#now something to be mined by people looking to place blame on anyone even tangentially associated with The Fucking Apocalypse happening

[iamthescalesofjustice]

anyway i think that after s5 it takes a few years at most for georgie and melanie to have a horrendously messy breakup, which is not the start or end of the epic Internet Personality Drama surrounding both of them by that time

[bigskydreaming]

@spikeface

ohhhh hell yeah I have not forgotten, like I tend to keep the examples limited to interactions with Scott to point out the blatant double standards in play but also because I am so tired of the abuse apologism arguments that come with any criticism of Derek’s actions in regards to teenage characters in the first two seasons in general, like, I know the dude had a hard time that doesn’t mean paying that forward is an acceptable standard of behavior for interacting with scared and vulnerable teenagers. ALSO not to bring it back around to Scott AGAIN but also umm Im me so okay I will I have the go-ahead, but like......literally every single argument and justification people make about Derek’s behavior and choices in the first two seasons because of what happened with Kate and how he doesn’t trust people because of that and he’s traumatized is rendered null and void by their simultaneous bullshit insistence that none of this logic means anything when it comes to Scott and.....wait for it....what happened with Theo and trust and traumatized or does being betrayed by someone you were starting to consider a good friend and murdered not count as trauma? I forget.

You can’t have it both ways but people are like Yes I can *rolls up sleeves* watch me.

Aaaaaand since we’re already here, why not, I’m going for it, soooooo getting in on the ground floor before people are like WELL THAT’S DIFFERENT BECAUSE STILES TRIED TO WARN SCOTT SO HE SHOULD’VE KNOWN UNLIKE DEREK WHO COULDN’T HAVE, umm: 

a) that’s not how trust works, its not by proxy, you either trust someone or you don’t and someone else telling you that you shouldn’t does not in fact render a betrayal of trust any less a betrayal of trust, this is LITERALLY just victim-blaming the betrayed, something that people are absolutely aware of because just imagine the shrieks of protest if someone were to posit an AU where someone warned Derek not to trust Kate but he still did anyway and so that made everything else that happened all his fault. 

b) you do not owe even your best friends unconditional trust in every opinion they have OVER your own opinions, it honestly truly DEEPLY makes me uncomfortable how often people raise this point because Stiles could distrust Theo all he wanted, Scott is still entitled to his own opinions based on his own perceptions of his own interactions with Theo, which were different than Stiles’ interactions, and Scott was in no way, shape or form obligated to uphold Stiles’ perceptions and interactions of and with Theo as more important than Scott’s own, what even is that wtfuckery

c) Stiles’ distrust of Theo was unfortunately watered down and diluted by the fact that he was lying to Scott and keeping secrets from him for weeks, which was his right and he was traumatized himself by what happened with Donovan, but the flip side of that is Scott was keenly aware that Stiles was lying to him about stuff and even had a whole freaking monologue about it and how he wished Stiles would just talk to him and tell him what he was hiding and in what universe is someone obligated to unconditionally believe their friend and abide by what they’re saying and wanting WHILE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME being lied to by that same friend? 

d) Stiles’ distrust of Theo was additionally watered down and diluted by the fact that even after he had actual foolproof evidence that Theo was a liar and not to be trusted, he refrained from informing Scott of this because he prioritized his own feelings about what might come out about him in the process of telling Scott, which again, was absolutely his right to do and be worried about but it is NOT his right to be retroactively extradited from any role he played in Scott’s perceptions of events that season by not divulging this information even while actively still JUDGING Scott for not acting on information re: Theo that Scott literally did not have to act upon, just his own interactions with Theo where Theo was actively and continually working on being seen as not only trustworthy but INVALUABLE in Scott’s eyes, while everyone else was off preoccupied with their own stuff leaving Scott with no one BUT Theo to turn to. Which was literally Theo’s entire plan in dividing them in order to make Scott vulnerable in the first place, just as Scott ultimately was more victimized by Theo than any of the other surviving members of S5 as he was the one y’know, MURDERED, but again let’s talk some more about how it was Stiles and everyone else who was more betrayed and let down by Scott’s choice to trust Theo than Scott was himself 

(and so help me GOD if someone brings up Josh or Tracy like they give a fuck about them, lolol, fun fact, but most of the posts about Josh and Tracy in S5 while it was airing were mine, like, 90% of their tags was me posting, yeah c’mon guys we’re aware I can be prolific when I hyper-fixate I’m not exaggerating here lol I POSTED ABOUT JOSH A LOT OKAY lololol. So I keenly remember the weeks between Josh’s death episode and the episode which revealed that Scott got to Deucalion before Theo did, because that was two whole weeks of people being like who the fuck cares about Josh, other than like, me and some mutuals, until the SECOND fandom found a way to spin Scott as being tangentially responsible for Josh’s death, at which point suddenly it was like OMG JOSH WE LOVED YOU ALL ALONG, WE’RE SO SORRY THAT MONSTER DID THIS TO YOU. The whiplash would be hilarious if I didn’t hate it so much)

e) Stiles’ distrust of Theo was additionally watered down and diluted by the fact that he was WRONG about everything he initially brought up as WHY he distrusted Theo, his whole thesis to Scott at the start of the season was that he didn’t trust Theo because he remembered Theo from fourth grade and Theo wasn’t Theo but uh.....yes he was. He wanted Scott not to trust Theo on a basis that was flawed and had no grounding in reality other than Stiles’ own unreliable gut instincts with no care or concern whatsoever for Scott’s own gut instincts, and simultaneously, Stiles in the throes of being like THEO IM ON TO YOU YOU FAKER (Theo in the distance: Lol no you’re not, you just don’t like me, there’s a difference), ANYWAY, Stiles at the exact same time as being focused on not just Theo but what he felt Scott SHOULD be doing and thinking in regards to Theo and Stiles’ opinions, somehow managed to completely overlook and give no fucks about Scott’s ACTUAL thoughts and actions re: Theo, as if he had been paying more attention to the actual character of his friend rather than just his perception and assumptions about his friend, he would have noticed that Scott DIDN’T blindly trust Theo from the start, because Scott DOESN’T actually blindly trust anyone and actually has trust issues out the wazoo from all the times he’s been hurt, betrayed and let down by people he cares about from his deadbeat dad to the many murder and manipulation attempts of Peter, whom he has canonically never trusted despite Stiles’ insistence that he even trusts Peter (lol where? when? source?).....ergo, ipso facto, forsooth and all that good shit.....Stiles wanted Scott’s complete obedience and allegiance in S5 to everything he said and thought while at the exact same time giving no fucks about anything going on WITH Scott himself. Hashtag friendship goals, am I right guys?

f) the fatal flaw of the Sciles schism in S5 was not in fact the warring opinions on Scott and Stiles’ respective trust and distrust of Theo, but rather what S5 revealed about Scott and Stiles’ respect trust and distrust of EACH OTHER. In point of fact, the only thing truly revealed by the events of that season is that Scott doesn’t automatically trust just anyone, but that his trust must be EARNED - a process Theo invested considerable effort in doing, as he actually paid attention to Scott and the actuality of things he said and did and why - and that Stiles in contrast doesn’t just automatically distrust anyone, but rather makes snap judgments about whether or not to PUT his trust in others based on what he’s feeling. 

Basically, my point is that Scott views trust as a function of information gathering and ultimately a decision to put it to the test or not, to actually just say okay based on what I know and feel at this point, I am making the choice NOW to trust in someone. Stiles in contrast, views trust as something he doesn’t fundamentally NEED in his interactions with people, and as such he uses it to shore up and buttress various other things about himself and his interactions with people. 

This is why Scott started out the season WITH reservations about Theo, that led to him asking Deaton questions about how vulnerable he and his pack might be due to allowing a strange newcomer into their midst, but ultimately placing more and more trust in Theo as the season went on, BASED on Theo’s ongoing campaign to win Scott’s trust by seeming trustworthy and helpful and supportive. 

Meanwhile, Stiles started out the season WITH reservations about Theo, that informed all his actions regarding Theo UNTIL he got concrete proof that Theo was a liar, BUT continued to interact with Theo and even work alongside him even KNOWING he wasn’t trustworthy, because trust was not after all the most important element informing his actions because it never HAD been. More importantly, the reason this all plays more into Scott and Stiles’ view of each other than anything to do with Theo, was because the ONLY reason Theo was able to play them against each other was Theo keyed into the fact that Stiles, despite placing a lot of importance in the IDEA of trust, never actually fully makes the leap into actually PLACING his trust in ANYONE, even someone like his best friend Scott, who has proven MULTIPLE times how invaluable Stiles is to him.....because if Stiles ever HAD fully placed his trust in Scott, he would have been able to look at the concrete precedent of Scott saying throughout the entire nogitsune ordeal that he flat out didn’t CARE if people died because of the nogitsune, because of Stiles himself, he wasn’t going to sacrifice Stiles to save the lives of strangers he just simply doesn’t value as being more important to him than Stiles himself. 

And by extension, if Stiles HAD ever fully placed his trust in Scott after this, then his fears about Donovan would have fallen by the wayside as - just like it was ultimately proven out in 5B after Scott heard the WHOLE story and not the parts Theo told him backed up by the lies of ommission Stiles HADN’T told Scott and the fact that Scott had been keyed into Stiles’ feelings of guilt over something for weeks - Scott would then have expressed to Stiles just as he ultimately DID express to Stiles: that he can tell the difference between self-defense and cold-blooded murder, and Stiles killing Donovan in self-defense was not a problem for Scott and NEVER WAS OR WOULD HAVE BEEN.

In conclusion, the biggest issue in S5 is not that Scott trusts everyone, its that even after everything, Stiles still doesn’t even trust Scott.

And if you can’t trust the best friend who’s proven that he will literally do anything for you, at any time, just say the word, to such an extent that you’ll pull back from him and refrain from working with him and being around him AT THE EXACT SAME TIME as demonstrating that you will be around and work alongside someone you don’t even like and definitely do not trust.....

Then trust is not the be all and end all for you, and it never actually was, and if you can’t grant it to even your friend why does your friend owe you his, let alone UNCONDITIONAL trust in not just you, but every opinion and course of action you advocate for?

*bangs gavel* The defense rests. Or the prosecution rests. Fuck, I forgot which side I’m on. Am I accusing or defending? Idek.

Whatever. I rest.

[jonismitchell]

Love dies in the city; or the romanticism v. modernism conflict on folklore

In my humble opinion, Taylor Swift’s 2020 album folklore is about the conflict between romanticism and modernism. It sets up the natural as a place of freedom and unrestrained love, contrasting this with the city (presumably New York) as a place of hiding and secrecy that ultimately dooms the integral relationship. In the end, Swift expresses her deepest desires to return to the natural world, to restart the timeline that began with her move to New York, something I will elaborate on when discussing “hoax” and “the lakes.” This storyline is the crux of the album, and the motif I’ve used to classify its songs into six distinct sections, which follow a vague plot that is not represented in the track list order.

the natural (seven, invisible string, betty) I would argue that “seven” represents the heart of folklore, containing what seems to be the album’s mission statement (“passed down like folk songs / our love lasts so long”) and describing the earliest point in Swift’s timeline. This song is the one most directly linked to nature, describing a childhood friendship that takes place in the woods. One lyric, “before I learned civility / I used to scream ferociously / any time I wanted,” implies that Swift found freedom in nature, when her secrets were mere promises to friends instead of the pain she had since hinged her life on. In addition, this song is pure romanticism. The interest in childhood is implied, we can reasonably assume both main characters to be seven years old. To support this, the song states “although I can’t recall your face, I still got love for you,” implying that much time has passed since the events. There is awe of nature (the “beautiful things” are the creek and the trees), emphasis on the importance of imagination (your dad is mad because the house is haunted), and a celebration of the individual (“just like a folk song, our love will be passed on,” where the love is the individual she speaks of). This is the dream that Swift wants to return to, and yet her characters already face conflict (the keeping of secrets, hiding in the closet, an angry father). She romanticizes her past into something she can escape into, creating a sort of mythos around an upset childhood.

Our next nature-intensive song is “invisible string.” She again makes a callback to childhood, citing a park where she used to read in Nashville. It would not be incorrect to categorize this as a love song, perhaps the most lighthearted one on the album. Swift emphasizes time and fate, both recurring themes in her discography. Like “seven,” “invisible string” draws attention to nature as a freeing and healing space, which sets the stage for her romance. Lines such as “gold were the leaves when I showed you around Centennial Park” draw attention to the ‘invisible’ connection the song depicts. In the bridge, she notes that there was “a string that pulled me / out of all the wrong arms, right into that dive bar,” implying a protection from the dangers of interpersonal conflict. Throughout the verses, mentions of any city stay tangential (“your first trip to LA… an American singer”) while the focus lies on her freedom. It is a dreamlike song, which implies that the city can be glimpsed but not detrimental, and showcases an utter belief in things working out. 

It is, then, rather ironic that the final song with unique ties to the environment highlights an unanswered apology after the foundations of romance have been shocked. “betty” is ostensibly narrated by a teenager, James, who plans to make up for her mistake in a garden. This perspective ties into the album’s greater focus on time, in this instance equating innocence (“I don’t know anything”) with a natural setting (the garden, which is explicitly removed from society). At first, James wonders if Betty will allow an apology, but wants it to happen without anyone watching (“if I showed up at your party… would you lead me to the garden”). She then casts this hope aside, dreaming about being able to broadcast her love to the world without fear of judgement (“will you kiss me on the porch in front of all your stupid friends”). It is also, then, relevant that the relationship is ruined when scrutinized (“rumours from Inez”). When considering how themes of secrecy and hiding come into the picture once the narrative travels to the city, it is interesting to look at how the hope of an public relationship prevails here. But in the end, James still dreams of going back to any relationship with Betty, no matter how private (“kissing in my car again”). Of course, Taylor Swift herself is James, and James is Swift, so we know that the secrecy dooms the relationship in the end.

the romance (august, illicit affairs) “august” describes a doomed relationship, perhaps meant to be the affair James has that prompts her apology to Betty. However, the story of a love that was never built to last has been referenced multiple times in Swift’s discography (“Wildest Dreams” and “Getaway Car”) and even expressly linked to summer on 2019’s “Cruel Summer.” These songs show distinct lyrical similarities to “august.” Hence, I feel comfortable describing this song in the context of those, rather than within the storyline of Swift’s fictitious love triangle. (Which is flimsy as it stands, but that’s for another analysis.) While there is no set location, this song describes one kind of coming-of-age (“whispers of are you sure”) and delves into the hope associated with a short-lived romance. Here, there is no secrecy to speak of, but a fear of what will come when a return to society comes (“will you call when you’re back at school”). My contrast for this song is saying it is “Cruel Summer” without the ‘happy’ ending. There is a privacy here (“meet me behind the mall”) but it is the instability of the romance that dooms it (“you weren’t mine to lose”). “august” is a time capsule, a reflection on the love that always would’ve ended regardless of the locale.

The next song, “illicit affairs,” is another one that ‘visits’ the city (for lack of a better term) but places the primary conflict in a largely undetermined setting. In fact, there seems to be a rejection of the urban (“take the road less traveled by”). In the sorting of tracks as they relate to different sub-themes, “illicit affairs” is the first song that says, without preamble, that secrecy is the death of love. While the word ‘illicit’ simply means forbidden, the verses describe sneaking around in a way that has been attributed to cheating since album release. There is virtually no acknowledgement of another character outside of the two lovers, save for the ‘him’ referenced in the perfume line. But it is not this person that the narrator seeks to hide from, it seems to be almost everyone. It could be construed as a song about adultery, but taken in the context of the rest of the album it reads as a lament for having to hide a relationship (most likely a romantic one between two women, but this is extrapolation).

the city (the last great american dynasty, mirrorball, mad woman) Now we approach the slew of songs that deal with the actual location of the city. The first song is “the last great american dynasty,” which seems the most removed from Taylor’s viewpoint and yet involves her directly (“and then it was bought by me”). We get an actual move to the ‘city’ (“Rebekah rode up on the afternoon train”) which is reminiscent of Swift’s own move to New York in 2014. Rebekah is immediately disliked by the people around her, blamed for her husband’s death to the extent where she flies in “bitch pack friends.” (1) Keeping with the theme of folklore’s similarity to a time capsule, one could see this song as Swift retelling her own purchase of Holiday House (and by extension much of the events from 2014/2015) through the lens of someone else’s life. Indeed, part of this theory is directly corroborated by the song through the lines “then it was bought by me” and “I had a marvellous time ruining everything.” In relation to the conflict between secrecy and survival of love, “the last great american dynasty” does not offer much insight. However, it effectively sets the scene for songs to come.

(1): I don’t know anything about Rebekah Harkness’ life, this is just how I interpreted the song. 

After the initial move, “mirrorball” establishes the new dynamic between the lovers. In turn, it introduces the performative nature of romance in the city (which is referred to and combatted with the line “all these people think love’s for show / but I would die for you in secret” from “peace”). Swift expresses interest in a lover who is “not like the regulars,” who wants more than to watch her turmoil. Still, this song finds her drawn into the nature of performing, consistently showcasing her tragedy to let others see themselves to the extent where she cannot even let her guard down when “no one is around.” Even after the circus has been called off, she seems to have entirely integrated with the role of the mirrorball. This provides some introspection on her viewpoint: digging into insecurities under the viewpoint of desperately trying to save a sinking ship. Almost as a counterpart to “seven,” the lyrics to “mirrorball” show some characteristics of modernism. Individualism is represented through the focus on the person who is the mirrorball, while unrelated characters do not warrant much elaboration. In terms of formalism and experimentation, the format and structure of the song deviate from Swift’s usual manner. The concept of a person being a mirrorball (shown in the music video as a disco ball) is both a symbol and verges into the absurd. All the imagery in this track is based in large crowds; featuring a disco, a circus, and masquerade revelers. It both establishes the setting where love dies and assures that the relationship will end (“the end is near”). 

“mad woman” is the final song which establishes setting more than storyline. It proves the city as a angry and dangerous place, one that is not sympathetic to “people like” Swift. We find her contemplating revenge on someone who has done her a great wrong, which is less attached to the general storyline but serves to depict the setting as actively hostile and worthy of contempt. When compared with other tracks, certain lyrics imply that the narrator is hell-bent on getting the last word (“they say move on but you know I won’t” / “you know I left a part of me back in New York”). There isn’t much else notable about this song in terms of what we are talking about, but it does frame several absurdist tendencies in the context of a destructive setting. 

the death (cardigan, exile, my tears ricochet, epiphany)  In “cardigan,” Swift reminisces on a long-past relationship, which has been interpreted to be James and Betty’s teenage melodrama. This is the first of many breakup songs, which idolize what has passed and mourn the loss. We observe many signs of the city (“chasing shadows in the grocery line”) and individualism (“I knew everything when I was young”). As referenced in “betty,” the cardigan becomes a symbol for the relationship at large. Moreso, the idea that the relationship was cursed to end as it begun is elaborated on here (“I knew you tried to change the ending”) even if it is not ascribed to secrecy yet. In reflecting on Swift’s past work, we see many signs of her being accustomed to this thought (“I can see the end as it begins” from Wildest Dreams and “I knew (...) we were cursed” from Getaway Car), but “cardigan” comes across with deeper pain regarding the whole affair. In tying different lyrics together (“back when I was living for the hope of it all” from “august” and “I hope I never lose you” from Cornelia Street), we begin to paint a picture of the true narrative behind the love triangle. Swift knew her greatest love would end—desperately hoped it wouldn’t, prayed they could ‘get away with it’—and finally channels her anger and sorrow into this retrospective. She almost accepts it: love dies in the city.

Another reflection on a past relationship is folklore’s only duet; “exile.” This song discusses an inability to communicate, the concept of determined endings (“I think I’ve seen this film before, and I didn’t like the ending”), and plenty of ‘hiding in the city’ imagery. This sees one narrator (Swift) faking a relationship (“just your understudy”) to hide her true lover (in this context, Iver). Both agree on various facets that caused fallout (“didn't even hear me out... never learned to read your mind… couldn’t turn things around”) until the final disagreement (“you never gave a warning sign / I gave so many signs”). So while the song is fundamentally about a miscommunication, it is evident that much of the misunderstanding comes from ways of signalling the secret relationship. Presence of the city is acknowledged through lyrics such as “I’m leaving out the side door,” “out here in the hall,” implying that the narrators share an apartment. Nature also gets a brief mention here (“breaking branches”), but this usage explains that the freedom of the narrators is fading, just like their connection to the natural. 

Most do not connect “my tears ricochet” to romantic fallout, but there is no denying that the song hinges around prominent death metaphors. Many metaphors used imply that the narrator has broken up with their lover, but still haunts the hope of what could’ve been. In the line “we gather stones, some to throw, some to make a diamond ring,” a connection to marriage is implied, divorcing the meaning from the loss of Swift’s masters. A crowd of people is repeatedly referenced (the ones in a sunlit room, for instance) and the lover must “save face” in front of them. This external pressure contributes to the greater theme of death of love in the city, which Swift equates to her own death. She describes herself as a recalcitrant ghost (“you know I didn’t want to have to haunt you”) but one her lover must have around (“when you can’t sleep at night, you hear my stolen lullabies”). This song is another one that recognizes Taylor Swift the writer within the lyrics; within this interpretation the “stolen lullabies” are the songs that the ex-lover inspired, work she can no longer look proudly on. While no explicit connections to the city are formed, it is obvious that some external pressure resulted in a damning betrayal, which was painful enough to describe as death. 

The final song in this death theme is “epiphany,” which does not discuss the romantic timeline at all. Instead, “epiphany” is the culmination of two sub-motifs on folklore: water and war. In nature, water gains a passing mention in “seven,” but does not truly become relevant in this organization until “the last great american dynasty.” In “epiphany,” the water reference is “crawling up the beaches now,” which serves to distance it from the overall storyline. The song also deals with the war motif (evident in most of the songs, but “ease your rifle” is very literal) and contrasts soldiers at war to doctors during the pandemic. All of this builds on this section’s burgeoning theme of death. It fits in with the album theme, but does not display obvious modernist or romanticist hallmarks.

the chance (the 1, this is me trying, peace) Opening the album is “the 1,” a frequently disliked song but a very telling one. It is similar to “cardigan” in that it reminisces on a past relationship, but the narrator feigns contentment with her current situation. If all of folklore can be considered a time capsule, “the 1” perhaps describes the headspace of the narrator before they begin reminiscing: convinced they are alright, but not holding up very well. This song involves much city imagery (“I hit the Sunday matinee,” “I thought I saw you at the bus stop”) and deals with the aftermath of many events in the album. It is interesting that this song was one of the last written, as one can imagine the narrator went directly from “it would’ve been fun” to “don’t want no other shade of blue but you” (as described in hoax). The love has died here; but there’s a desperate hope to return (“if one thing had been different, would everything be different”). 

Much like “betty,” “this is me trying” is another last-ditch attempt to save a failed relationship. Both songs find Swift in a doorway, ready to apologize, but “this is me trying” bears the weight of experience and less expectation that they will have a second chance. The increased maturity finds acknowledgement of faults without excuse (“my words shoot to kill when I’m mad / I have a lot of regrets about that”) and an attempt to come to terms with the death of the relationship despite pain. This, of course, breaks apart in the bridge (“all I want is you”) but, as Swift consoles herself, at least she’s trying. Setting-wise, this seems to be in a smaller locale (“the one screen in my town”) which calls to mind the “the only thing we share is this small town” from “Death By A Thousand Cuts.” There is also what appears to be a bar (“pouring my heart out to a stranger / but I didn’t pour the whiskey”) and an influx of people (“it’s hard to be at a party when I feel like an open wound”). It is not necessarily the city, but rather a recovery period that does not go well. 

If the painful instruction of “illicit affairs” acts as a foil to 2014’s “How You Get The Girl,” then the anxiety of “peace” complements 2017’s “Delicate.” While “Delicate” expresses the sufferance of an early, undefined relationship (“is it cool that I said all that”), “peace” begs the lover to reconsider the end one last time. As “hoax” makes undoubtedly clear, it wasn’t enough. We see the dangers of outside influence (“I’d sit with you in the trenches”) and the strength of the romance (“the silence that only comes when two people understand each other”). It is a final plea for someone to stay, a list of the success and a fatal acknowledgement of the worst. There is a declaration that sums up much of the album: “all these people think love’s for show / but I would die for you in secret.” As we’ve seen from other songs, it is the secrecy and the hiding that has doomed them. Swift sees this, she briefly suggests a return to the free and safe woods (“give you my wild”) but is ultimately stuck on the question of peace, which she wishes she could give her partner. 

the return (hoax, the lakes) The original album closer, “hoax,” finds Swift leaving a part of herself in the destructive city that has become home. She makes an attempt to return to her home, only to find that it is not the way she’s left it (“my barren land”). With her lover, she has gone through a journey that changed her too much to return to innocence (“I can go anywhere I want, just not home” from “my tears ricochet” contrasted with “you’re not my homeland anymore” from “exile,” where the lover becomes the homeland). She turns to a bleak setting, using sparse lyricism and simple constructs to describe her pain and betrayal. While Lover highlights themes of likening one’s love to a religion, the Swift we see on “hoax” has given up on any sort of healing coming from her romance. All she acknowledges is that the circumstances of her love have “broken her down” and “frozen the ground” (from which she hopes a “red rose” will emerge in “the lakes”). 

In “the lakes,” Swift tries to move forward but still sets her sights on the natural world, citing a deep desire to escape the scrutiny that destroyed her romance completely. This is a call to action for her former lover, a final request for shared freedom that reminds the listener of the lyric “would you run away with me?” from 2017’s “Call It What You Want.” Swift continues to call on aspects of romanticism she’s referenced on reputation and Lover to make her point. It then tracks that she has been inspired by this muse all along, and is finally asking for a return; both to the early romanticism her albums are built on and to her lover’s “homeland.” Her desire for a new home is evident, her conviction that her former lover should join her too great to be overcome.

The response of the muse to this, of course, is unclear.