#opening (over)analysis

[mask131]

I am re-reading the Silmarillion, and something strikes me. The women of Tolkien's world have been talked about TO DEATH especially with all the recurring debates surrounding the Rings of Power series.

As we all know, Tolkien was not a "feminist" in the modern sense of the word. He had a very male-centric point of view and appreciation of the world, he had male-driven and male-centered stories, and actual women characters were sparse and rare. There are only five really big female characters in "The Lord of the Rings" - the quintet of Galadriel, Eowyn, Goldberry, Lobelia and Shelob. [No, don't talk to me about Arwen, she only really was a character in the movies, in the book she's just there in the appendix and she was literaly an afterthought of Tolkien to act as Eowyn's romantic double...]

Consider this. Galadriel, Eowyn, Goldberry, Lobelia and Shelob. This tells you everything you need to know about Tolkien's women, in good and bad.

The Silmarillion has the same motif of having a lot of female characters, only for most of them to be just footnotes, secondary characters with no lines, under-developped one-liners... with in a contrast a handful of super-cool, super-badass, complex and developed heroines at the center of the plot.

Aka, on the bad side, when listing the Valar, while Tolkien gives an interesting personality, great domains and cool attributes to all the male ones, half of the female ones are just... there. And do one stuff. And never appear again. I mean come on... Vana and Nessa? Estë and Vairë were done dirty... That's the actual type of "non-feminism" Tolkien has. It isn't about him hating women or trying to be offensive in his depictions - it is about him just, not putting as much thought, effort and care into his female characters as his male ones, a bit the same way he creates the vast expanses of the East and South of Middle-Earth and then never bothers actually developing more of it or seeking to tell tales of it - but that's for another discussion about Tolkien's "racism". Here we talk about women.

But here's the thing, aka the good side... When Tolkien does find the time and care to develop and flesh out a female character, by Iluvatar he goes all out! Again, we are back on what I said earlier: the women of Lord of the Rings can be counted on one hand... but these fingers are Galadriel, Eowyn and Shelob, so you can't claim he isnt writing powerful, important or uninterestng female characters. Which leads me to my original remark - as usual I get driven away in digressions of all sorts and kinds.

Have you ever noticed that Melkor's greatest enemies, the ones he fears the most, and his most effective foes... are women? Tolkien might not like to put them front and center of his tales, and he might have been a man of the early 20th century England in culture and mind, but boy does he has something to say about how women are actually the first enemies of the literal embodiment of evil and destruction! I mean think about it. Varda of the Stars, and Yavanna of the trees. Nienna has her ambiguous relationship to him - her tears work against him, and yet without her plea for him he likely would not have been released from the dungeons of Mandos. You have Melian with her Girdle, and Luthien with her Hound. And of course most of all Arien, guardian of the Sun, not only one of the rare fire spirits that Melkor couldn't corrupt (despite him basically ruling over all fire), but that frightens him so much he keeps hiding away and doesn't even dare to attack her... [I also reblogged some times ago a post praising the brilliance of Tolkien keeping the old European sun-moon motifs but switching the genders. The weaker, inconsistant, lustful, whimsical, disorderly, untrustworthy Moon is now a male principle, while the steady, dangerous, strong, powerful and beautiful Sun is a woman.]

It is actually REALLY easy to do a feminist retelling of Tolkien's work. Melkor doesn't fear Manwë as much as Varda. Aulë's works and servants get corrupted by Melkor, while Yavanna's do not. Melian and Luthien actively works against him. He friggin' pisses himself when the Woman of the Sun shows up. Sure, there are some evil female characters that serve him down the line and are relegated to the "obscure footnotes and undescribed secondary characters" zone - Thuringwethil the vampire or queen Beruthiel. I coul also dropped deleted characters from early drafts, like the ogress Fluithuin. But among them stands Ungoliant... THE only true female big bad on the dark side of Arda. THE badass, nightmarish, creepy eldritch abomination. And who ends up double-crossing Melkor, almost KILLING him, and again making him basically shit in his pants - as Varda and Arien do.

The first enemies of Morgoth are not the Valar, or the Maiar, or the Elves... It's women.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

I ABSOLUTELY ADORE YOUR SQQ HE LOOKS SO FUCKINH DONE WITH LIFE

The recipe for SQQ is: calm on the outside, screaming on the inside.

[blueskittlesart]

*sigh* thoughts on Nintendo's botw/totk timeline shenanigans and tomfoolery?

tbh. my maybe-unpopular opinion is that the timeline is only important when a game's place on the timeline seriously informs the way their narrative progresses. the problem is that before botw we almost NEVER got games where it didn't matter. it matters for skyward sword because it's the beginning, and it matters for tp/ww/alttp (and their respective sequels) because the choices the hero of time makes explicitly inform the narrative of those games in one way or another. it matters which timeline we're in for those games because these cycles we're seeing are close enough to oot's cycle that they're still feeling the effects of his choices. botw, however, takes place at minimum 10 thousand years after oot, so its place on the timeline actually functionally means nothing. botw is completely divorced from the hero of time & his story, so what he does is a nonissue in the context of botw link and zelda's story. thus, which timeline botw happens in is a nonissue. honestly I kind of liked the idea that it happened in all of them. i think there's a cool idea of inevitability that can be played with there. but the point is that the timeline exists to enhance and fill in the lore of games that need it, and botw/totk don't really need it because the devs finally realized they could make a game without the hero of time in it.

[canisalbus]

Machete and Vasco are so pomegranate-and-the-hand-that-slices coded. To me.

Pomegranates are seen as messy, bloody, inconvenient fruits. You slice or tear or bite and in return for your effort you come away underwhelmed, disgusted, and stained too deep to wash. The consumption of a pomegranate is a violent act of defilement, for both the fruit and the eater.

But that is because most do not understand how to open a pomegranate. They have little patience for the precise carving. They see no point in coreing the fruit gently, no reason to be reverent as they pull the quarters apart. When done correctly, opening a pomegranate leaves little mess. Your fingers will still stain, your knife will still slick, but there will be no pool of crimson drowning both you and the fruit.

The seeds are only sweet to those who understand the merit of a light hand and intricate slicing. Why put in so much effort for a food so bitter and clearly armored against consumption? Surely it must not yearn to be eaten.

(^insane about silly catholic dogs)

.

[fuumiku]

Chilcille huh... ngl I was a little suspicious. like why would you do that, huh... hope youre not mischaracterizing anyone in your weird and wacky ship. a little weird. but then you said they both had flat asses and you know what? I salute you and your perfect characterization

The fact you seem to think you managed to not make this ask insulting is baffling. What the hell. Fuck off.

If you actually care to be open minded about the ship, I talk about marchil on my sideblog 24/7. Funnily enough I’m currently 4k words deep into an analysis of their character arc together in canon, but that’ll take some more days to get done. Some notable posts:

Of course without counting the analyses of Chilchuck on his own I’ve made, like my masterpost on his family situation. Or better yet you could also read my fics for them, see how weird and wacky they are here.

Wanna talk about mischaracterisation? They’re literally a comedic duo who interacts 24/7. Marchil is crazy bc ppl are like "did those shipper read with their eyes CLOSED?? They have no chemistry!" Meanwhile canon is like: "She’s obsessed with knowing everything she can about him and she reads him like a book." In her eyes he’s like that extra rare and hard and shiny unlockable dating sim character, that brooding mysterious character trope that’s thrilling to crack open and typically is at the center of the plot. The wife roleplay???? "Hey, did you know his type is blondes. Hey did you know he likes his women pretty and blonde. Hey did you know he likes her hair. Hey did you know that he teases her 24/7 and it’s one of the few things that consistently gets him grinning because he finds her reactions cute." Like a schoolyard bully pulling on the pigtails of the girl he likes.

It’s not like they have any thematic narratives or relevance. It’s not like she’ll live to 1000 and has existential dread about it while he’s logically gonna be her next friend to die at 50 and wether it’s romantic or platonic it’ll terrify her to lose him. It’s not like it’s fear of death x fear of rejection so they’re both obsessed with the thought of loss looming, past and ongoing. It’s not like it’s half-elf x half-foot and there’s an inherent journey that was and still is to dispel prejudices and truly come to see each other. It’s not like he’s painfully real and raw and flawed but still a good man, that he’s not the figure of prince charming that she’s always dreamed of while still being virtuous and worth fighting for. Or you know, her hair being golden and it being the epitome of beauty to him, and his hair turning silver and it being Marcille’s worst nightmare.

Just a weird wacky ship who means nothing but shallow things to people who have weirdo reasons for liking it. Like can you not. If you’re not imaginative enough to think of reasons why this ship may have an appealing dynamic that’s not my issue. But yes, yes, they’re both flat asses to me, thanks.

[mikesbasementbeets]

[a-bottle-of-tyelenol]

I often think about how Mutiny has that callback to Luck Runs Out and how it, as the last Eurylochus song, contrasts to his first.

Right now, something I’m currently thinking about is that line Odysseus has— please don’t do this, I need to get home.

In LRO, there’s a moment where the music changes during Odysseus’ verse when he’s parroting Polites’ philosophy and it’s meant to represent the way that Odysseus was reaching out to Eurylochus, not as a captain but as a friend. There’s a similar moment that Eurylochus has when he calls Odysseus Ody instead of captain. It’s a moment that strips away the sociopolitical factors that dictate a lot of their relationship and it’s personally my favorite in the entire show.

Odysseus follows that by, once again, calling out to his friend, rather than his right hand. What’s interesting, though, is that Odysseus says that he needs to get home, and then follows it by saying “reconsider— we can get home”.

This happens while Eurylochus is doing the same thing— starting by asking how much longer he must suffer, and then ending with the crew speaking with him and asking how much longer they must suffer. What I find particularly notable about this is the fact that Eurylochus, as the voice of the crew, is implied to be the one voicing their thoughts regardless of if they’re actually backing him. It’s implied in Keep Your Friends Close that Eurylochus wasn’t just voicing his concerns in LRO, he was voicing the concerns of everyone (which is part of the reason it was such a public confrontation). In Mutiny, the same thing occurs in the first half of the song, where Eurylochus confronts Odysseus and then we learn that the crew agrees and shares that sentiment right after.

In the second half of Mutiny, however, that isn’t the case. This moment is the only one in the entire show where Eurylochus is truly being selfish. Arguments could be made about him urging Odysseus to run from the cyclops or him choosing to tell Odysseus about the windbag before Scylla, but I would then argue that those moments are him acting for Odysseus’ sake as well. With the cow, in this verse, he is only acting for himself. He is only responding as himself— Eurylochus is not the voice of anyone else, he is only Eurylochus. He has isolated himself, for just a moment, from the rest of the crew. Most of the show is Odysseus acting for himself and, in this moment, Eurylochus is doing the same thing.

[bookwyrminspiration]

sisyphus moanin about that boulder when he doesn't even have to write a research essay with three strangers

[mcgrillzdumpinc]

I'll likely make a more in depth post once I've read through all the translated light novels but

Hello Apothecary Diaries fans I am in volume 8 and would like to reassure you about the choking scene from volume 5

Spoilers under the cut!

Okay so there's a scene at the end of volume 5 (the manga is not there yet) that many have interpreted as sexual assault. For the sake of those sensitive to such topics, I'm going to give a light on spoilers version of the scene and then an in depth analysis. Personally, I do not view the scene as sexual assault, but it is very forceful and carries A LOT of very sad subtext. You'll understand what I'm getting at in the more depth part.

So, the general gist of the choking scene.

Maomao and Jinshi are in the garden to escape a banquet. They talk for a bit about a very scary incident that occurred that day (thankfully nobody was killed) and share casual conversation. Then Jinshi brings up that they're at this banquet to find him a wife. I won't spoil the specifics, but fyi Maomao has been wearing an accessory this whole time that loudly announces (to everyone except herself, of course) that She's The Favorite™. Despite how obvious Jinshi has been with his intentions, including holding her hand and combing his other fingers through her hair while mentioning the whole wife thing, Maomao evades him while thinking "I'm not capable of love". So, she tries to dodge him by offering up another woman. This is what causes Jinshi to snap and choke her, as well as hold one of her arms behind her back to stop her from fighting back.

As I later learned, part of this scene was mistranslated, with the additional scene art causing further misunderstanding. What happens next is that Jinshi supposedly moves his hand to another part of her neck (I believe the back) and pulls her in for a kiss while leaning his weight on her.

Maomao then remembers how she was taught sex techniques against her will be the Verdigris House women & decides to use those techniques against Jinshi. The text uses "gentle spasms", and those who understand Japanese better have indicated that what Maomao did was tongue Jinshi until he was a trembling mess beneath her. She then promptly leaves and Jinshi feels like the most pathetic man in world.

The two don't interact beyond official matters until towards the end of volume 6. Jinshi brings more rare medicine in lieu of an apology. The two talk around the wife situation again and Maomao gets tickled. It isn't until volume 7 that they have an actual conversation breakthrough.

That's my light on spoilers version of the events. Now I'll give a more in depth version, that's honestly a good chunk of my own meta-analysis around the events of volume 5.

Honestly, volume 5 is full of really interesting scenes regarding Jinshi and Maomao. This is the first volume after Jinshi has been forced back into Imperial Brother status, yet the first thing I noticed that actually changed between JinMao is how Maomao takes initiative with him now. As soon as she learns an insect plague might be on the horizon, she dives into unprompted research and delivers her findings to Jinshi. She's no longer working at the palace or for Jinshi, but she still takes on the extra burden. She also takes initiative to get Jinshi some extra sleep (though she misinterprets his desire to not sleep alone). And later in the novel, when they're in the paper makers' village, Maomao acts so cute when reapplying Jinshi's burn scar makeup. I'll let screenshots talk for me.

Like man. She's so cute. And I wonder, if these two didn't have to deal with social standing and imperial drama, would we get way more of them just being cute and companionable? If Maomao wasn't an unwitting member of the Who Wants To Be An Imperial Princess race, would her feelings for Jinshi have grown without so much pushing and urgency on his end?

But I digress. I think a lot of volume 5, especially once they reach their travel destination, is Maomao trying her best to keep her blinders on even though she is in the thick of imperial drama. She's especially desperate with regards to the blazingly obvious fact that a certain someone of very high status is in love with her. I think the end of chapter 6 does a very good job of driving home one of the major reasons why Maomao is reluctant to trust Jinshi's feelings.

To add fuel onto this unfortunate fire is that Maomao, as an unmarried courtesan's daughter, was attacked as an infant by her mother, sought after by fucking Lakan of all people, ignored while crying as a baby, and forcibly taught sex (to the point of tears!). She also had to cover for Luomen's own eccentricities, specifically ensuring they had enough money to feed themselves. Maomao, to put it shortly, has been taught not to believe she can attain anything beyond her very simple life of being a lowly apothecary.

And then here's Jinshi who, as a prince, has been forced to grow up fast & have all his favorite things taken away from him. I think Maomao is the first time he ever wanted a person. He is, for lack of a better word, obsessed with her. I think a lot of his pushiness & tendency to be clingy with her is him desperately trying to make sure he doesn't lose her. If he makes her his wife, then, well, she can't leave.

And I think the choking scene is him finally at his breaking point. At this point, he has lavished her with gifts, been very forward sexually with her twice, and given her a new hairpin that is essentially this story's version of a promise ring. It's Maomao's repression/reluctance vs. Jinshi's desperation and so far she's winning.

But then she pushes him past his breaking point and he takes physical action against her. Maomao responds by kissing him silly.

So why don't I personally take this scene as sexual assault?

Mainly because I think the people actually guilty of sexual assault her are the Verdigris House women who forced Maomao to learn sex.

As far as I understand it, whether Maomao can actually say no to Jinshi is left up to interpretation. If we're talking on social status terms, she can't say no. But if you look at Jinshi's overall treatment of her, both before and after this scene, I very much think Maomao can say no and instead chooses to defuse the situation.

Because what isn't for interpretation, however, is Maomao's abysmal impression of what love and sex can actually be for her. So she defuses a love situation by using sex, something she herself doesn't like, and doesn't allow Jinshi to reciprocate, which leaves him feeling terrible, too.

I want to be clear. I do think Jinshi is in the wrong for physically attacking Maomao. But the sexual portion of the scene, at least to me, falls squarely on the shoulders of Maomao's fucked up backstory.

Anyway, I think I've typed for long enough. I am using the official translations of the light novel and some knowledge borrowed from other fans.

[maplethedarkshine]

The true chaos

Crack theory/headcanon/Somewhat of an au(?)/insane rambling/character analysis

Ok so I WILL do a crackshit theory about how Sonic is actually just the positive manifestation of chaos and this the same being

First one to say "so this is just the Kirby lore" will be sent to the guillotine /j

This is barely a theory, I'll basically be 10% making actual points and 90% just saying stuff because it sounds narratively cool

Obligatory "English isn't my first language don't give me shit if something is written poorly"

OK SO CHAOS AND SONIC PARALLELS

Letting Sonic speak for himself for a moment, the game itself brings to life the parallels this is not something I'm pulling out of my ass

They're both one in the same as the song says, forces of chaos (literally) that do what they think is right, the only difference is that Chaos' heart is tinted with pain, and as the song itself says, evil, while Sonic is devoid of it, and in a way, pure

Also line from the song that always stuck up to me:

"I'm not gonna think this way nor will I count on others"

Which is such an odd thing for Sonic to say, right? Why wouldn't he count on others? In the game the other characters are who gathered the chaos emeralds and the people cheering him up is what got him to transform into super sonic

Except that's wrong, because what Sonic's doing there is appealing to his feelings, because he understands Chaos' reasoning

That first part, "I'm not gonna think this way", because he can't say he gets how he feels. Again, he's devoid of that pain that's been tormenting Chaos for thousands of years by this point. He's not delusional, he know there's no way he can say with a straight face that he gets it.

What he does understand is that narrow-mindness, because he's like that too.

Just like the game itself says, both are using the same power, just one the negative energy of the emeralds and the other the positive

Two sides of the same coin

What's the difference between the two then? That Chaos has closed himself out from the world and let himself be consumed by pain, while Sonic has... His heart opened.

The entire Song is Sonic trying to appeal to Chaos to "Open his heart". Because he knows that trapping him back on the master emerald would only make it all worse, because such a free spirit like he knows that the worst thing you can do to another is removing that freedom to them, and because what got Chaos to be so corrupted is exactly being trapped- not only in a physical sense, but in a phycological way

He trapped himself. And while on the boss battle the only thing that happened was Sonic beating the shit out of him until he got it, the song tells another story

To make first point short: Open your heart itself makes parallels from the two and directly says they're in a way one in the same, both set on their ways, and Sonic gets Chaos to a point, and that's why he can't let him have his way, because he's trapped, and he needs to be set free from that hatred to be able to make a decision. And once he is, his decision is to stop the destruction leave peacefully

For a so claimed "God of destruction", destruction isn't his natural way if being, it got imposed to him; chaos is neither a good or a bad force of nature, it just is. And for a being literally named by it, he seemed to only embody the negative parts of it...

So where is the positive part of chaos?

On Sonic.

Sonic is Chaos. Sonic is the good of Chaos, the good that got banished from him the day the echidnas got too greedy with power

Ever thought how curious is that SA1 was the first game were Sonic has green eyes? Green as in the same color of Chaos' eyes? Green as in "they're both blue and green they have almost the same color palette"? Or green as in the color of the master emerald, mainly notorious for its connections to Chaos?

Also outside of the things Open your heart already implies, there's so more parrales between the two...

I mean, being of water vs guy infamous for not going well with water can't get more obvious than that

Sonic is, as a character, meant to be the representation of freedom, that's where the comparison to wind comes from... And what's more free than chaos? No direction, doing whenever you want as you wish, isn't that what Sonic is? He's notorious for never calling himself a hero, one of his more iconic phrases "what you see is what you get, just a guy who loves adventure"

Sonic is chaos (the concept) on the way that he's freedom, doing as he pleases, liberating, never changing his ways

Chaos (the character) is chaos (the concept) on the way that he's directionless, he's destructive, and never changing his ways

Sonic is Chaos (the character), because they represent the same concept on different ways

Sonic already has a villain to present the danger of order (Dr. Eggman, aka: mr control freak), so Chaos presents the dangers of chaos. "Do as you please" and "Keep your convictions straight" sounds good on paper until those convictions leeds you to hurt people and doing whenever you want leads you to causing pain and suffering.

Because thinking of it, Chaos had good intentions- he was protecting the chao from the echidna tribe that were hurting them for selfish reasons- he was protecting them, but after that? After that it was simply rage for the sake of rage- he flooded a city full of people that weren't even born when the incident happened and have nothing to do with it- people DIED, yet he wasn't changing his ways- his convictions never changed, and since he still thought the Chao were endangered he did what he did last time: protect

Those are, in paper, the same principles as Sonic on Sonic and the black night: do what you think is right, no matter if that will make some see you as the villain... Except what Chaos did is CLEARLY different and wrong

Because, as much as they're both selfish (selfish as in "most Decisions they make are purely based on what they want"), Sonic is coming from love and Chaos from hatred. On paper maybe Sonic could be seen as selfish (example: leaves station square as soon as Chaos is defeated because the rebuilding is no longer his problem) yet his heart is always on the right place. And maybe he just does whenever he wants, but what he wants is what's good for the people, so his selfishness turns him into a selfless being. Chaos is "doing whenever he wants" from a misguided place: he thinks he's doing what's the best for the Chao, just like Sonic does what's best for the people, when in reality the Chao don't even need him to do allat. Even if he's running by instinct, he's not achieving what he's trying to get, and his selfishness is just that- selfish, even if it came from a selfless core

Sonic's motto is basically to help the world only when it can no longer help itself, while Chaos "helps" it when the help is not only no longer needed, but actively just making it all difficult to the ones he's trying to protect, THAT'S were they differ

That's why, while both "selfish", one his presented as clearly right and the other clearly wrong. Because Sonic knows what he's doing, while Chaos is too blinded to see the truth. But once he gets some sense to him and sees that the chao are ok he does the exact same thing as Sonic: he simply leaves. Doesn't stay to try to fix what he did, because he knows that at this point the world can help itself, and he won't do the same mistake he did of trying to help at a point where is no longer needed

Sonic got him to open his heart (I'm so sorry for bringing it up so much I just love the song-)

Ok, so we got to how Sonic and Chaos are the same in a thematic way. Cool. That's nice

Now here's why Sonic and Chaos are literally the same person

Now this part I don't have as solid as an argument so take is as more lf a fun AU thing

Early jp classic Sonic was very much treated like a fairy-tale character. A mystical creature that would appear and disappeared when the adventure is over, and even in more modern games he's sort of like that (come on guys he's literally summoned from the sky in SatBk how more obvious can it get...?)

He's, in most game characterizations, a flat character. He doesn't grow because he doesn't NEED to grow. He seems to be inmune to corruption (Examples: In unleashed he's unaffected by dark gaia's influence outside of becoming more furry. On frontiers he smiles through the pain to the point Sage questions him what the hell he's doing) He's unable to be corrupted, as he's usually not the one to learn something from the story, rather the one delivering the lesson to another character (ak: Sonic 2 him indirectly giving confidence to Tails by just being there. Sonic and the secret rings he being what brought Sara our of her toxic relationship. The one SatBK monolog everyone already knows)

Sonic is a lot of things, a lot of them bad: impatient, a bit of a brat, annoying, but on top of everything he's pure. Sonic is incapable of evil. And thus him not changing his ways ever is GOOD

Chaos IS corruption, as in that's what defines the his character and character arc- because he's, unlike Sonic, NOT a flat character, in fact he's the one that receives the lesson by Sonic in Sa1

He's also treated as this mystical being, except that instead of being a fairly-tale it's a prophecy of a disaster. Chaos is not only capable of evil, but rather he IS evil itself for a good part of the story, and thus him not changing his ways is BAD, even if it goes under the same core premise as Sonic's motto of freedom- a decision made from blinded pain is not a decision made in your full freedom after all

That evil is not inherent to him; once again, it was imposed- forced onto him. And when he got purified... What is his role on the next time he happens to appear in the story, when he's given the freedom of actually choosing without being tied down by the chains of old wounds? To only make himself known when the master emerald is in danger (said in Sonic battle and the sonic forces comic prequel)

On other words, he only helps when the world can't help itself

He literally turned into Sonic the moment his heart was devoid of evil

Sonic was not only reaching out to Chaos, he was reaching out to himself- a part of him he never got to terms with, as "hate" is not something he's capable of, not in this form. He not only helped Chaos, but he also processed that hate- a hate that he never got to experience, but it's indirectly "his"

... Except it's not his and never was his

Because of course, realistically, IF this theory/headcanon was right, Sonic would see himself and Chaos as different beings. Because who cares of what was before? Yeah, what IF he came from the guy? He's no longer that person, and be will not get tied by boring concepts as the strings of the past

This is a kind of Solaris Mephiles-iblis situation, except while Mephiles is obsessed with being "one in the same" and "complete" again, Sonic will give the autonomy to Chaos to decide to be his own being. Sonic is Sonic and Chaos is Chaos, he will not do any attempt to go back to being "complete", because he already IS completely, and then he helped Chaos be complete to... Why change what's not broken?

Chaos is happy being a guardian of the master emerald and Sonic himself is happy just being some guy who loves adventure. To make them go back to what was before would be to force a sense of order on two beings of chaos, which is counterproductive. I'm sure none of the two would agree with it

If, as Open your heart says, the fundamental difference between Sonic and Chaos is one being trapped by hatred and the other devoid from it, and then the moment Chaos is set free from that feeling he takes an almost identical fairy-tale like creature role Sonic also has... Then what does that mean?

Perfect Chaos is a fake god because he's not truly "perfect", the resentment is what's keeping him from it, and the moment he lets go of it he truly reaches the perfect state of chaos... And basically turns to Sonic

Sonic is perfect chaos, as he's the good of it

Ever wondered where he comes from? Game Sonic never ever had an origin story, at best an "He comes from Christmas island, no we will not tell you or show you ever where or what Christmas Island is"

He doesn't seem to have parents or an origin story. As far as the world is concerned there's been this blue hedgehog wandering around and randomly helping people then disappearing to never be seen ever again. Ever since that Dr. Robotnik guy has been causing trouble the hedgehog has always been there to stop him, as if he came out of nowhere... As if he spawned thin air

And perhaps that's the easiest reasoning. Perhaps he DID come out of nowhere. Because you can't keep trapped chaos (the concept). It WILL find a way to get out, and it won't listen to you, and it's only agenda is to oppose order

And what happens when a destructive force comes and imposes order on the world? In a way Eggman created his worst enemy... Sa1 was not the first time he liberated Chaos

Because when the world needed him the most it brought back his ashes to life into a form devoid from the hatred and pain that caused his perish on the first place. Made the good that was vanished from his heart and the kindness forced out of him into a being of flesh and bone. And from his wounds of the past there'll be something beautiful for the present. The pureness that the echidnas took away from him so many years ago will be reborn

There'll be brought chaos

They'll ne brought freedom

There'll be Sonic, Sonic the hedgehog

[bangs-coffee-fandoms-unite]

I thought Leo always chose to make sacrifices for his brothers and protect them? Sorry I am trying to understand the must I always suffer in your place line. Like didn’t he always choose to do that? He didn’t have to do anything for them. Then again I am a middle child so I guess I don’t get it.

In the 2003 iteration, Leonardo’s role as the eldest and leader is deeply tied to self-sacrifice. Throughout the series, it’s shown and even outright stated that he carries a heavier burden than his brothers. He’s held to a higher standard by both his master and himself, pushing him to train harder, expect more from himself, and make decisions that prioritize his family above all else. In the series, this responsibility is something he accepts willingly—he views it as his duty and his way of protecting his clan.

For the story, however, I wanted to explore what happens when that unwavering sense of duty is pushed too far. Being resurrected as a flesh-eating monster by his own brother becomes a breaking point for him. It’s not just the horror of what he’s become, but the deeper betrayal of his own values—sacrificing his humanity to save his brother.

The line “But now, it seems like for so much of our lives, I must suffer in your place” reflects that shift. It’s Leonardo recognizing how often he’s had to endure pain, not just for the sake of his family but in place of them. This moment of clarity is not about resenting his brothers but realizing the toll of always being the one to bear the burden, the consequences, or the suffering so they don’t have to. In this particular context, it cuts even deeper because his younger brother’s decision to resurrect him—despite knowing there would be consequences—was ultimately driven by not wanting to endure his own suffering.

I hope this helps clarify the meaning behind the line and the emotions it’s meant to convey! Thank you so much for the ask—it’s always wonderful to dive deeper into these moments!

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

Screaming from the crypt (or how the past haunts the present on Midnights)

I know it's been discussed so much since Midnights came out but just.

I love how there is such a clear narrative throughout the album (and perhaps especially on the 3am/Vault tracks). About questioning and regret and choices and coming to terms with all of it. It is one long story about how we're all a mosaic of the choices we make, each one taking something from us and leaving something else in its place.

(And now a disclaimer: I'm looking at this mostly through a narrator/subject lens, and trying not to dive too deeply into real-life events or speculation except for in a general sense. For this purpose I like to look at the body of work as art, like literature, because I find it makes it easier to see the common threads in the different songs and cohesion in the narrative.)

In looking at the 3am+ tracks in particular, it's fascinating how some turns of phrases or themes repeat themselves in different songs, in different contexts. (I'm only focusing on the non-standard tracks because there are too many songs and I'd be here all day but I bet I could do a part two lol.) I know many people have pointed out the parallels throughout her discography already and I’m not saying anything groundbreaking by writing this, but I love how these parallels run through in the same album, because it makes it seem like it's one long story, or at least, one long rumination on many different stories that are coalescing into a single narrative.

Battle (let’s go)

For instance, the one that jumped out at me when I started writing this post the other week was, "Tore your banners down, took the battle underground," in The Great War and "If clarity's in death, then why won't this die? Years of tearing down our banners, you and I," in Would've, Could've Should've. It's a story about staying stuck in the same cycle of reliving trauma and coping mechanisms and bad habits over and over again and fantasizing about how taking the “antagonist” out and gaining the upper hand for good would bring closure (WCS), but the truth is that nothing ever will. All that cycle does, though, is repeat itself in other situations, and in this case pushes someone away the narrator cares for (TGW). The difference is that the imagined battle in WCS is a two-way street in her mind (that is ultimately unwinnable because it was never a fair fight), but in TGW it's one-sided -- she's the one fighting dirty, taking shots, the way she'd been doing in her imagination (or nightmares) all these years. But the person in front of her isn't fighting back the way the person in her mind in WCS would, because their intentions are honourable instead of exploitative.

And that's paralleled in another pair of lyrics from the two songs, "And maybe it's the past talking, screaming from the crypt, telling me to punish you for things you never did," (in TGW) and "The tomb won't close, I fight with you in my sleep," (in WCS). In both cases, the funeral imagery makes it seem like this past event should be dead and buried in WCS, but it keeps rising from the dead, haunting her no matter what she does and in TGW, another (or perhaps the same?) tomb that won't close keeps unleashing new ways to hurt her and in turn the new person in her life. In other words, the trauma from the past continues to bleed into the present.

(Again from a literary point of view, I'm not saying the events of the two songs are linked IRL, but they're fascinating textual parallels on the album as a string of chapters, which is why Dear Reader is so compelling, but that's a whole other essay.)

To keep the battle motif going, there’s yet another parallel, this time between TGW’s "[You were a] soldier down on that icy ground, looked up at me with honor and truth," and You’re Losing Me’s "All I did was bleed as I tried to be the bravest soldier, fighting in only your army.” In the former, the subject is laying down his armour in the war she’s projecting onto him, waving the white flag, and she realizes that she’s about to destroy something if she doesn’t put her sword down too. By the time we get to YLM, the roles are almost reversed; at the very least they’re supposed to be on the same team, but in this case she’s doing all the heavy lifting, fighting for their relationship in contrast to his apathy killing it. It’s also pretty interesting (if not outright intentional) that one of the 3am+ editions of the albums starts with The Great War, where they find themselves in conflict (even if it’s in her head) that ends in a truce, and ends with You’re Losing Me signalling the end of the relationship, evidence that the resolution in the first song wasn’t an ending but merely a ceasefire before the last battle.

Putting the rest under a cut because this is waaaaay too long now ⤵️

(There’s also another metaphor there in The Great War with its battle imagery: World War I, aka The Great War, was supposed to be the war to end all wars, because loss on its scale was never seen before and when it ended, most thought never again would the world embroil itself in such battle, the horrors and implications were so devastating. Two decades later, the world found itself in WWII, with an even larger scope and more horrific consequences, the intervening time between the two a period of festering conflicts and resentment leading to some of the worst acts the world would see. Bringing real life into it for a second, there’s something a little poetic, though sad, about The Great War the song being about a fight that could have ended the relationship that they ultimately resolved and was meant to be evidence of the strength of their love, but so too did it end up being a period of détente, the greater battle coming for them years later. But that is not the point of this post.)

If one thing had been different

Another major theme in these editions is pondering the "what ifs?" of life, but I think it takes on even more significance in the broader context of the album in the lyrics of "I'm never gonna meet what could've been, would've been, should've been you," in Bigger than the Whole Sky and the repetition of would've/could've in Would've, Could've, Should've (I would've looked away at the first glance, I would've stayed on my knees, I would've gone along with the righteous, I could've gone on as I was, would've could've should've if I'd only played it safe, etc.) In both songs, the narrator is mourning an alternate course their life could have taken* and questioning what they could have done differently, in the aftermath of trauma and loss, and the regret that comes with that loss, and with the loss of agency in the situation because ultimately it was never in their hands. In an album full of questions, wondering about the path not taken, or the forks in the road that have led to a different version of your life, it's digging deeper into the contrast of choice vs. fate, action vs. reaction, dwelling on the past vs. moving on. When you're supposed to let go of the past, what do you do when it is holding your future hostage?

(*I know there are different interpretations/speculation about BTTWS which I am not getting into on main. I'm just saying that whatever the song is about, it's grieving something that never came to be. The literal origin of the song is less important to the album than the sense of loss it portrays. Whatever the inspiration is, it's crafted to tell part of the story of Midnights of ruminating over how, to borrow from her previous work, if one thing had been different, would everything be different?)

(Also I was today years old when I realized that the words are inverted in the two songs. Apparently I've been hearing BTTWS wrong this whole time.)

There's also an interesting tangent in the role of faith in both songs: in WCS, the events of the story cause her to lose her faith (e.g. "All I used to do was pray," "you're a crisis of my faith,") and question all the things she felt had been unquestionable until that point in her life (e.g. "I could have gone along with the righteous"), whereas in BTTWS, she questions whether that very lack of faith is to blame for the loss in that song ("did some force take you because I didn't pray? [...] It's not meant to be, so I'll say words I don't believe"). It's like pinpointing the moment her life changed and upended her beliefs (WCS), but as a result then leaving her unmoored in times of crisis because ultimately there's no explanation or comfort to be taken from what she used to hold true before that (BTTWS). The words she once relied upon to guide her have long since lost their meaning, but in times of trouble it leaves her wondering if that faith she once held then lost could have prevented this pain.

(Shoutout to WCS for being Catholic guilt personified lol.)

To keep on with the vaguely faith-y notions, an obvious parallel is the line in Would’ve Could’ve Should’ve about, “I damn sure never would've danced with the devil at nineteen,” and, "When you aim at the devil, make sure you don't miss," in Dear Reader. All of WCS is about her fighting with an antagonist who haunts her, with whom she wholly regrets ever becoming involved. DR could be seen as a reflection on that fall from grace, warning the audience that if you choose to go after the person (or thing) haunting you, make sure you do so clearheaded enough to be decisive. Again, these “devils” may not be related in real life: the IRL devil in DR could be speaking about her naysayers, or Kim*ye, or Scott & Scooter B, etc., meaning not to cross your enemies until you know you can win. But taking real life out of it and looking at it textually, I am intrigued by the link between WCS and DR, so that’s what I’m going with here. And perhaps that’s even the point in a wider sense; there will be multiple “devils” in your life, or threats to your well-being. If you’re going to commit to taking them down — whether it’s an actual person, or the demons inside you that refuse to let you go — make sure you have the right ammo so that they can no longer hurt you. (Of course, one lesson from these experiences is that sometimes you can’t win, and you have to live with the fallout.)

(Sidebar: I know that “dancing with the devil” is a turn of phrase that means being led into temptation and engaging in risky behaviour, as opposed to describing the actual person. Given the religious metaphors in the song, that could very well be/is the intention, particularly when it’s preceded by, “I would have stayed on my knees” as in she would have continued to follow her faith — in whatever sense that means — had she never met this person, which could also be a more eloquent way of saying she would have continued to be live her life in a way that was righteous (even naive) and seen the world in black and white. Either way, it’s a force she wholly rejects. Like I said, multiple devils, same fight.)

Regret comes up too: in WCS, she says, "I regret you all the time," obviously directed at the person who manipulated her and led to her perceived downfall, citing him as the one impulse she wished she'd never followed, because it won't leave her no matter how hard she’s tried. In High Infidelity, she tells the person to, "put on your records and regret me," and on the surface, it’s like she’s turning the tables, painting herself as the one now causing the regret in someone else, the one inflicting the pain this time. Yet the verse preceding it and the lines following it in the chorus depict a partner who is also emotionally manipulative and vindictive like in WCS (“you said I was freeloading, I didn’t know you were keeping count,” “put on your headphones and burn my city,”). It’s not so much that she’s intentionally harming the person (the way the person in WCS does to her), but rather that the venom in the subject’s feelings towards her seeps through; she’s imagining the way he’s going to feel about her when she leaves, hating her just for by being who she is. (There could be another tangent about how in both songs she’s there to be a “token” in a game for both of the men, who play her for their own purposes.) The regret is dripping with disdain. It’s as though she’s picturing how the person is going to hate her for doing what she’s thinking of doing the way she hates the person who first hurt her.

Sadness, unsurprisingly, shows up in a few lyrics. In BTTWS, “Everything I touch becomes sick with sadness,” sets the scene of a person so overcome with grief that it permeates everything around them; they cannot see their way out of it and feel like the fog will never lift. In Hits Different, it’s, “My sadness is contagious,” the result of a breakup where the person’s grief again touches everything and everyone around them, pushing them further in their despair and loneliness. The reason behind the grief in either case may vary, but regardless of the source, the feeling is overpowering and isolating. They may be different chapters in the story, but the devastation is hauntingly familiar. (As is a recurring theme in Midnights as a whole: there are situations and feelings that present themselves at different points in her journey and colour in the lines in different ways along the road. Like revisiting an old vice and realizing the hit isn’t quite the same as it was in the past.)

Death by a thousand cuts

She also writes about wounds on this album, which isn't surprising I suppose given that the whole conceit is that these are things that have kept her up at night over the years. WCS is perhaps the driving narrative on this never ending hurt when she sings, “The wound won't close, I keep on waiting for a sign, I regret you all the time,” suggesting that no matter what she does, the pain of this experience has permeated everything she’s done afterwards. (Not unlike the overwhelming grief in BTTWS, for instance.) Elsewhere, in High Infidelity she sings, "Lock broken, slur spoken, wound open, game token," and in Hits Different, "Make it make some sense why the wound is still bleeding.” Again I'm not suggesting they're about the same events; the line in HI is about a situation where a partner crosses a boundary, hits below the belt, picks at an insecurity (or creates a new one) and treats the relationship like it's transactional, opening the floodgates in turn. In HD, the wound seems to be more self-inflicted, where she's pushed the person away. (Over a situation real or imagined she feels she needs distance from.) But again, something has picked at her like a raw nerve, and just like in the past, she's hurting, even in a different time and place and person. Almost like the wounds of the past break open over and over again to create new scars. If one were to extrapolate further, it wouldn’t be the biggest leap to wonder if the wound open in WCS, then torn apart in HI makes the one in HD hurt even more.

(I once wrote a post about how I think as time goes on, WCS is going to turn into one of those songs that will be found to drive so much of her work, because it’s just… kind of the unsaid thesis statement of so much of her songwriting.)

Another repeated theme is that of the empty home and loneliness. In High Infidelity, she sings, "At the house lonely, good money I'd pay if you just know me, seemed like the right thing at the time," painting a picture of someone who may have everything they'd want to the outside world, but in reality feels metaphorically trapped in their home (or at least alone amidst abundance), a symbol of a relationship gone sour and a failure to build connection. She just wants someone to understand her, want her for her, but as she's written earlier in the song, she's just a pawn in the game, a trophy from the hunt. Home, in this case, is lonely, isolated, an emblem of her fears. In Dear Reader, she continues this thread, then singing, "You wouldn't take my word for it if you knew who was talking, if you knew where I was walking, to a house not a home, all alone 'cause nobody's there, where I pace in my pen and my friends found friends who care, no one sees you lose when you're playing solitaire." It's the same idea, admitting to listeners that the gilded cage she lived in kept her distanced from her loved ones and real connection, keeping her struggles close to the vest but feeling desperately lonely amidst her crowning success. She's pushed people away and it may have felt like the right thing at the time, but in the end maybe felt like she was trapped. And when you push people away, eventually they take you at your word and stop pushing back; you’re a victim of your own success at isolating yourself. What starts out of self-preservation then further perpetuates the underlying problems.

(There's another interesting link about "home" also feeling unsafe with HI's "Your picket fence is sharp as knives," which further leads into the theme of marriage/domesticity feeling dangerous, which is a whole other thing I won't get into here because it's another discussion and may derail this already gargantuan word salad.)

In a slightly similar vein, we have the metaphor of bad weather for a rocky road or unstable relationship, in High Infidelity again with, "Storm coming, good husband, bad omen, dragged my feet right down the aisle" and You’re Losing Me’s "every morning I glared at you with storms in my eyes.” They aren’t speaking of the same situation or even same kind of breakdown, but it is pretty interesting how the idea of clouds/storms/floods/etc. play such a role in Taylor’s music to signal depression, apprehension, fear, uncertainty, etc. In HI, I think the “storm” coming is the looming threat of commitment to a partner who makes the narrator uneasy (if not fearful). In this case, the idea of making a life with this person is not one that incites joy or comfort, but instead makes the narrator feel that dark times are ahead if she continues down this path. Perhaps in some way, the “storms” in YLM have made good on the threat in HI in a different way; it’s a different home, a different relationship, but the clouds have settled in regardless, and some of her fears have come to fruition in ways she did not expect. The person she once trusted no longer sees her or her struggles (or worse, doesn’t care), and the resentment and pain build with each passing day.

Coming back to heartbreak, one of the obvious "full circle" moments is the beginning of a relationship in Paris, where she says that, "I'm so in love that I might stop breathing," clearly enthralled in a new love that allows her to shut the world out and grow in private, capturing the all-encompassing nature of the relationship. This infatuation has consumed her in the most wonderful way (in contrast to the sorrow of some of the previous songs), and it feels like a life-altering (or even life-sustaining?) force that is so strong she may forget what it’s like to breathe. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.) By the end of the album, though, in You're Losing Me, that heart-stopping love has become a threat: "my heart won't start anymore for you." In the former, her racing heart is full of excitement, but by the latter, her heart has given out completely under the weight of the pain she bears. (YLM is full of death/illness imagery which I already wrote about awhile ago so I won't hear, but needless to say that song deserves its own essay for so many reasons.) She's gone from the unbridled joy of the beginnings of a relationship to the unrelenting sorrow of its end, two sides of the same coin.

Love as death appears elsewhere in the music too, for instance, in High Infidelity’s, “You know there's many different ways that you can kill the one you love, the slowest way is never loving them enough" and You’re Losing Me’s “How can you say that you love someone you can't tell is dying? […] My face was gray, but you wouldn't admit that we were sick.” Though not completely analogous situations, they both tell the tale of one partner’s apathy (or at least denial) destroying the other. In the former, the partner’s actions (or inaction) are more insidious, if not sinister; in the latter, the lack of momentum (or admission of a problem) is passive. In both cases, the end result is the narrator’s demise; it’s a drawn out affair that chips away at her morale and her health and her sense of self. (Breaking my own rule about bringing in alleged actual events into the discussion, but the idea that the relationship in High Infidelity, which was obviously fraught with unease and even fear, ended in a similarly excruciatingly slow and hurtful death by a thousand cuts as the relationship in You’re Losing Me almost did at that time must have been so painful. It almost feels like YLM is wondering why what used to be a source of light in her life was mirroring a situation that caused her such pain in the past.)

From the same little breaks in your soul

I said early on that part of what is so compelling about Midnights is that it feels like an album about ruminating — on choices, on events, on people — and the two final “bonus” tracks of the album depict that as well. In Hits Different, she sings that, “they say if it’s right, you know,” an ode to the confusion of a breakup and struggling with the aftermath of calling it quits. It’s a line that has always intrigued me, because the typical use of the phrase is in the sense of, “you’ll know when you meet the one,” but here it seems to have a double meaning, a reassurance perhaps from the friends (who later on tell her that "love is a lie") that she’ll know if she’s made the right decision in calling it off, but could also be her wondering if the relationship is right, she’ll know, and want to reconcile. In the final bonus track, You’re Losing Me, she sings, “now I just sit in the dark and wonder if it’s time,” this time leaving no doubt about the dilemma she faces, though it’s no less fraught. She’s wondering, perhaps for the last time, if now is finally the moment to end the relationship for good. They say that if it’s right she’ll know, and now she’s wondering if that feeling inside her (that once told her her partner was the one, which is why it hit differently), is telling her that it’s time to go for good. Wait Alexa play “It’s Time To Go.” These are not only the things that keep her up at night, but the things that play over in her mind like a film reel in her waking hours.

Midnights as a whole is a deeply personal album, as is most of Taylor's work, but the 3am+ edition tracks seem to dig even deeper to a lot of the issues raised on the standard album. Almost like the standard tracks are the things she wonders about on sleepless nights, but the bonus tracks are the things that haunt her in the aftermath. The regret, anger, sadness, grief, relief, even joy— they’re the price she pays for the memories she keeps reliving. Midnights might be the most cohesive narrative of all her albums, and really does feel like we’re watching someone work through her journal over time, stopping short of outright naming those giant fears and intrusive thoughts (except for when she does) but making them plain as day when you connect the songs together, and perhaps never more clearly than in the expanded album. It’s incredible how the songs stand on their own to relay a specific moment in time, but that they are also self-referential to each other (whether thematically or overtly) to weave a larger web over the entire work. We’re so lucky as fans to have these stories and to keep peeling back these layers as time passes. (And my literature-analysis-loving ass loves her even more for it.)

This is obviously by no means an exhaustive list, and I know there are more parallels and probably even stronger links (particularly when you add the standard version into the mix), but these were the ones that particularly struck me and I’m just glad I’ve had a chance to sit with this and think it through. ❤️

[kiwinatorwaffles]

the hate towards amber in the invincible tv show is wild honestly because other than that one line (the one where she reveals she knew mark was a superhero) that was a slight fumble on the part of the show runners, she’s actually really excellent and excels at her narrative role compared to her comic counterpart who is just kind of there to be a placeholder date before mark gets with eve.

i admit that line was kinda poorly set up and could’ve been written better (like maybe her instead saying “ugh i expected it but that doesn’t excuse the way you treat me”) but like. Really? did that negate every single thing her character stood for prior to this point? how amber is actually really good for putting up with his bullshit for so long even after he flaked out on dinner with her parents? how she put mark in his place for thinking he could get away with neglecting his relationships just because he’s a hero? how it showed that he’s acting just like how nolan treats debbie? did One single line, said during a moment of anger and frustration, change all of that?

her character is a great parallel between mark and his dad in s1 and is even better in s2 at showing how mark physically can’t live a normal life no matter how much he wants to. like we know amber isn’t endgame and that’s what hurts a lot. they want to be normal college kids going through their awkward teen years together but i guess that one slightly weak line of dialogue made her character “terrible” and “ruin mark.” also even setting aside the myriad of… Other biases, a lot of people just seem to forget the fact that she’s a teenage girl sooooooooooo

(also i’m thinking about this one comment i saw on youtube where someone was like “i didn’t watch that scene initially so i didn’t understand the hate but after i watched it i hate her as well” and. seriously. are you being so serious right now.)

anyway i’m an amber defender to my death she’s amazing in the show and deserves nice things. if you are a video analyst who actually sees her as a normal character instead of calling her “the other woman” you immediately gain my respect

[inafever]

Five days into good omens season 2 and we are madly conspiracy theorizing like mad conspiracy theorists:

[o-wise-corvid]

Maul takes statements a little too literally because Sidious had a habit of making “offhand” ones that turned out to be extremely literal. Like “it will only be a little skin off your back” would mean carving a piece of flesh off Maul’s back while being told if he moved or made a sound, they’d start again on a completely new area until he could “complete the mission”.

You don’t come out of being raised like that for as long as you can remember and be a regular person mentally. If he didn’t take it all at face value, he’d never have survived. If he didn’t follow instructions to the letter, there would be pain worse than what he was already in.

In canon, and AU’s that include this, most healthy moment he ever had was realizing that it wasn’t that he was unworthy of Sidious’ approval, but that Sidious was unworthy of his adoration. In canon, he decided to make it Sidious’ problem however he possibly could. Killing Anakin was his best shot. And he got Ahsoka instead.

Kenobi was just an outlet for all the pain and hurt and jealousy that all this breeds inside a person’s soul. Kenobi was why he failed right? Right?! He had to be. And when Maul discovered Kenobi had someone that loved him, truly loved him… they had to be dealt with. And that’s why Satine had to die. How could he let the man who’d taken everything from him have the thing that Maul so desperately CRAVES? Simply put, Maul couldn’t.

Maul’s full, ultimately, of love. But he’s been beaten and twisted and broken so many times that when it comes to showing it, it’s also broken. “I was told to do this by a person I love and if I love them, I do it to the letter, because if I don’t, I must not love them so maybe they’ll love me if I do it perfectly.” All he wants in the end, is someone to please love him back. But he doesn’t believe he deserves it. Because no one ever has. Which in turn leads to “If I don’t show how much I hurt, it isn’t real but I deserve it all anyway, so who cares?”

So when I write for a Maul who’s endured Sidious and come out the other side, whether in an AU where he gave up being a Sith or Sidious was killed, you get a very tired, very lonely man. He’s free of some things, having possibly realized that Kenobi was just a scared kid who’d watched his father-figure die and who else wouldn’t have gone after Maul after seeing that? It was all Sidious. He might meet someone he likes. A partner or perhaps a younger person he realizes he has paternal instincts toward. But then, he comes to love them. And one day they tell him to just GO AWAY. LEAVE ME ALONE. They mean it for an hour or so. A couple days max.

But Maul doesn’t understand that. It’s not their fault. And it’s not his either. So when they realize Maul’s not even in the same building, but is in fact waiting at the nearest spaceport with the cheapest shuttle across the galaxy in mind, it’s liable to make them panic. Because chances are, they don’t even remember what they said to him. If he ends up failing either in this or some other regard, brought back because of whatever reason, it frequently leads to quiet self harm because he failed and failure means punishment.

It doesn’t matter whoever he’s with all but begs him to not do this, not leave them. Maul doesn’t believe it. Even if he agrees just to get whoever it is to calm down. Because it feels so good. To be wanted. To be clung to. If it’s true, it’s going to have to hurt. Things that feel this good… they simply don’t happen to Maul. So they’re obviously lies.

This mental cycle is breakable. But it’s going to take a long time and a whole lot of effort. Which is why Maul isn’t easy to love or for just anyone to attempt to try to. He’s damaged. Horribly. And you’re going to get hurt trying to heal that. One should accept that not all of it will be healed. One should accept that he’s going to misunderstand. And if someone really does love him? They’re going to have to try anyway.

[moonsavior]

Undying love to buy

I wrote upon

The corners of this eye

All wrongs done.

What payment were enough

For undying love?

I broke my heart in two

So hard I struck.

What matter? for I know

That out of rock,

Out of a desolate source,

Love leaps upon its course.

His Confidence, William Butler Yeats