genna and Daven representing Jaime's broader emotional stakes within his house, and his growing cares for his children make him more intent on its survival. But his remote affection (or entire lack of it) for his own father never seems to waver.

When Tywin does die, we see Jaime holding vigil beside his corpse out of a sense of obligation as Tywin’s son, but after spending much of it scowling at Tywin’s corpse and thinking ill of him, he abandons the vigil early to chase after a distraught Tommen. In the same scene, we even see Jaime attempting to counsel his son differently to how his father did him: where Tywin taught Jaime a man does not cry and should never show weakness, Jaime does not ridicule his son’s distress (as Cersei notably does), but tries to offer him support (albeit with only a sad coping mechanism of his own):

"A man can bear most anything, if he must," Jaime told his son. I have smelled a man roasting, as King Aerys cooked him in his own armour. "The world is full of horrors, Tommen. You can fight them, or laugh at them, or look without seeing . . . go away inside." [JAIME I, AFFC]

In short, Jaime has no apparent interest in upholding his father’s teachings or values, and all signs point to a man who hopes to raise his son differently, to undo cycles of tyranny, and to begin anew. This is all sadly compounded by the inheritance Tywin has left behind.

TYWIN'S LEGACY

Jaime’s nobler intentions unfortunately have little place for manoeuvre in the preservation of House Lannister. In fact, the family are essentially left with two options: they can sustain the 'Lannister regime', or they can vanish completely - and the latter isn’t altogether realistic for the most famous family in Westeros, in a narrative that always strives to be.

So for the Lannisters to maintain their security, they are left with largely the former - maintaining the outward appearance of power that Tywin has fostered for his house. The trouble is that maintaining that appearance, when it was previously sustained by the severity of the actions one man was willing to take.

Since he rose to the head of his family, Tywin has ruled by fear: he has made enemies of powerful people, false friends of others, and they only cower because of the ultimate threat that Tywin has showed more than once that he can act upon - given cause, he will demolish a house completely. Tywin’s method essentially runs opposite to his father’s: where Tytos offered lenience, Tywin determines to offer none: you are with him, or you are nothing.

Whilst this has been effective in removing smaller targets such as the Reynes and Tarbecks, it has done outsized damage in ruining the good faith and trust that others might have in House Lannister: certainly a Lannister will pay his debts, but what it takes to accrue one is the fear that Tywin rules with.

Tywin’s demolition method was attempted on House Stark in ASOS, and by AFFC, it may seem to have been successful on the surface level. The northern forces are in pieces, the Lannisters are allied to the Tyrells, and there is a new Lannister king on the throne. The threats from overseas seem vague and obscure, and Tommen holds tomorrow. 

But of course, this is not actually the case. Sansa is not dead, nor Arya, nor Bran and Rickon. They’ve survived through their parents’ memory and teachings, and their father’s vassals are already conspiring the Starks’ return to the north. It goes without saying that the power of Winterfell is sustained through security and loyalty, not fear, and that fear is infinitely more fragile, with a great deal more work required in sustaining it. 

Of course, Tywin's reasons for ruling with fear are, despite his pretences, rooted in his own feelings of inadequacy rather than political practicality: this is a man who has grown up feeling humiliated and undermined by his own father, and is desperate to regain the power and respect he believes he's entitled to - by any means necessary. Still, such is the state of the legacy he leaves behind for his own son: an unsustainable campaign of fear, with no-one left to uphold it:

Tywin was big even when he was little." She gave a sigh. "Who will protect us now?"

Jaime kissed her cheek. "He left a son."

"Aye, he did. That is what I fear the most, in truth."

That was a queer remark. "Why should you fear?"

"Jaime," she said, tugging on his ear, "sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna's breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak . . . but Tyrion is Tywin's son, not you." [JAIME V, AFFC]

Ironically, what is here identified by Genna as a weakness of Jaime’s is really a weakness of Tywin’s. He has an heir who might have carried the torch forward for House Lannister, might just have managed to build enough bridges for whichever Lannister came next… but Tywin’s view of the world is such that that heir is an abused, embittered man more interested in their downfall. The force that might have once sustained them will now be turned against them as Tyrion joins with Daenerys Targaryen - and regardless, whatever progress and good faith Tyrion fostered for House Lannister in ACOK was quickly undone by Tywin in ASOS with the Red Wedding.

So what’s left is only a hopeless, toxic mess: House Lannister has no true friends and no true allies. They have only a host of enemies, small and large, who desire the utter demolition of a house that sought the same of others. And the man left to carry the torch is one without conviction in anything it stands for.

Nonetheless, the torch still rests with Jaime, with the stakes high as they’ve ever been for he and his loved ones. In AFFC, GRRM shows Jaime attempting a performance as Tywin’s heir, all whilst giving away vital ground, leading without conviction and resenting his role. By the end of ADWD, Jaime will have all but abandoned the Lannister cause for the pursuit of redemption, and the collapse of his house will enter overdrive.

[PART TWO: Bluffs, Bargaining & Baby Trebuchets - Why Jaime Can't Win in the Riverlands]

[insurrection-if]

What are the potential consequences of using someone else's Gift through blood-eating?

As a start, some additional discussion on the nature of Mockingbird’s gift can be found here, here, and here. (　´∀｀)b

There are a number of consequences, but I’ll divvy them up into two camps:

Inherited Risks of Another Gift(ed)

This concerns the short-term* consequences from blood-eating; those that are immediate.

Whenever Mockingbird adopts another’s gift, they’re taking in much more than that power alone.

Mockingbird undertakes aspects of whoever they drink from . . . as long as they are Gifted*. This can range from their emotions, their memories, their senses, and so forth. It’s their psyche. For this narrative, that psyche extends to the heart, mind, and soul; the bits that define (or simply influence) the eternal and shifting nature of oneself. Drinking from those more turbulent in their nature, more scarred or more troubled within (or even battered in the physical sense), can offer a higher risk for harmful or negative experiences.

But beyond that, there are the basic consequences from the adopted gift itself. Mockingbird does not have a natural attunement or mastery over the gifts of others. Each time they drink from someone new, they are starting from square one, and it would require continuous drinking from the same source for them to match the skill of whoever they’ve taken blood from. The potential consequences of being such a novice are open to them.

Most Gifted have years to ‘tame’ their gifts, or to learn how to best manipulate them for the greatest use.

Certain gifts would not pose immediate harm or trouble for Mockingbird (like the gifts of Boar, Bacara, Niccolò’s father, etc.) since they require intentional activation or external triggers.

Other gifts might have the consequence of overwhelming Mockingbird (like those of Imka, Mutya, Uriel, etc.) since they are more autonomously persistent, their vast effects and reach falling upon them all at once.

Some gifts might have an external effect on those or the world around Mockingbird before they even realize its begun to manifest (like those of Bones, Fyodor, Sigmund, etc.).

Others simply require caution upon first use since there lies a threshold before a (phantom) pain of maddening intensity threatens Mockingbird (like those of Kalyna, Elouan, Jae, etc.).

So on and so forth. (´∀｀; ) Gifts aren’t quite uniform in their nature. Some might be rather similar on the surface or in their manifestation (like the ‘vampiric’ aspect of Mockingbird’s gift vs. the true Gifted ‘vampire’ clans across the world) but no two are truly alike. Thus, the potential consequences from each gift (the risks, the limitations, and the harm) are somewhat unique per individual.

For reference, I’ll link this post here since it discusses the consequences Mockingbird’s fellow HAWKS face with their own gifts. There is risk for these downsides to extend towards Mockingbird as well.

Long-Term Dependence

Heavy indulgence with blood-eating has its own set of consequences that are distinct from those described above.

Mockingbird craves the blood of fellow Gifted. It is not a hunger that threatens their actual livelihood, and it often comes in waves. But it ks a hunger nonetheless. Persistent, powerful, and tied to the purpose of their gift.

Blood-eating soothes their cravings. The proximity of new Gifted offers a sensation that is less overwhelming and, simultaneously, sharpened.

Gifts are not fixed in nature. All gifts have the potential to evolve. To expand, alter, and transform. Overindulgence encourages this evolution to unfold.

I won’t list out the specific changes this evolution may cause. The process is gradual and slow in the manner it unfolds. It ranges from the physiological to the supernatural, tailoring Mockingbird more and more to the full potential and call of their blood.

In time, Mockingbird’s gift and self will expand their reach. Their humanity will fade in exchange for something greater, something whole.

Mockingbird may or may not like what overindulgence will eventually lead into. Their desire for blood calls for a reason, seeking completion and fulfillment long denied. It is up to Mockingbird to either satisfy that latent purpose and claim all they were born to inherit or to instead safeguard both their humanity and their sense of self.

For more information on Mockingbird’s gift I might have previously disclosed and forgotten to link within this post, please check out the tags #mc or #gift on this blog! d(･∀･○)

（；^ω^） I hope this response was enough to be satisfactory! Apologies if it wasn’t!

[trillgutterbug]

being back on my hbo war bullshit rn (jk im never not on my hbo war bullshit) seems like a good time to mention the very cool jacob vouza, a native of guadalcanal. from 1916 onwards he was part of the island's constable force, aka the system of policemen and law enforcers run by the colonial government, which was a scattering of primarily british and australian military and bureaucratic personnel, such as coastwatcher martin clemens (who wrote a great book about his experiences spying on the japanese).

the pacific (the hbo show, i mean) has a good number of narrative faults, but one of its most egregious content faults imo is its complete lack of acknowledgement of the native solomon islanders who were not just instrumental to the american victory, but utterly indispensible. without their knowledge of the terrain, their protection, guidance, and supplying of the coastwatchers who provided pivotal intel on japanese troop/air/naval movement ("forty bombers heading yours"), and their constant rescuing of stranded american troops (particularly air and navy men, including 26yo jfk) and white civilians, it is genuinely questionable how much longer or worse the war might have ended up being.

jacob vouza (whom martin clemens described as incredibly loyal, cheerful, brave, a fierce individualist, and tremendously skilled in bushcraft) had retired from the constabulary pre-war, but rejoined a year later when the japanese landed on guadalcanal. he helped clemens escape into the jungle, then eventually helped him reach the american lines safely. afterwards, he oversaw a network of native scouts and participated in regular spying missions, gathering information on japanese troop movements. on one of these missions, he was apprehended by the japanese, who found a tiny american flag in his possession. they tied him up and interrogated him. he refused to give them any information on the americans, despite being tortured for hours with beatings, stabbings, hanging, and being forced to lie on a red ant hill with open wounds. eventually, having bayoneted him in the limbs, face, throat, and stomach, the japanese left him for dead. he chewed through his bindings and escaped into the jungle, where he made his way for three miles through an active battlefield to the american lines. upon reaching the marines, he refused medical treatment until he could personally deliver a message to clemens and the commander of the 2nd battalion 1st marines. despite being unable to stand and barely able to speak through the wound in his throat, he informed them that the japanese were massing for a huge, imminent assault on the critical american-held henderson airfield. he described the japanese numbers, positions, and weaponry. he also dictated a final message to his wife and children, which clemens wrote down with one hand, while holding vouza's hand with the other. his warning came only about ten minutes ahead of the japanese attack, but that was just enough time for the marines to assemble a successful defense in the correct place.

vouza was quickly rushed to field surgery and received a massive transfusion (tangentially, this was in the time of a segregated american military, in which it was illegal for black and white soldiers to provide one another blood transfusions; although vouza was not considered black per se by the american military, it's nonetheless a notable element of the cultural landscape at the time), which saved his life. later, he was awarded a number of medals from both the american and british governments, including the silver star. in 1979, clemens successfully campaigned to have him knighted. following vouza's death in 1984, clemens also organised the installation of a commemorative memorial in his hometown.

it's remarkable (derogatory) to me that the pacific (the show), despite its amazing dedication in general to accuracy and exhaustive detail, didn't say a peep about jacob vouza (or any native person whatsoever), despite spending most of episode 2 re-enacting this specific battle. his actions weren't just a footnote, but genuinely the crux of the american victory. he was a very incredible person, one of the many examples of contributions native solomon islanders made to the war effort, and we should remember him accordingly!