As writers, I think we all wish every line would carry some sort of black-hole-density level punch, right? We want to impact our readers and drag out emotional responses from them. We want to see them crying, laughing, and gasping at our every word.
Ah, life, reality, why are you in our way?
The fact is, if we did have that kind of ability, we’d probably have a few fanatical fans and be quickly…
Begging the Hazbin fandom to go read some wiki articles on garden of Eden-era biblical lore. Not because the Hazbin fandom's doing a bad job or uncreative or anything so much as because apparently some of the preexisting lore is absolutely buckwild.
Like, I gave the wikipedia entry on Adam a poke, just 'cause curious, not at all expecting a "Lol yeah, he and Eve both lived for almost a thousand years after getting kicked out of Eden, and for the first hundred and thirty they just fucked off to separate sections of the world because they were mad at each other and both had a lot of sex with demons before getting back together, having Cain and Abel, and then presumably getting to question whether they shouldn't have just stuck with the demon sex when their firstborn killed their second-born."
It just feels like there's apparently a lot of stuff the Hazbin fandom could have a lot of fun with, you know?
Although the fiction of "Japan's first lesbian author" Yoshiya Nobuko was (and remains) hugely popular, of her entire body of work only one short story has ever been published in English translation, and no (other) fan translations appear to exist --- despite the enormous influence of her work on the predominant aesthetics and themes of shoujo manga. The beautiful flowery style and melodrama so famously attached to shoujo manga are thanks in large part to Yoshiya, and I'm very happy to be able to share one of her stories with you now!
"Pear Blossom" is a sparse and vivid short story from Yoshiya's early collection Hanamonogatari ("Flower tales"), a book noted for its use of beautiful imagery and its emphasis on the importance of romantic relationships between girls.
Read it here!
(nota bene, "Pear Blossom" is in the style of romantic, 'narcissistic' girlhood tragedy for which Yoshiya is most famous; approach accordingly. I've also included a page of notes on Yoshiya and her early lesbian fiction.)
Audio of Michael with Kathy Burke on the Where There's A Will There's a Wake podcast being asked who would play Aziraphale if he dies and saying that he'd want David to play both parts. Transcript below (bold emphasis mine):
KB: "What about your colleagues' response? I mean, if you're in the middle of--I mean listen, in Nye, when you're doing theatre work, you do have understudies. But let's say you're were doing a new series of Good Omens with the great David Tennant--"
Michael: "Well, I don't know about the great, but okay. With David Tennant, yeah."
KB: "Who would replace you? I mean, who would put up with him, do you think?"
Michael: "I mean, I'm loath to say it...but really, he should play both parts. Because originally we were--originally I was--Neil Gaiman, who wrote the original book with Terry Pratchett that the series was based on--when I first started talking to Neil about it, when he told me that he was going to do it, originally we talked about me playing the other part, the part David played. And one of the sort of things about us doing it is we'd never really acted opposite each other before because we'd usually be up for the same parts for many, many years. I think it was sort of between me and him for Casanova when he did Casanova. I mean, he's far too egotistical to let me know the parts I got over him--"
KB: "--Of course."
Michael: "There we are. That shows what the relationship is like. I'm quite happy to say the part that he got over me. But so, the fact that we were together in this was quite unusual, because normally we would be playing the same part. So that's quite good in a way, cause they're both, they're sort of light and shade of the same person in a way. So once I did pop my clogs, maybe he would have to then--you know the way they do it, do you remember that film Dead Ringers where Jeremy Irons played twins? So I'd quite like to see David playing both parts. And it would be his homage to me."
He's so precious and earnest at everything, I die. Apparently, the new team motto is WHERE'S THE TOILET? (It's a useful phrase for him to learn in Chinese guys, let's face it).
“You lied to us, John,” she said.
And, with a sob in her voice: “There is a perfect Lyctorhood … a perfect Lyctor process that preserves the cavalier, and you let us think there wasn’t. You let us think we’d cracked it … You let us think it had to be a one-way energy transfer … but nobody had to die. Alfred, Pyrrha, Titania, Valancy, Nigella, Samael, Loveday, Cristabel … You watched us kill our cavaliers in cold blood, and none of them had to die. You had already done it yourself. But you had done it perfectly!!”
you cannot separate the concept of lyctorhood from john and alecto, or even the concept of necromancer and cavalier—both concepts originated with john and alecto. in fact, lyctorhood was conceived as an emulation of their bond:
“You let us think we’d cracked it [...] You had already done it yourself. But you had done it perfectly!!”
“Then, when the disciples come to you and say the word Lyctor, she does not understand that they want the thing you did to her—she watches as you watch … watch them misunderstand the process.”
in practice it was an imperfect and misunderstood imitation. one that was imperfect because john lied, because he needed his loved ones to be something he could touch—“needed them to be my hands … my fingers”—and from that lie came his saints, the emperor's fists and gestures. it is flawed, an imperfect copy—mercymorn says that john and alecto's bond is an example of perfect lyctorhood, that he'd done it 'perfectly'.
He said, I took you into myself and we became one.
He said, meditatively, I mean, I tried. There was so much of you—you weren’t the small, stained soul of a normal human being. You were so much bigger than that. I opened my mouth and tried to cram you inside … you didn’t fit.
[...]
He said, So I dropped to my knees here, right … I scooped dirt into my mouth … ate until I vomited. I gathered up the bloody earth … I realised you were too much for me. This is the problem, the incorporation, this is the hardest part … It’s the human instinct, to take.
[...]
He said, From my blood and bone and vomit I conjured up a beautiful labyrinth to house you in. I was terrified you’d find some way to escape before I was done.
perfection is trying to fit something inside yourself you can't, choking the earth and cramming it in your mouth, then realising you can't so you devise a labyrinth to trap 'her' within. john says the human instinct is to take—and necromancy takes. it runs on death.
paul—the product of “something very nearly perfect … the perfect friendship, the perfect love”, conceived of as true lyctorhood, “a gravitational singularity creating something new”—is born of a mutual death. their birth is not an ideal thing, per palamedes: “I am saying we have found the best and truest and kindest thing we can do in this moment.”
what is lyctorhood? the joining of a necromancer and cavalier. one flesh, one end. “one flesh, one end” was conceived of by two people who died because of john's lie—died in pursuit of emulating his and alecto's example.
the necromancer and cavalier relationship—descended from john and alecto's example—hinges on an inequality between the two, one that is hegemonically enforced. the cavalier as the protector, the attendant, the lyctoral power source and defense mechanism.
i don't understand—how can something be perfect when it is tied to this? when it is descended from the man who believes the human instinct is to take, who conjured a labyrinth to trap the earth within? how can any lyctorhood be perfect or true, when even paul's example relies on death?
perfect lyctorhood was coined by mercymorn: the second saint to serve the king undying, lied to by john, and implicitly coerced into ascension via a suicide pact formed by cristabel and alfred. lyctorhood was conceived of as an emulation of john and alecto's bond. perfect lyctorhood is a perfect recreation of that—a lyctoral process that preserves the cavalier.
the perfect in perfect lyctorhood stands for putting your hands around the neck of the earth, choking on it, and then trapping it in a labyrinth hewn from your own blood, bone, and vomit.
I keep coming back to the fact that Eddie and Chris were playing boggle - both in Bucks loft and in the Diaz house in ep 1. Because boggle is about finding the words in a mass of letters - the answers are in plain sight- literally staring you straight in the face.
Eddie is the one who wins the game - because he is the one who needs to find the answers, not Chris - and it suggests he will in fact figure out what’s been in plain sight all along.
But I love the idea that Chris does have some of the same answers as Eddie. Not all of the same answers and he’ll perhaps have found some different words to Eddie, because they both ultimately want/need different things from their respective relationships with Buck, but that there is cross over in those wants and needs.
i just apologized to my mom for being grumpy and moody over the past few days, and she said, "i read a status that said something like 'sometimes we have to set aside a day for our negative emotions to come out.' i think its about you– like– okay, today is one of those days, but tomorrow you'll pull yourself together. let yourself be angry today and there will be no anger left for tomorrow." and she gave me an apple pie.
Superman would not snap and go kill-mode because of a loved one dying, or seeing himself as above us, or any of the other reasons comic-makers always say.
Superman would snap and go kill-mode because living your life with super-hearing on planet Earth would drive anybody right over the edge.
i think the funniest part about the “hannigram is queerbait” crowd is that they are loudly and confidently declaring they have 0 media literacy and are the exact type of person that should not be watching shows like hannibal given that is told largely through metaphors and requires copious amounts of media literacy