#post-interview follow-up

[trufynd01]

Hiring the right employee can be challenging, but with the right strategies, it can become a seamless process. TruFynd, a leading recruitment agency in India, shares expert tips for evaluating candidates, preparing for interviews, and selecting the best talent for your organization. Discover how permanent recruitment solutions can transform your hiring process in this insightful blog.

[fluffyartbl0g]

Everytime I go into the Zosopp tag, I just see people SCREAMING CRYING SOBBING about the lack of posts IN the Zosopp tag. THE ZOSOPP ECONOMY IS IN SHAMBLES

[katabay]

PAGLUIB

way back in like. march?? I took a stab at writing some kind of kabitserye type of story but it was a mess: it kept veering off into murder mystery drama territory because I was reading a lot of murder mystery novels around then and it Wasn't Good because I hadn't tried writing mysteries, let alone murder mysteries, before lmao

I did write a handful of short mystery stories since then, so next year I might take a stab at this idea again now that I'm no longer jumping head first into a genre pool I don't know how to swim in :)

[charmac]

I got drunk and interviewed Glenn Howerton in a bar. (Again.)

[whirlpool-blogs]

Hughes served as team captain for the NTDP, and just based on skill alone, that’s not a surprise. But Hughes’ captaincy stemmed from more than just his prodigious skill. He earned a unanimous vote from his teammates, many of whom knew Hughes and played with him prior to arriving at the program.

"Jack is the captain. He’s the one who forged a lot of those relationships and kept everything going in the right direction,” Wroblewski said.

[dxxtruction]

So this feels sort of obvious to me but Armand doesn’t wish to use or want any power he wants control. Specifically he wants to be in control of his sense of security, safety, stability, and attachments, his survival and identity. He controls what others are doing really only insofar as they threaten the control of any of that, cause he doesn’t really want power over them. (Except maybe Claudia, but I’d argue that is still a control thing). He will willingly forgo using or being in power for control. He manipulates and lies not for power but control. He makes grand displays of his vampire powers or strength not on the central intent of having power over people but for control. He doesn’t back down from Madeleine’s turning to have power over Louis he does it to remain in control over himself. He submits to giving up power for Louis’ power because it feels like it’s all in his control, and disobeys Louis when it’s not. He doesn’t take back power over the coven because he has more control if he does not fight it. His choice is a matter of weighing up how much control he has between the two. If the reasoned way to have control is to use power he will use it. If he doesn’t have to use power to have control, or there’s simply more control in not, he is not going to use it. Of course you will note he is simply very powerful, he has the position and means for it, and his ability to have and get so much control is a power in itself, that power is baked into having control. But he is not like Santiago, who is power hungry and wants and uses any power he can get his hands on. Or Marius who is full of himself on his power and has a sense of entitlement about it. Or even Louis who seeks and uses dominance and capital as power for a means of getting and having control. Armand is going primarily always for control as a means in itself for control, and the demand of it is a very high bar which tends to look like he wants or relishes in using power. But from all I can tell he quite hates it really, submission to power is a place of control for him, but he will use and get power if it’s the most in control means to control he has.

(This is at least as insofar as we’ve seen of him in the show. You could say Armand will have a sort of love with power but then some kind of disillusionment with it in s3, going off what I recall of tvl, that puts him back into this state of needing control being above power which would’ve also been his way of operating with Santino and Marius.)

(Added note: I should say I do believe Armand is almost always aware of his position to his power at all times, it’s not lost on him he is very powerful and can use said power if he so wanted, but it’s a question of his control if he does. He understands power and how to use it or he wouldn’t have such great ability to have and manipulate all this control. Of course he’s not perfect in this either, and I do think a strong sense of powerlessness, and total loss of control can override all his sensibility about power. Anyhow, Armand understands power extremely intimately, from all sides of it, and yet places attention not there but in having control, for the things I described above. Survival for him ranking above concerns like that.)

[brightmalcolm]

john watkins is such an interesting character to me bc it's clear he was written for a behind the scenes need rather than him fitting naturally into the plot. when season one was airing/being filmed, michael sheen and his girlfriend had just had a baby (I think she was born the same month the pilot aired). and since they live in wales it was understandable that he wouldn't want to be filming in new york city more than he had to be, so the writers wrote martin out of some of the episodes: that's why he went to solitary confinement at the end of 1x07 and we don't see him again till 1x11. but now you're missing the shows main antagonist and need to add something until you can bring him back for the second half of the season.

so I'm almost completely sure that's why john was written in. which is fine and honestly they did do some cool stuff with him and alone time is a great episode. however you can also tell he was never a big part of the shows original storyline bc as soon as they can use michael in episodes again he gets dropped FAST. it also definitely didn't help that one of the few episodes that mentioned him in the latter half of season one was cut. just wish we got some more with him like I get them writing him in and the show already had a lot going on but come on....you're not even going to elaborate on the "took his pleasure with cadavers" line guys!

[ingravinoveritas]

How did u feel with the age gap question was it pr or do u really think he meant it and this was the truth

This is referring to the question asked on The Assembly last night. I'll post the clip here, for those who haven't seen it yet:

A lot of what I felt while watching this was touched on in this incredibly thoughtful post from @body-face-words, so I encourage folks to give that a read. But I think for me, when it comes to Michael's answer, it's not a matter of whether he lied or told the truth. It's that his response was sweet, but it was also a version of the truth that sounded convincing because it needed to, because this was not a time or place where he could say what he actually felt.

I'm really not sure what people expected him to say, in all honesty, as he was never going to say anything that would make him or Anna look bad, and especially not anything that could potentially negatively impact the kids, so he instead gave a very perfect PR answer. This again does not come as a surprise because we know Michael has scripted his answers about AL/their relationship in the past, but I noticed how careful he was in his response, which seems to contrast with how off-the-cuff he normally is when discussing every other subject. Part of what so many of us love about Michael is how unfiltered he is and always has been, with the exception of how much he filters and edits himself when talking about Anna.

It also seemed like, at least from my perspective, that Michael answered the question without answering the question. What the girl asked wasn't so much about the age gap, but about AL being five years older than Michael's daughter Lily, and it would've been a perfect opportunity for him to mention her, or how the relationship with AL affected his and Lily's relationship. He could've talked about the falling out he had with her (and Kate) in 2019 once AL's existence/pregnancy came to light, and what has happened in the years since, or how Lily now gets along with Anna/her half-sisters. But instead Michael deflected from all of that and talked about everything while saying nothing at the same time.

It was also the things Michael didn't say that stood out as much as the things he did. In the entire answer to the question, Michael never once used the word "love." Prior to the show airing, I saw a lot of people online confident that he would say that he loves Anna, but he never did. He never praised her, never talked about the things he loves about her, or how glad he is to be with her. He never once mentioned her by name. The pivot and focus was on the kids, and there was a clear distinction made between how happy he is to have the family he does, rather than to be in the relationship that he is in. Michael's use of the phrase "very happy" was also identical to the wording of a comment AL wrote on Instagram the other day, which added to the whole "reinforcing a public narrative" feeling of his response.

I think what struck me most of all, though, was how somber and heavyhearted Michael sounded while saying how happy he is. It reminded me of the song "I Am a Rock" by Simon & Garfunkel, where the upbeat and cheerful music contrasts starkly with the fraught, angry lyrics. There was no sparkle in Michael's eyes when he said it, no enthusiasm for what he was saying (which is particularly jarring when we know Michael has the capacity for incredible enthusiasm), and his face never lit up while he was talking.

There was one specific moment (which is also highlighted in the body language post) where he seemed to visibly wince and the micro-expressions were in overdrive, and it immediately made me think of a moment from Good Omens:

Time and again, I have seen fans talk about Michael's micro-expressions as an actor and how he uses them to such devastating effect (especially in the role of Aziraphale). And while these two moments are not completely identical, the idea of ignoring how Michael uses those same micro-expressions in real life makes no sense to me at all. In this instance, what we're seeing could be either because he has put so much of himself into Aziraphale that we can now recognize those "Michael" moments...or it could be because in both clips he is performing, albeit for different reasons.

The difference between Michael when he is doing this vs. when he is being genuinely himself is made even more apparent by the question immediately following this one. Unprompted, he brings up David, and the change in his expression and demeanor is swift and dramatic:

Having the mention of David happen so soon after the AL question seemed to highlight so many things. I can't help but feel that David is a security blanket for Michael, something he hides behind when he is feeling anxious or sad or overwhelmed. I wondered if perhaps he was even already thinking of David while answering the AL question, which would explain why he named him so readily--as if his mind needed to drift to someplace else just to finish answering that question.

To me, this made it abundantly clear that David is Michael's safe place. Here was where we saw Michael's eyes sparkling. Here was where we saw him light up from the inside. And it was David he kept returning to and bringing up during the rest of the show in response to other questions. So if that doesn't speak volumes about where Michael's heart seems to be, I'm not sure what does.

So yes, those are my thoughts on Michael answering the age gap question on The Assembly. As always, this is just my interpretation, but I am glad to hear from my followers with your take as well. Thanks for writing in! x

[batsplat]

new casey podcast have you seen it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=ye8wNfrvaPDjtpDV&v=IuwZN6aP8sg&feature=youtu.be

(link to the podcast) yeah I did, cheers!

there's not that much 'new information' per se within this podcast, though there's a bunch of nice tidbits about teenage casey. what stood out to me is how the framing of his journey to becoming a racer is... well, it's kinda new? it's not exactly surprising, because you could get a lot of this stuff from reading between the lines in his autobiography. the question of 'is this your dream or your parents' dream' is a very common one with athletes, and it's often a thin line... but, y'know, this podcast interview in particular is quite a noticeable shift in how casey himself talks about this issue. it's a shift in how he portrays his 'dream' of becoming a professional rider back when he was formulating his autobiography, versus how he's answering questions in this episode. his autobiography isn't free from criticism of his parents - but casey is always stressing his own desire to race. so you do get stuff like this (from the autobiography):

At this point things were getting serious. Dad used to say, 'If you want to become World Champion you can't be that much better than local competition,' holding his finger and thumb an inch apart. 'You have to be this much better,' he'd say, holding his arms wide open. Dad confirms this feeling still today: 'I know it's a harsh way to look at things but that's the difference between a champion and the rest. Just look at the careers of Dani Pedrosa and Jorge Lorenzo. Dani had Alberto Puig and Jorge had his old man, both of them hard as nails. If you want to make it to the top I think it takes somebody with an unforgiving view on life to help get you there. So I said those things to Casey, particularly when we went to the UK, because to keep moving up a level he couldn't just be happy with winning a race. If he wasn't winning by a margin that represented his maximum performance then he wasn't showing people how much better he was than the rest.' There's no denying that Dani, Jorge and I became successful with that kind of upbringing and sometimes you probably do need it. As far as I'm concerned Alberto was nowhere near as tough on Dani as my dad was on me or Jorge's dad was on him. That kind of intensity and expectation puts a lot of extra pressure on a father-son relationship that isn't always healthy. We definitely had our moments and there were a few major blow-ups to come. But at the time, rightly or wrongly, it was proving to be a good system for us and I was eager to continue impressing my dad and others with my performances on the track.

(quick reminder, jorge's review of his father's style of parenting was describing him as "a kind of hitler")

but in general the emphasis is very much on how much casey enjoyed racing, on how single-minded casey was when it came to racing. he might have been isolated by his racing (again this is from the autobiography, in the context of discussing being bullied by kids in school until he got 'protection' from his dirt track friends):

School life was a whole lot better after that but I still hated it. All my real friends were from dirt-track; they were the only people I had anything in common with.

and he's talked about how other parents misinterpreted his shyness as him not actually wanting to race, which meant they were judging casey's parents as a result (autobiography):

Mum tells me that the other parents thought she and Dad were awful because I cried as I lined up on the start line. She remembers: 'I was putting his gloves on his hands and pushing his helmet over his head. The thing was, I knew Casey wasn't crying because he didn't want to ride or because he was scared. He just didn't like the attention of being stared at by all these people!'

but like. overall racing for him was still something he portrayed as a very positive aspect of his childhood. something he always clung onto, something that was his choice to pursue

so... let's play compare and contrast with some specific passages of the autobiography and this podcast, you decide for yourself. take this from his autobiography:

After I started winning more times than not, and it was obvious my passion for bikes wasn't wavering, Mum and Dad decided that seeking out sponsors could be a great idea to help offset some of the costs of travelling to meets and keeping the bikes in good order.

and here, in a longer excerpt about what a sickly child casey was, what his mother said (autobiography):

'They tested him for cystic fibrosis and he was on all kinds of medication; you name it, he was on it. But Casey still raced, we couldn't stop him.' I know I was sick but Mum was right, I wasn't going to let that stop me.

versus this from the podcast, when he's responding to a completely open question about how he got into riding:

To be honest, I don't know if I was allowed to have any other attraction to be honest. I think it was, you know, you're going to be a bike rider from when I was a very very young age - and I'm not the only one to think that. I think my parents have stated that enough times to certain people and you know I was sort of pushed in that direction. My elder sister who's six and a half years older than me, she actually raced a little bit of dirt bikes and dirt track before I was born and when I was very young, so it was sort of a natural progression to go and do a little bit more of that and I think because at the time road racing was a lot more similar to dirt track. That was our sort of way in.

this was one of the very first questions in the interview, it basically just consisted of asking casey how he got into biking in the first place - whether it had come through his family or whatever. casey chose to take the response in that direction... it's not an answer that is just about his own internal passion, how he loved riding the second he touched a bike, how he loved it throughout his childhood etc etc (which is how it's framed in the autobiography) - but instead he says he wasn't allowed to do anything else. he says that he was pushed in that direction, that his parents have openly said as much to others. that he feels vindicated in the belief he was never given another choice

let's play another round. here from the autobiography:

Mum and Dad used to stand at the side for hours on end watching me practise at different tracks. They'd sometimes clock laps with a stopwatch as I went round and round. Other parents couldn't see the point in taking it so seriously but they didn't realise it was what I wanted. I was having fun. Working out how to go faster was how I got my kicks and I couldn't stop until I had taken a tenth or two of a second off my best time on any day. If another kid came out onto the track with me I would be all over them, practising passing them in different ways and in different corners, but most of the time they avoided riding with me and I would be out there on my own, racing the clock.

and this (autobiography):

I enjoyed racing so much that even when I was at home riding on my own I would set up different track configurations to challenge myself. I'd find myself a rock here, a tree there, a gatepost over there and maybe move a branch and that would be my track.

versus here, in the podcast:

Q: And did you realise at the time that you were - not groomed, is not the word but well you were being groomed to be a professional motorcycle racer, or obviously that was your only one reference point, that was the norm. Did that just feel the norm or did you think actually this feels a bit intense or how did you feel about it? A: I think it's hard, it's not until I sort of reached my mid teens where I started to have a bit of a reality check on what I was actually doing. Before then, you know I was competitive. I'm not as competitive as people think, I'm a lot more competitive internally rather than externally versus other people. I always challenge myself to things, so all those younger years was just getting the job done that I was expected to do. I enjoyed winning, I loved it, but you know I enjoyed perfect laps, perfect races, as close as I could get to that and you know from a young age I always sort of challenged myself constantly to be better. So I didn't just win races, I tried to win them - you know, if I won races by five seconds in a [...] race I'd try and win, you know I'd try and get to double that by the end of the day if I could. So you know that always kept me sharp and it stopped me from being sort of, you know, complacent in the position I was at. And it wasn't until sort of you know 16, 17, 18 that reality kicked in. I'd had a couple years road racing in the UK and Spain, been rather successful and then you get to world championships and you know maybe an engineer that was sort of - didn't have your best interests at hear. And, you know, I nearly finished my career right there after my first year of world championships just because of the reality of how hard it was in comparison to everything else I'd experienced up to that point. And, you know, it was a real reality check for me and I think it was then that I started to - you know consider everything around me and consider how and why I got to the position that I was in and that's when the mind started to change a little bit and realise that you know I really was being groomed my whole life just to sort of be here and be put on a track and try and win. And, you know, that was my seemingly most of my existence.

in all the excerpts, he stresses how much he enjoys his perfect laps, how much he enjoys riding, how there is genuine passion there, how dedicated he is to this pursuit... but then in the podcast, he's adding something else - how he'd been groomed his whole life into that role of 'professional bike racer'. that it was only in his late teens (when he was in 125cc/250cc) where he had this moment of 'man I never really had a choice in all this'

and another round. here's him talking in the autobiography about how all the money he got through racing went back into racing - but it was fine because it was the only thing he cared about anyway:

I don't remember seeing any of the money I earned because it all went back into my racing, although I guess at the time that's all I really cared about anyway. I didn't know anything else. Mum and Dad always said to me: 'If you put in the effort, we'll put in the effort.'

and here in the autobiography on how he just wanted to ride all day:

I couldn't ride my bike all day, though, as much as I would have liked to.

and him talking in the autobiography about his parents encouraging him and his sister to 'chase their dreams':

Mum and Dad encouraged both Kelly and me to follow our passions and work hard to chase our dreams. That might sound strange when you are talking about a seven-year-old but I don't think you are never too young to know that if you want something you have to earn it.

versus this in the podcast:

Q: And I've never asked you this before, but did you want to? A: Um... I think I'd been convinced of a dream I suppose. You know, yes I loved riding bikes and you know I really did enjoy racing... but there was lots of other things that I - I really enjoyed as well but just never had the opportunity or never was allowed to do anything else, so... You know, motorbikes for our budget everything fortunately dirt track was probably the cheapest way that you could go motorbike racing. You could survive on very very little in dirt track and show your potential in other ways. You know, yes, having good bikes and good tyres and all that sort of thing made a difference but it wasn't the be all end all, you could always make a difference in other ways, so... I think it was, you know - the best thing we could have done, racing through that. Like I said I enjoyed it, it wasn't until late teens, early 20s where I sort of was like, I don't know if I would have been a bike racer had I actually had a choice.

was riding really all he cared about? or were there other things he was interested in, things he just never had the opportunity to pursue? things he wasn't allowed to pursue? from the autobiography, you get the sense that his parents always deliberately portrayed it as casey's dream, something he was expected to work hard for in order to be allowed to fulfil. in the podcast, casey says it was a dream he was 'convinced' of. without wanting to speak too much on the specifics of this parenting relationship we only have limited knowledge of, this kinda does all sound like athlete parent 101: getting it into their kids' heads that this is the dream of the child, not the parent, before holding it over them when they fail to perform when their parents have invested so so much in their child's success. casey's family was financially completely dependent on his racing results when they moved to the uk - he was fourteen at the time. he was painfully conscious of his parents' 'sacrifice' to make 'his dream' possible. can you imagine what kind of pressure that must be for a teenager?

to be clear, this isn't supposed to be a gotcha, I'm not trying to uncover contradictions between what casey said back then and what he's saying now. obviously, this is all very... thorny, complicated stuff, and casey has had to figure out for himself how he feels about it, how he feels about how his parents approached his upbringing. but it is worth pointing out that this isn't necessarily just a question of his feelings changing over time - if the internal timeline he provides in the podcast is correct, he was really having that realisation in his late teens, early 20s, so on the verge of joining the premier class. that is when he says he had the thought "I don't know if I would have been a bike racer had I actually had a choice"... which is a pretty major admission, you have to say, especially given how rough those premier class years often ended up being on him. but then that realisation would have already come years and years before he wrote his autobiography, it would've been something he carried with him for most of his career. given that, you do look at his autobiography and think that he did make the decision to frame things pretty differently back then, that he decided to exclude certain things from his narrative. if this really is already something that's been festering within him for years, if he does feel like he wants to be a bit more open about all of that now than back then... well, hopefully it shows he's been able to work through all of it a bit more in the intervening years

(this is somehow an even thornier topic than his relationship with parents, but relatedly there is a bit of a discrepancy between how bullish he is in his autobiography about how mentally unaffected he was by his results, versus how he's since opened up since then about his anxiety. again, I want to stress, this is not a gotcha, he's under no obligation to share this stuff with the world - especially given the amount of discourse during his career about his supposed 'mental weakness'. it is still important in understanding him, though, how he consciously decided to tell his own story in the autobiography and how he's somewhat changed his approach in the subsequent years)

this is the rest of his answer to that podcast question I relayed above:

But at the same time you know I felt that no matter what I would have done, I sort of have a - my mentality of self-punishment, you know, of never being good enough that always drove me to try and be better and any single thing that I did, I didn't like it when I wasn't not perfect. I don't believe in the word perfect but I really didn't enjoy when I wasn't, you know, in my own terms considered a good enough level at anything I did so I would always sort of try to get up as high as I could regardless of what for.

at which point hodgson says exactly what I was thinking and goes 'god what a line' about the "mentality of self-punishment" thing. it is one hell of a line!

what's really interesting about this podcast is how these two big themes of 'this wasn't my choice' and 'self-punishment' end up kinda being linked together when casey talks about how the motogp world reacted to him... so again I'm gonna quickly toss in a bit from the autobiography (where he's talking about casual motorcycling events he went to as a kid), because it does read similarly in how for him the joy and competitive aspects of riding are closely linked:

It was a competition but it wasn't highly competitive; it was just for fun, really. Of course, I didn't see it that way, though, and I had dirt and stones flying everywhere. I don't think anyone expected the park to be shredded like it was. When I was on my bike, if I wasn't competing to my maximum level then I wasn't having as much fun.

and back to the podcast:

And also because people truly didn't understand me, that I'm not there just to enjoy the racing. As we're explaining, before that, you know it was sort of a road paved for me... And so the results were all important, not the enjoyment of it. And then you cop the flak for everything you do. I'm also very self-punishing, so it was kind of a - just a lose lose lose and it was all very very heavy on myself, so... It, you know, it took me till my later years to realise I could take the pressure off myself a little bit and go look you've done all the work you've done everything you can, you got to be proud of what you've done, so... Not necessarily go out there and enjoy it, because I don't believe you should just be going out in a sport where you're paid as much as we are expect to get results and just - you know - oh I'm just going to go and have fun it's like... yeah, nah, if you're just going to go and have fun then you're not putting in the work. And that's when we see inconsistencies etc. So I was very very harsh on myself and so even when I won races, if I made mistakes or I wasn't happy with the way I rode, well then yeah I'm happy I won but there's work to do. There was more to get out of myself and so that's where I copped a lot of bad... um, let's say bad press because of those kind of things and then they sort of attack you even more because they didn't like the fact that you didn't celebrate these wins like they wanted you to they expect you to I suppose treat every victory like almost a championship and you know it's not that I expected these wins but I expected more of myself and therefore maybe I didn't celebrate them as much as you know other people do.

kind of brings together a lot of different things, doesn't it? this whole profession was a path that was chosen for him... which he links here to how the results were 'all important' for him, how it just couldn't ever be about enjoyment. he always punished himself for his mistakes, he was under constant pressure, which also affected how he communicated with the outside world... he was so committed to self-flagellation that he made it tough for himself to actually celebrate his victories, which in turn wasn't appreciated by the fans or the press. so on the one hand, casey's obviously still not particularly thrilled about how much of a hard time he was given over his particular approach to being a rider. but on the other hand, he's also describing how all of this can be traced back to how becoming a rider was never actually his 'choice'. he's detailed his perfectionism before, including in his autobiography, including in discussing his anxiety disorder more recently - but this is explicitly establishing that link between the pressure he'd felt during his childhood to how he'd been pushed into this direction to how he then had to perform. he couldn't afford to be anything less than perfect, so he wasn't, and at times he made his own life even tougher as a result of his own exacting standards. this just wasn't stuff he's said in such straightforward, explicit terms before... and now he is

my general thing with casey is that his reputation as a straight shooter or whatever means people aren't really paying enough attention to how he's telling his own story. like, I kinda feel the perception is 'oh he used to be more closed off because the media ragged on him but since retirement he's been able to tell it like it really is' or whatever. and I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, but it's not quite as simple as that. because he's not a natural at dealing with the media, he's put a fair bit of thought into how to communicate better with them (which he does also say in the podcast), and he's explicitly acknowledged this is something he looked to valentino for in order to learn how to better handle. because casey has felt misunderstood for quite a long time, he's quite invested in selling his story in certain ways - and it's interesting how what he's chosen to reveal or emphasise or conceal or downplay has changed over time. which means there will be plenty of slight discrepancies that pop up over time that will be as revealing as anything he explicitly says... and it tells you something, what his own idea of what 'his story' is at any given time. this podcast isn't just interesting as a sort of, y'know, one to one, 'this is casey telling the truth' or whatever - it's reflecting where his mind is at currently, what he wants to share and in what way, and how that compares to his past outlook. the framing of his childhood was really something that popped out about this particular interview... it's not like it's exactly surprising that this is how he feels, but more that he decided to say all of this so openly. some pretty heavy stuff in there! hope the years really have helped him... man, I don't know. figure it all out, for himself. something like that

[fleouriarts]

feeling bad about my art lately. will probably not post for a while. but i wanted to at least dump some stuff here before i retreat into my hidey hole

[servuscallidus]

just found a WWI podcast that lasted as long as the war holy shit. from 2014 to 2018 so it fits perfectly

[dxxtruction]

its probably meant to be somewhat ambiguous but it seems most likely that armand was gaslighting louis so that he didn't trust himself and daniel didn't trust him. he also seemed to basically get what he wanted by instigating a fight and igniting some passion, we see by next ep's start it probably got resolved with sex and absolution. idk the talamasca angle is not as interesting a story

Ask is in reference to this post: HERE

That's cool. You're able to hold that I'm able to hold mine. Interpretations are just that. I will say it doesn't matter whether Armand planted them, or not, because he still ends up gaslighting Louis in the 2x04 argument anyway. It’s effectively gaslighting even if they are telling the truth here as they see it because of how things stack up and what's said.

It is basically how you said, and I'll just go ahead and expand for anyone who might not see it so clearly. Initially, it seems he's more or less trying to just get Louis off his case for the photos, and is willing to throw him, his mental state, and character under the bus, to do so. But Louis already straight up knows him of doing manipulative things, of this exact sort, in the interview before this event even occurred - Namely that Armand is making himself look far more approachable, and better to Daniel, even after they'd both agreed to basically tear this guy to shreds, which makes Louis look worse by default, and goes against what they agreed to both do. Armand has a repeated tendency to fall through on his promises, or promise things, but then take it his own direction when it suits him. In all cases, he does keep obstructing Louis interview, especially when it comes to Daniel, and won't fully admit to it. - this is why Louis' so reactive, among just the fact he has trauma related to being denied his own interiority, fullness, and freedoms, because he's Black, and in society, seen less human. Armand simply doesn't help his case by denying it, even if it were actually his truth that the photos weren't his doing. (Note; Armand has also faced horrific dehumanizing traumas, but in such a differing way I don't think he's able to empathize with the same way Louis been dehumanized in life. I argue a little if Louis is even able to do more than simply hold a lot of sympathy for Armand, as they really are not a lot alike in both their interior and exterior reality. I don't think that sympathy goes both ways often.)

The way he's also keeps behaving like the bigger person in this reinforces the belief Armand wants out of Louis, making him 'see' it, and probably also to Daniel as well who's definitely overhearing this (this particular part has a chance of being unintentional however, if he was only really intending to deescalate, but it still keeps the same effects).

Not only making Louis look like he's crazy to assume it, but denying he'd been doing anything wrong of the sort (by simply at no point coming forward and saying something reassuring of Louis reality along the lines of, 'I have been doing those things, it's just not this, and those weren't my intentions to hurt you with it, I'm sorry' or simply 'okay, I did it, sorry'). As well, it doesn't matter how much Armand's truthful, Louis is someone who necessarily does need reality checks like that, because he suffers from hallucinations, and as he's finding out, memory lapses, and not providing them will make him jump to presume it could be his own symptoms. Also, at one point in the argument, he actually throws out that Louis is insane, if it needed to be anymore obvious. Which is derogatory, if arguably true, though reinforces that Armand's behaviors to 'stop or aid his madness' in prior instances were all a-okay, and all necessary. There's nothing wrong with him, and what he's doing, its all Louis. (His intentions to deescalate, if anyone wants to take on that idea, would've changed by then. It reads as a pattern to me mimicking of the promises falling through.)

Anyway, I'd be saying in my interpretation that him willing to keep this up, even though the photos had nothing to do with it, just shows how much he'd actually use any situation that arises to manipulate/control Louis, and mess with Louis interview, as opposed to orchestrating or planning situations, so he can then also manipulate with it. With all intentions or not, it doesn't really matter. Which makes his manipulation more realistic, honestly. A better portrait of who Armand is tbh.

I don't claim this transcript as 100% accurate, but it's as close as I can get it:

L: Four Fred Steins in the album, four. You made me look foolish. 

A: You just assume it was me. 

L: Well, it wasn’t me. 

A: You sure about that? 

L: Excuse me?

A: I take it back. 

L: Take it way fucking back. 

A: It was probably an honest mistake from the staff.

L: You think I need to be coddled, hyped up, lied to? 

-cut-

A: You’re being Lestat! 

L: Go call on him, see what happens. 

A: A little ridiculous… It's the staff, dear.

L: I’m being ridiculous? You wanna see, you wanna see ridiculous? 

A: No, Louis, it was an honest mistake. You knew it.

L: AAAH

A: You weren’t here- 

L: LA LA LA LA

A: -And more and more of them-

L: LA LA

A: They got through! 

-flashbacks-

A: This isn’t about Lestat! 

-more flashback-

L: You lobbed at Daniel, and disrespected me. 

A: no no no no no no.

-flashback-

L: and over and over and over it’s always the same damn thing. 

A: You trying to trick me?

L: I don’t know I’m just your God now. The abandonment, and aren’t we both cut throat? 

A: You won’t believe me, when I was here. I’m the one who can see! 

L: Alright, first off, first off. 

A: You are insane! 

-fb-

L: You always do this! … We’ll be done with Daniel any day now. Now, knock it off. Its about the record, this is my interview. You hear me? The whole interview that will be heard by me. 

A: In a future that you won’t see!

-fb- 

L: No more! Will you go to speak without asking first. No more! Will you ever flirt around on your years. 

A: Oh, come to Dubai, Louis says, but not me. 

-Then I can’t make out anything-

Sex and absolution I do agree with as well. Like they did do that. I don't think either were expecting it to go that way from the beginning, though, as in neither started or orchestrated a reason for argument just to have makeup sex. That being somewhat normal for them after a big argument like that would not surprise me however. A certain interpretation I take of them having sex after (given the argument) was more that (it seems to me) part of the accusations here is that Armand is 'flirting' to win over Daniel's favor, and trying to get with him? Maybe even back together with him? (Centered a lot around Armand telling him his little love story with Lestat.) If not, just turning him against him. So having sex could reinforce Armand had/has no intentions of leaving, further obstructions wrt Daniel, and/or infidelity. That it's 'me and you' and not 'you and him'. (Which could be the real lie depending on how you want to take it here lmao. And is so bound to fall through because... Armand doesn't keep his promises, not even to himself it seems since he turned Daniel).

Again all interpretations are just that, so long as it can be legitimately supported by the text, and isn't grossly insensitive. The Talamasca just adds to the whole scene to me more than it detracts from it. The outside world necessarily has influenced both of their inside worlds, and further how they interact with each other in both, and is the cause behind of a lot of their behaviors and reactions. Talamasca causing those to erupt sort of points to that. It's real. The whole narrative actually feels more concrete and like there's a world outside who can still influence them if they were the one's doing it. Sometimes I feel people want to center Louis a bit too much in the story, which is fair, it is his story, he has a narrative that should be centered, but it is also other people's story as well. They are playing roles here in it.

Also this is why I really wonder if they'd ever revisit this? I'm a little peeved about it being so hidden tbh. There seems like so much added context and we're denied most of it from the music and constant flashbacks. Fingers-crossed maybe Daniel was recording it? IDK.

[todays-just-a-daydream]

Oasis settled down in the bar with a gin and tonic or ten. There was merciless ribbing of any roadie with more than a passing interest in Manchester United - crowned champions earlier that evening, much to the disgust of the pro-City band. Then a bottle of champagne or two appeared on the table. Then the barman made the terrible mistake of abandoning his post. At this point, some drinkers would notice his departure and wonder how long he'd be, imagining wistfully all the alcohol they could purloin in the interim. Oasis don't imagine - they just do. Before you could say, "Bugger me, free booze!", two of the entourage were scrambling over the bar. Emptyin, the fridges and passing the bounty over the counter. One minute later, 50 bottles of beer were being stuffed under chairs and into innocent bags. Then things got really strange. Guitarist, Paul 'Bonehead' Arthurs, decided to go for a dip in the horribly convenient pool next to the bar. The Gallagher brothers, Noel and Liam, decided to have a scrap about an ex-girlfriend. Allegedly. Expletives started flying. Then punches started flying. Then bottles of beer started flying. Then furniture started flying.

Bassist, Paul 'Guigsy' McGuigan, valiantly tried to separate the Gallaghers, receiving two knuckle sandwiches for his endeavours. Someone started throwing chairs at Bonehead in the pool. Then tables. Liam had Noel on the floor. Noel tore Liam's shirt off. Other residents, tiring of the mass brawl downstairs, started coming out onto their balconies and shouting abuse. One particularly aggrieved sort was accompanied by his girlfriend. While her lover's attention was focused on the mayhem below, she would calmly open her towel to show Oasis either Nothing Very Much At All or Everything, depending on your perspective. At this juncture, the pissed-up band would roar their encouragement, causing the baffled boyfriend to turn and find his demure-looking companion safely covered by the towel. Then he'd shout more abuse and she'd flash again.

And so it went, with a few more punches thrown here and a few more items of furniture thrown there (ie, in the pool). Eventually, at around six o''bleeding'clock in the morning, the night porter appeared to tell the fuzzy thrill-seekers that, actually, if it was alright with them he was going to knock off because, urn, someone had called the police.

[fallingbyjuleecruise]

it’s amazing how superstitious you become when you want good news

[isfjmel-phleg]

Unsolved mysteries of Damage (1994)

When Damage was canceled, the creators were given only three issues in which to wrap up a story that they had intended to go on much longer, and thus there are many plot threads and questions that were left dangling and which later writers never bothered to explore. So what exactly was left unanswered?

Why does a motherbox respond to Grant? He is human, and none of his DNA donors were from New Genesis (although one of them is a Martian).

What becomes of Gillian Wahrman (Wyldheart) now that she knows that she's originally from New Genesis? Does she ever find her birth parents?

Why is Sandra Knight (the original Phantom Lady) kept obscured whenever she appears in panel in the story's present? We never see her face, and even a close-up of her hand is in shadow.

What happened to Arn Munro and Sandra Knight's missing son? Grant turns out not to be him, so where is he and how badly was he experimented upon by Symbolix?

Who is Niobe, one of the three experiments created by Symbolix Labs? The others were Telemachus (Grant, a naturally born child injected with a metagene) and Proteus (Splatter, a lab-created being with the metagene), but the identity and whereabouts of Niobe (the result of a fertilized egg containing the metagene implanted in an unknown surrogate mother) are never revealed. Nadjia Wahrman claims that all records of Niobe were destroyed in a lab accident, but who's going to believe that.

If the lab accident that gave Nadjia Wahrman and her two young sons a genetic virus happened when Grant was seven, about ten years before the story's present, why are her sons now apparently grown men in their thirties or forties instead of teenagers or young adults? It could be rapid aging caused by the virus, but one of them is shown in flashback as an adult adopting an infant girl who is now about Grant's age. So what happened there?

Does Grant ever find out that his biological mother did not simply die in childbirth as Vandal Savage tells him but was in fact murdered? What would his response to that be?

Exactly why did Vandal Savage experiment on Grant? Grant asks him what he wanted to get out of it, but Savage won't tell him (but implied he might someday).

Vandal Savage tells Grant that he will look into finding Doctor Polaris and will speak to him again. Does he ever follow through on this?

What other powers might Grant develop? Will he eventually acquire powers from all of his genetic parents?

Where does the mystery man implied to be Grant as an adult in the future come into things? Is he time-traveling? Is he communicating with Grant telepathically when he enters his dreams? He keeps saying that he can't interfere with anything Grant does, so why does he keep hanging around?

How did Grant track down Albert Rothstein? We never see anyone mention Albert to him, so how did Grant find out about him? Did he start researching his father after finding out his identity and then looked for any living relatives or close associates?

[helloiamacashier]

It's a travesty that I can't reblog gifsets of books.