#so i lied (abraham’s miscellaneous)

[stxriesfromashisms]

Tag Dumps

a rogue’s mugshot (abraham’s photos) borrowing without the intent of giving back (abraham’s threads) studying the thief (abraham’s headcanons) the itch (abraham’s likes & wants) naughty boy (abraham’s desires & kinks ; nsfw) curiosity didn’t kill this cat (abraham’s musings) you’re only in trouble if you get caught (abraham’s inbox responses) worth being caught for (abraham’s crushes) a thief’s heart has been stolen (abraham’s ships) british charm and pickpocketing (abraham’s aesthetics) so i lied (abraham’s miscellaneous) conversing with a rogue (abraham’s open threads) the guild (abraham’s family & relationships)

[melsworldofmuses-to-be-deleted]

Tag Dumps Pt. 4

Abraham Thompson’s Tags

VISAGE: prettiest mugshot (abraham’s appearance) CHARACTER STUDY: the thief (abraham’s headcanons) WRITINGS: you’re only in trouble if you get caught (abraham’s threads) REFLECTIONS: curiosity did not kill this cat (abraham’s musings) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: pickpocketing (abraham’s asks answered) CHERISH: the thief (abraham’s likes) YEARNING: driving my impulses (abraham’s desires) STYLE: the thief (abraham’s wardrobe) INSPIRATIONS: okay so i lied (abraham’s aesthetics) INFATUATIONS: the thief (abraham’s crushes) LOVERS: when the thief’s heart is stolen (abraham’s ship content) ASSORTED: tea and scones for the road (abraham’s miscellaneous content)   OOH LALA: the thief (abraham’s kinks ; themes of nsfw) OPEN THREADS: the thief (abraham‘s starters) RELATIVES OF: the thief (abraham’s family & relationships)

[melsworldofmusesarchived]

Tag Dumps Pt. 24

Abraham’s Tags

VISAGE: prettiest mugshot (abraham’s appearance) CHARACTER STUDY: the thief (abraham’s headcanons) WRITINGS: you’re only in trouble if you get caught (abraham’s threads) REFLECTIONS: curiosity did not kill this cat (abraham’s musings) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: pickpocketing (abraham’s asks answered) CHERISH: the thief (abraham’s likes) YEARNING: driving my impulses (abraham’s desires) STYLE: the thief (abraham’s wardrobe) INSPIRATIONS: okay so i lied (abraham’s aesthetics) INFATUATIONS: the thief (abraham’s crushes) LOVERS: when the thief’s heart is stolen (abraham’s ship content) ASSORTED: tea and scones for the road (abraham’s miscellaneous content)   OOH LALA: the thief (abraham’s kinks ; themes of nsfw) OPEN THREADS: the thief (abraham‘s starters)

[melsworldofmuses-moved]

Tag Dump Pt. 21

🦝 Abraham’s Tags

VISAGE: prettiest mugshot (abraham’s appearance) CHARACTER STUDY: the thief (abraham’s headcanons) WRITINGS: you’re only in trouble if you get caught (abraham’s threads) REFLECTIONS: curiosity did not kill this cat (abraham’s musings) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: pickpocketing (abraham’s asks answered) CHERISH: the thief (abraham’s likes) YEARNING: driving my impulses (abraham’s desires) STYLE: the thief (abraham’s wardrobe) INSPIRATIONS: okay so i lied (abraham’s aesthetics) INFATUATIONS: the thief (abraham’s crushes) LOVERS: when the thief’s heart is stolen (abraham’s ship content) ASSORTED: tea and scones for the road (abraham’s miscellaneous content)   OOH LALA: the thief (abraham’s kinks ; themes of nsfw) OPEN THREADS: the thief (abraham‘s starters) 

[sharkiegorath]

On Elias

[this is the third (3rd) time I’ve tried posting this since Tumblr’s mobile search/tag search keeps eating the post. because it’s perfectly fine with showing untagged personal posts and spam whenever you search for something, but randomly decides when to show Actual Content]

ok look I know people don’t always read the OP’s tags but I keep getting “I’M SURE HE’S EVIL” comments on a pair of gifsets with fairly obviously positive parallels and reblogging something just to definitively say “that mysterious character is eviiiiiiil” is Not Cool, even if it’s in the tags.

Yes, recent commentator, Elias definitely broke into the house. It's probably why he suggested that the Johnsons go out in the first place! But the common assumption is A) that he planted the books and B) that he did so for a malicious reason. It seems as obvious as it could possibly be while remaining unconfirmed. It seems so obvious in such a twisty show that I think it isn’t that straightforward.

Gosh, where to begin? Firstly, names and etymology are pretty good theory fodder and Easter eggs, e.g., ‘Hap’=haphephobia and all its ‘hap’-prefixed variants; ‘Khatun’ is both an old title of nobility and a modern word referring to any woman. 'Rahim' means ‘merciful’ or 'servant of the merciful'. 'Elias' is a cognate of 'Elijah'. Elijah was the Abrahamic prophet who sort of had a special connection with women and children; who was cared for by an angel; who resurrected the dead; who entered Heaven without dying at the end of his earthly life; who is sometimes believed to have become an angel. All of this information is available on Wikipedia! So even if Elias did plant the books, I don’t automatically assume he’s malicious.

There’s this interesting bit in an interview with The Atlantic:

Marling: [...] I think one of the original stories that was influential actually comes from Jewish mysticism. Do you know it?

Kornhaber: Is this leaving the door open for Elijah at Passover?

Marling: Yeah. It’s so beautiful. I think it’s amazing to try and use that as a reminder of trying to stay open. I struggle with that all the time. You get scared and you close the door. But I think The OA, she’s inviting them to let a new thing in.

(Principal Gilchrist's first name is another cognate of Elijah - 'Ellis' - and his surname means 'servant of Christ'. People have made the connection between Ellis and his "water under the bridge" comment to Ellis Island and the nearby Statue of Liberty, plus he has a snow globe of the latter.)

Elias’ potential connection with an ‘evil’ Rachel was probably debunked early by Zal Batmanglij on Twitter: the plants in her cell died because she refuses to water them as an act of rebellion. I'm too lazy to go through the whole thing about why her name being on the office wall in large Braille doesn't automatically mean she works there in the first place. I think she and Elias are connected (because of his car crash analogy and the “[My brother] never got to hear it”/”I’m a listener” lines), but I doubt it’s as evil agents.

Elias is shocked and defensive when he bumps into French in the house - but the scene follows French, so of course we aren't shocked and suspicious about French’s presence. Basically, the audience has had the same reaction to Elias breaking in as Elias initially has to French breaking in. Part of what makes Elias seem suspicious is his reaction. IMO Elias doesn't even imply or confirm that the OA was lying  - he just doesn't correct French. The other 'suspicious' thing he does is...move his eyes while hugging French, which isn’t incriminating on its own since the emotion is ambiguous.

There's confusing reasoning behind why Elias would place the books in the first place. The books seem tailored to match major aspects of the OA's story. The immediate assumption is that if someone planted the books, they meant for the Crestwood Five to find them and conclude that she based lies upon them. But if that's the case, Elias likely had no way of knowing that French would break in, go to her room, thoroughly search her room, and look where he did. There was no guarantee that any of the Five would find the books, jump to the conclusion that OA was lying, then share the discovery with the others.

Alternatively, you could argue that Elias planted the books intending for someone else to find them during an investigation and use it as proof that OA was making up stories, and the Five would fall for it in the process. But in that case, why did he let French leave with all of the books? And remember, Buck kept one and the rest let him. It’s possible that they submitted the other books to the FBI offscreen, or that Elias replaced the books. But I’ve never seen the theory cover what happened to the books after the reveal, so I won’t play with that hypothetical situation here.

Maybe Elias planted the books for someone else to find and didn’t know French took them. After all, we don't know what happened after the hug. But that introduces a new set of logical problems. How would French sneak a big, heavy box out of the house? He could take it if Elias had already left or wasn’t watching him...but why would Elias leave French unsupervised? Does anyone think that Elias ensured French left, then French broke in again not long afterwards and took the books, all offscreen? And couldn’t his presumably nearby car be a potential giveaway?

So, the books don't make much sense as an attempt to disillusion the Five. Some people think French's reaction stretches audience suspension of disbelief, right - I think it's an even bigger stretch that the FBI would predict a break-in and his reaction. To a lesser extent, the books also don't make sense as an attempt to frame OA, because they end up with the boys and don’t seem to play a role beyond breaking their faith. As for how French took the books while Elias was there, Elias advocates strategic passivity and avoids direct persuasion; I don't find it outlandish that French would say something like "I need to show proof to the others" then take the box, and Elias wouldn’t protest because it's not part of his agenda either way.

The next most obvious explanation for the books is if they really are OA’s. They weren’t necessarily used to construct a lie.  

In the previous episode, OA had a conversation with BBA about how cultures that suffer more loss tend to have more totems. OA knew this because of an exhibit that she loved so much as a child that she made her parents take her back twice. It made a lasting impact on her, as evidenced by the wolf hoodie that reminds her of Homer’s. BBA is not with the boys when French reveals the books, so she doesn't even have the chance to recall that conversation. We don’t know if BBA learned about the books after the boys did. And the books were specifically stored beneath the wolf hoodie. The Five may not be aware of the hoodie’s significance; Elias wouldn’t know the hoodie’s significance unless OA wore it to a session and he asked why she has a hoodie with a wolf on it, or she spontaneously told him, both of which seem a bit far-fetched. (Onscreen, at least, she never wore it to a therapy session.)

Ehh, miscellaneous notes:

It’s uncertain that OA can read English text. But the conversation with BBA says that the Thing Itself isn't as important as what it symbolises. (“Objects carry meaning in difficult times.”) She doesn't need to be able to read the books in order for them to mean something. Anyway, she might’ve been bilingual from a young age; she was 7 or 8 when she went blind and she seems fluent in English by the time we see her in the American boarding school. (There might be proof that she can write in English, since she signed the bottom of the note she left for her parents? It’s been interpreted both ways so idk.)

The Five getting discovered in the abandoned house probably wasn’t set up by Elias. BBA had previously slipped and told Principal Gilchrist about it while driving to save Steve.

I don’t strongly rule it out, but I don’t think Elias spied on the Five, because he only realises who French is when he tells him his name. Unless he’s pretending.

Why were the books under OA’s bed, under the hoodie? Maybe she hid her totems in case her parents found them, since Nancy already thought she had delusions that could easily be linked to The Oligarchs and The Iliad. It’s unclear to me, but there might be a moment in the first episode where OA shoves the video camera under her bed (starts at 29:15-ish), foreshadowing that she might’ve done the same thing with the books later.

The issues I have with my own theory are:

According to the label on the Amazon box, the books were delivered in September. That's at odds with how OA's video was posted in February 2016. But the FBI (or another organisation) ordering the books also doesn't make sense: they would’ve been planning to discredit her months before she returned or assembled the Five or told her story. Even if they knew about the experiments, Hap dumping OA on the road in February seemed entirely spontaneous; that itself was the result of a seemingly random event (getting caught by the sheriff). More importantly, I’d question why the boys didn't notice the discrepancy in dates, and why the FBI didn't realise it themselves. (Like, all they had to do was remove the label or use a different box.) How can they predict a very specific chain of events yet not be smart enough to remove a label? It’s not impossible in the broader scope of the story - maybe they have reality-warping powers, maybe there’s time travel involved - but right now it’s a big stretch just to support the basic theory that Elias planted the books. So I suspect the label is a minor production oversight. Considering exactly how briefly the date is onscreen and difficult to read even when the scene is paused, I think it wasn’t meant to be read by the audience. (Compare the length of the date’s visibility and its readability to earlier in the scene, when French looks at the newspaper clippings, or whenever a phone/computer screen takes up the frame.)

How did OA order the books? The hardest part is how she went online, but she could’ve placed the order sometime in the first episode before the router was taken away. It’s possible to order things from Amazon without a credit card and have them sent to a pickup point or post office, so that’s not a big issue if she had money somewhere (or stole it from her parents, which is 100% in-character for her). Sneaking the package into the house is another problem - but, then again, she’s cunning and her room is conveniently located so things can fairly easily go in/out of her window.

Elias suggested that the Johnsons go out for a family dinner. That somewhat complicates the timeframe he would’ve had for breaking in; if the outing had gone 'normally' they would've returned home before it was very late, yet still at an unpredictable time. (Again, he probably had no way of knowing they’d choose French's workplace, that it’d go badly, etc.) He was unable to break into the Johnsons' home on the night the OA finished her story, which is why he broke in later on, when French did. I guess Nancy and Abel went home after the incident at the Olive Garden and Elias saw the house was occupied, so he waited, and luckily for him they left the next day?

I’m not sure whether Elias lies when French asks if OA told him about Homer, the mine, and Hap’s studies. She told Elias specifics about the first and third premonitions, but it’s unclear how much she explained the second, Homer wasn’t mentioned by name onscreen, and we don’t know if she talked about the movements and angels. It’s worth noting that right after their last session, Elias does lie. OA explained her dreams, including the previous night’s. Afterwards, Nancy assumes Elias knows what happened last night...but he says no, seemingly to see how Nancy explains it. He’s capable of minor lies to Learn Things for ambiguous reasons. (Does he lie to Nancy for OA’s benefit? Or is it because he doesn’t trust OA, or is it simply an effort to hear different sides? I think the tone of the scene suggests he’s trying to help OA, but you might think it’s deliberately misleading. Anyway, they’re not all mutually exclusive motives.)

If the books really were OA’s, what was her reaction when she returned home and they were missing? She probably wouldn't tell her parents. But what would she think happened? Possibly she might be able to put two and two together since she’d previously helped Steve sneak into her room. Maybe she doesn’t seem sad right before the shooting because she deduced that the Five wanted to help her, and she didn’t know that the boys concluded she was lying.

We might be able to get general sense of where The OA is headed by examining Brit and Zal's previous work. Sound of My Voice is the most similar. One of the most common (and plausible) theories for SOMV is that Maggie was telling the truth and the 'FBI agent' wasn't actually an FBI agent. But there are other reused elements that were subverted: OA is much less intimidating and more personable than Maggie; the Five are inclined to believe her without being cult-like; the agent was trying to catch Maggie without her knowledge instead of possibly pretending to help her. I kinda hope it's a meta Red Herring planted for people who've watched both.

Elias was in the house for a reason. I think the video camera and all of the tapes might be a Chekhov's Gun. Brit Marling said something along the lines of "it’s worthy to question Elias’ motives"; he doesn’t necessarily have Good intentions. However, him planting the books isn’t a sure thing and we know nothing about whatever he did in the time gap before the shooting; there’s no indication that he helped or hindered OA in any way, if they’re still in contact, etc. So I think it’s a Bit Much to leap to "ELIAS IS EVIL" Not everyone who thinks he planted the books assumes he’s evil, which is nice. But it's Tiring seeing the evil accusation treated as if it's rare or a new theory, especially considering the depth of analysis that the rest of the show receives.

[theblogchelor]

Week Four aka These Boots Are Made For Waukesha-kin’

Here’s What Happened Monday

Corinne is just NOT there for the right reasons! Ugh! Sweet Baby Nurse Danielle speaks about her like she’s her problematic adolescent child and she just doesn’t know how to parent her anymore. Sweet Canadian Vanessa doesn’t even want a man who would humor such hussy tomfoolery. While Corinne smile-sleeps off in some well-lit bedroom, the girls muster their bravado and narc on her. Nick, our disarmingly adorable gentleman, just bats his dark lashes and begs them to be patient with Corinne so he can see her boobs for a few more weeks.

At the Rose Ceremony, Nick boots off human gossip sponge Christen and nondescript travel nurse Brittany, who cries that she’s never even told anyone she loved them but thought The Bachelor would be a healthy place to start.

Corinne, rose in hand, gives a delightfully infuriating speech about the privilege of being there. If you happened to feel a slight shift underfoot last night, that was the force of the girls’ collective eye rolls throwing off the earth’s orbit.

Travel Time! aka It’s Very Apparent That No One Knows How To Dress For Wisconsin

Surprise – we’re headed to the Midwest! (Somewhere on the editing room floor lies the footage of fifteen girls silently processing what they did to deserve this.)

Once the plane touches down in beautiful almost-Milwaukee, Nick meets with his parents – parents of a son, I’ll remind you, who has been on The Bachelor for most of his adult life. Mom is a walking Xanax zombie with a Kate Gosselin haircut and Dad clearly parted ways with his soul a long, long time ago. They listen to Nick’s speech about Really Finding Love This Time and beg him not to do this to them anymore.

The First One-On-One Date aka Sweet Other Danielle Gets Trapped in Waukesha With Nick Viall

Danielle wins for best nightmare date: Nick takes her to a bakery to make fun of Chris Harrison, to a café to chat with an ex (why?), to a soccer field to discuss his first adventures in public indecency, and to a country concert to rudely make out onstage while some poor haircut tries to sing his terrible song for the people who actually paid money to be there. On Wisconsin!

The Group Date aka You Best Believe Corinne Will Not Be Touching An Udder

Nick takes all of his leather-clad, high-heeled girlfriends to a farm to do farm things because Wisconsin. Nick has never been anywhere near a farm and tries to quit the show at least three times during this date but he’s too institutionalized to face the outside world and stays. Most of the women are equally as repulsed by all the nature, except for Sarah Hyland the kindergarten teacher who just cannot with the wholesome cuteness of the pastoral aesthetic.

Everyone whines about shoveling poop (which honestly, understandable) until Corinne whines about shoveling poop, and then everyone whines about Corinne whining about poop. Corinne’s confessionals in this segment are just incredible: aggressively asking if her *boobs* are immature, describing herself metaphorically as juicy corn, and comparing herself to Michael Jordan and Abraham Lincoln.

Russian Dental Hygienist Kristina wins the date rose for no discernable reason.

The Second One-On-One Date aka Sweet Sociopath Raven Gets Trapped On Wheels With Nick Viall

Nick, weird sicko, takes Raven to watch his baby sister play soccer on the field where he lost his virginity. There they meet his sad, sad parents and take a random child up on her offer to join the other children roller-skating.

At the skating rink, Raven talks to young Bella Viall about her intentions with the nearly forty-year-old man on roller skates pretending to be a bird behind them.

Later, at dinner, Raven tells Nick a charming story about bashing in her ex-boyfriend’s head with his sidepiece’s stiletto. Nick, moved, gives Raven a rose and the two rollerblade off into the sunset.

Frenemies and Cliffhangers

The episode ends where it began – with everyone ganging up on Corinne. While Danielle L takes Nick outside to cuddle by the fire, Corinne confides in Josephine that Taylor is gross. Josephine nods and asks some follow up questions, not because she is genuinely interested, but because Corinne is sitting next to the snacks and Josephine needs a reason to stay.

Taylor, fed up, goes outside to Corinnterupt the fireside snuggling. Just as she starts complaining to Nick, Corinne comes out to Corinnterupt the Corinnteruption. This time she kicks out Nick (lol gtfo, bachelor) and shuts down Taylor’s condescending Psych 101 nonsense. It’s like watching a cat play with a mouse while the mouse squeaks on about emotional intelligence.

We leave that tension abruptly to discuss how Alexis is afraid of Nicolas Cage and aliens. Alexis, as always, is all of us.

Miscellaneous

Do you think they pay the girls in extra snacks to pretend to be excited when Chris Harrison walks in the room?

It’s a testament to the production of this show that the roller-skating date could possibly be more interesting than the poop-shoveling date.

A common theme tonight, echoed by Brittany, Danielle, and Raven, is that all former attempts at finding love had been scarring and The Bachelor seemed like their last hope. If we check the scoreboard, The Bachelor has about an 11% marriage success rate. Have these girls never heard of Tinder?

This week proved my growing suspicions that Corinne is playing us all like a fiddle. All she has to do is show some boob, take some naps, talk about Raquel, and boom: the girls gang up on her and effectively make her the martyr of their pettiness. Before we know it, Corinne will be in the top five and have the notoriety to secure herself a spot on Bachelor in Paradise and about 500k more Instagram followers. She’s a genius and we’re not worthy.

I can’t wait for week five.