#statement analysis

[sophie-zadeh]

Dan Andrews Family Car Incident with Ryan Meuleman

Guest Post

I’m excited that Colin Ector, talented Statement Analyst and author of this article, has shared this article with me. Colin published the article on 30th June 2023 on his blog, Through the Lens of Statement Analysis.

I hope you enjoy reading it.

—Sophie

Dan Andrews Family Car Incident with Ryan Meuleman

By Colin Ector

10 years ago, Dan Andrews and his family were involved in a car accident where 15-year-old Ryan Meuleman was seriously injured. Andrew’s wife is reported to have been driving when the teenager rode his bike into the side of their car when they were on their way home from the beach.

The Herald Sun revealed that lawyers for Ryan had launched a Supreme Court Damages claim against Andrews and his wife Catherine. There is also a question of whether Andrews himself may have been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Andrews refuses to speak publicly on the incident now, although he did give a radio interview on January 16th 2013, just over a week after the event. This close, the event should be fresh in his mind which should allow for reliable recall.

What can we learn from his words? He is the one who knows what happened and through analysis we can get to the truth.

Dan Andrews 3AW 693 Radio Interview with Justin Smith Jan 16 2013

Dan Andrews Statement Analysis

Questions for Analysis

Is the subject truthful? Is this a reliable account of what happened?

Who was driving the car?  Does the subject’s language support or negate the theory that he was the driver?

Was alcohol consumed?

Who was at fault regarding the accident?

Has Andrews used his position to influence the Police investigation?

Justin

“The front page of the herald sun this morning is not a good read for Daniel Andrews. The opposition leader and his wife have been accused of cold heartedness after the car they were in, driven by Catherine Andrews was in an accident with a teenager on January 7 at Blairgowrie. Ryan Meuleman is the boy 15 years old was badly hurt and sent to the royal Children's. Internal bleeding broken ribs, punctured lung. His father peter is upset at the silence of the Andrews family. Reading through the story the Andrews family say they called police to check up on the boy's condition. Mr Andrews was not keen to talk about it. He said his wife was a private citizen He's on the line. Daniel Andrews good morning.”

Noted this interview is taking place only just over a week after the incident. The details should be clear in the subject’s mind of what happened. We have an expectation of clear reliable language.

The accusation from source unknown but likely media at this point is “cold-heartedness”. The interviewer likely has no knowledge at this time of rumours that Andrews was the driver.

Ryan’s father is “upset at the silence of the Andrews family”

Andrews

“Good morning, Justin.”

Justin

“How how are you and how is your wife?”

Andrews

“Oh look it was a very traumatic incident for everybody involved but our thoughts Justin are obviously with Ryan and we're very pleased that he's out of hospital now and that he's got the best care possible and that he's going to be going to be okay. It was a very nasty incident. He um hit the side of our car very hard um it was very very traumatic for everybody involved.”

The subject (Andrews) does not directly answer the question of how he is, or how his wife is. He answers that it was a “very traumatic incident for everybody involved”. He includes everybody involved into this trauma. It avoids saying that he is fine and so is his wife unlike the boy who is in hospital. His answer has the effect of putting them all in the same boat. They are all victims. This is the first thing he says making it a priority for him.

The subject uses the name of the interviewer here right from the start. We will watch to when he uses this and when he does not. This may be familiarity with the host, it can be to include the host or sometimes it can be used in a controlling or dominating fashion. The subject’s intention is not clear at this point.

The subject reports that Ryan hit the side of our car very hard. There is an “um” which is a slight pause, but the sentence is otherwise reliable.

This is an “incident” rather than an accident. Andrews linguistically lays the blame of this incident at the feet of the boy. “He um hit the side of our car very hard”.

The subject (Andrews) repeats his previous statement that it was traumatic for everybody involved. He qualifies this for emphasis with the inclusion of the word “very” twice. We must consider that he has a need to persuade us that he and his wife should be included in the status of victim in this incident. This in turn raises the question of whether he is harbouring guilt in this.

Within his first response to a question that he does not answer the subject (Andrews), has revealed two things he wants us to know as his priorities.

Everyone is a victim here. Him included.

The fault for the “incident” lays at the feet of Ryan (the boy)

Justin

“Were you move just so people have an understanding of what happened, were you moving at the time?”

This is not a good question from the interviewer. This question has removed much information that would have been gleaned from the subject had he simply asked, “what happened”. When a subject is asked “what happened” they have to go into their memory and will begin wherever the incident starts for them. This can be anywhere. This direct question about the subject status regarding movement denies us this important information.

Andrews

“Yeah we were we’d turned right from a standing start into a, into a side street um there's a bike path that runs parallel to the street we’d turned from and you know the next thing we knew he was in the uh in in the windscreen having hit hit us if you like at a sort of perfect 90 90 degree angle to the side of the car so it was a very nasty accident.

“Yeah” is casual but reliable in context.

The subject speaks for them all again here. “we’d turned right”. They were not all or both driving. The subject unifies himself with his wife. Is this appropriate? We like people to speak for themselves. They were both in the car and the subject may feel protective of this wife’s actions or there could be another reason for this use of “we”. The subject is answering the question of “were you moving?” which could also provoke the unified answer.

“from a standing start” To turn right the subjects car will have crossed over the oncoming traffic lane. This is an indication there was traffic on the road they turned from, and they had to wait for a gap to turn.

Why the need to tell us “from a standing start”? Unnecessary wording is always important.  Does the subject want us to believe they couldn’t have been going fast as they were not moving moments before? This may be an indication of the opposite. Did the driver of the car have to pull into the side street quickly due to traffic on the main road where they were at a “standing start”

A “standing start” is a phrase often used in reference to the start of a race.

The subject does not tell us that Ryan came out of the bike path. We cannot say it for him. It may be the case, but it is not reliably reported by Andrews.

“the next thing we knew” is a Temporal lacunae or a jump over time. There is missing information here. What happened here?

Again, the subject is speaking for them both. An account should be what you did. What you saw. Here the subject is telling us the next thing they both knew.

Is the missing information that they were going fast into the side street?

The use of “In” for “in the windscreen” tells us that Ryan was through where the windscreen would usually be either fully or indented inside the driver’s area. This was a hard hit into the windscreen.

“the next thing we knew he was in the uh in in the windscreen having hit hit us if you like”. He was in the windscreen is passive which conceals responsibility. It does not tell us who put him there or how he got there. This passivity is then immediately followed by a weak assertion that it was Ryan’s fault. “having hit us”.

“Having hit us” is a weak assertion. The addition of “if you like” weakens this assertion to a preference.

A “sort of perfect 90 degree angle” is not a 90 degree angle. “Sort of” and “perfect” are contradictory.

Should the subject be pressing that his wife did the right thing rather than hiding her in the overuse of “we”. Why would he do this? Should he be telling us that “she pulled into the street. There was no way she could have seen him or got out of the way”

This entire sentence is then made even more sensitive to the subject as he makes it an unnecessary reason why it was a very nasty accident.

There is a lot of sensitivity and unreliability about this part of the interview from Andrews. There is in fact, enough to conclude that Andrews is withholding information about the incident from this sentence alone.

“it was a very heavy hit and we're just all very grateful and and very pleased that he's been able to be treated properly and that he's come through it.”

Does the subject wish to move away from the topic of what happened? He has removed everything that happened between “having hit us if you like at a sort of perfect 90 degree angle” and “he’s been able to be treated properly and come through it”

By whom was the heavy hit?

The subject continues with his unity of “we, we’re”

It is interesting he uses the phrase “come through it” after the boy was through the windscreen. The brain knows what it knows..

Why would Ryan (the boy) not have been able to be treated properly? Is the subject going to claim that he helped get good treatment for the Ryan?

Justin

“Yeah should you have given way to him or is it the other way around?”

Andrews

“well look I don't want to get I don't want to be you know finding fault with him but he struck the righthand side of our car. We didn't see him. He was not visible on the road or anything like that um you know he then went over the car after having gone into the wind screen. It was a very nasty incident and one that you wouldn't wish on anybody”.

The subject does not want to answer the question here making it sensitive to him.

He tells us in the negative what he doesn’t want to do which is finding fault with Ryan. Anything in the negative is important to the subject.

The word “but” refutes or minimises what came before. In this case that the subject does not want to find fault with Ryan

“We didn’t see him”. The overuse of speaking for them both continues. If the subject’s unity with his wife is protective, then he should be telling us what she did. He could have said “Ryan came out of nowhere. There was no way my wife could have seen him or avoided him”. He does not.  This overuse of “we” is often used by those who wish to hide in the crowd. At this point in the statement, the question for analysis of who was driving remains open and unanswered. We cannot say who was driving. The subject has not told us that his wife was driving. He has not used her name which may be an indication of a strained relationship at this point in the statement and his continual overuse of the pronoun “we” is concerning.

“One that you wouldn’t wish on anybody” This is unnecessary to say and may be to portray himself as the good guy often an indication of the opposite.

Justin

“yeah the windscreen broke I believe”

Andrews

“yeah so we”

Justin

“and your wife your wife sustained some some cuts”

Andrews

“oh some very minor cuts we had our three little kids in the car and they were sort of there was glass showered everywhere and it was very nasty and I I I can only imagine um what it must have been like for Ryan's father. I'm obviously a father and no parent would want to get that call to say that their son that their child had been involved in an accident”

Justin

“what was it what was it like at that time when you you both realised what had happened and you got out of the car? what condition was Ryan in at that time was he was he conscious at all?”

Andrews

“He was conscious. Yeah he was conscious at all times. He was lying on the road just behind the car. We'd stopped the car. ( ) Got out. I rang triple o immediately and my wife then you know sat sat beside him and tried to comfort him.”

The overuse of “we” continues. This time it was them both that stopped the car. This is not an action that can be shared unless he pulled up the handbrake from the passenger seat which is unlikely. If he is not willing to say his wife stopped the car, we cannot say it for him. Why would he linguistically share this action? We must consider he is concealing who was driving the car?

This overuse is not appropriate. It is sometimes used when subjects are unified in deception or as a way of crowd sourcing guilt. The subject does not want to be alone in this statement.

The subject has still not said that his wife, (who remains unnamed) was driving the car. He has not assigned linguistically any actions to her relating to the car. Now however, for the first time he tells us of his wife’s action. He tells us that she “sat, sat beside him” presumably on the ground. Andrews allocates no actions to his wife regarding the car.

The argument that Andrews is defending his wife with his overuse and unity of the pronoun “we” is becoming a stretch. He has not linguistically defended her actions as the driver of the car in any way.

Andrew’s wife who remains nameless in his verbalised perception of reality has only been allocated an action by herself when sitting on the ground next to the boy whilst Andrews is taking control on the phone. All actions previous to this, even though she is supposed to be the one driving have been allocated the pronoun “we” by Andrews.

“Got out”. What has caused this missing pronoun? This is one place where the pronoun “we” is expected as it is an action that they both would have taken and yet there is no pronoun for this brief sentence. I believe the subject and his wife got out of the car, but something has caused his brain to omit the pronoun. This is a lack of psychological commitment to the act of getting out of the car. Was there a delay in getting out? Some conversation between the subject and his wife? What was it?

“Got out” is unnecessary to say. It slows down the pace avoiding getting to what happened next.

Finally, we have “I”, entering the statement, in the context of what happened from the subject. This makes this sentence very important to him. “I rang triple O” is reliable. The need to portray it as immediate raises the question of whether there was a delay in doing so. People who do things straight away don’t have this need to say they did it immediately. They simply state what happened, what they did etc. There was likely a delay here. This comes immediately after the subject omits the pronoun when telling us unnecessarily that they got out of the car. This may be where the delay happened.  Was there discussion in the car before getting out?

We still do not know the subject’s wife’s name. He has not said it. He takes possession of her with the pronoun “my” and gives her the title of wife but without a name.  This can be an indication of a poor relationship between them at this point. This sort of language can indicate that the spouse is more of a possession than a person.

“then” is another indication of a delay or missing information. It is also telling us that the subject’s wife did not sit down and try to comfort Ryan until after there had likely been a delay for some reason and then also after the subject rang triple zero. What was happening in these time delays? The incomplete social introduction from the subject for his wife may give us insight into this. Were they arguing about something or trying to decide what they were going to do? What could they have to discuss or argue about that is more important than a 15-year-old boy injured and lying in the road?

“Sat” is repeated. The inclusion of body posture in a statement is an indication of tension.

Why the delay in calling triple O and the tension with “sat” repeated and stuttered over? What did the subject and his wife do here? Where was the subject when his wife was sitting next to Ryan?

“There's not much you can do really other than try and offer some sort of reassuring words. um and I impressed upon the triple O operator that it was a serious issue and we needed an ambulance here as soon as we could.”

The subject is portraying himself as the good guy again reinforcing the opposite assumption. Again, he uses the pronoun “I”. Again, the pronoun “I” is used to portray himself as the “Good Guy”. The need to portray yourself as the good guy is often an indication of the opposite.

Anything reported in the negative is important. The subject tells us there is not much you can do. What did he do? We want to him to speak for himself. You could check the injured boy’s injuries. You could try to make him comfortable. The subject is telling us he did not do this, and he doesn’t tell us reliably that he gave “some sort of reassuring words”. Did he? We cannot say but he wants us to believe he is the good guy likely indicating the opposite.

For whom is this a serious issue?  For the boy it was a serious injury. For the subject it is an issue. Who is the priority here for the subject?

Justin

“all right well the herald sun is accusing you of cold-heartedness here and so is is the family. Is the story fair?”

Andrews

“Well look I’m I'm not here to bag journalists off that's never been my way. What I want to make very clear though is um we did not contact Ryan. We did not contact his father um and the reason I didn't do that the reason we didn't do that is that the police have not as I understand it, has still not interviewed him.

The subject avoids the question and is unwilling or unable to say “No. It is not fair”. He tells us in the negative what has never been his way. The good guy narrative continues.

The subject continues with the “we” format but slips into “I” revealing it is he who would have contacted Ryan’s family if it were going to happen. He is running things even though we are led to believe it was his wife who was the driver.

He's obviously a witness to the incident the police have got an important job to do um and I'm not after any special treatment. I'm certainly not after uh I'm certainly not going to interfere with the police doing their important work and I made the judgment yeah and the police the police confirmed that judgment Justin that it would be inappropriate for me to be contacting a minor uh before the police had spoken to him.

The subject tells us in the negative making it doubly important what he is not after and what he is not going to do. He qualifies this with the word “certainly” which weakens an already sensitive negative assertion.

The subject self-censors and changes “certainly not being after” to “certainly not going to interfere”. This change of language leaves it to the police if there is to be special treatment. It is also in the future. Has he obtained special treatment or interfered already enough to influence police actions? Is he confident that with his position he will not need to interfere, in order to get special treatment?

He ingratiates himself to police with flattery. “Their important work”

It is him that made the “judgement” to not contact Ryan

He does not say he intends to make contact with the family after they have spoken to Police.

Now we've just been really clear about this my wife on the night only a few hours after the incident spoke with police. She spoke with the royal children's hospital um they couldn't tell her much but directed her back to police.

“spoke with police” is not interviewed. Did the police not conduct a formal interview?

“my wife” Possession again without her name still. This is not a good relationship at this time.

She's I think had five conversations with police in less than a week getting an update each time um on his condition so we've been well informed and perhaps Ryan's father doesn't know that we've made those calls and maybe that's why he's angry. Maybe he thinks that we haven't been interested, far from it. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

“spoke” is now “conversations”. Both are informal and casual. Did she make a statement on the accident? If not, is this the special treatment which the subject is no longer after by his words.

Justin

“As you know it is there has there been any attempt by by him to make contact with you?”

Andrews

“uh not that I’m aware of um there may have been but he certainly hasn't uh I I’m not I’m not I I don't know about that.

When a subject who does not normally stutter, stutters on the pronoun “I” it is a clear indication of anxiety.

Continuous negatives and the subject shuts down this question. This was a stressful question for the subject.

The subject’s language is indicative of someone who knows of attempts to contact him by Ryan’s father and has ignored and avoided the contact.

um what I do know is that you know there's a there's a comment in the paper today that this doesn't look good for me. Well you know, I've not been at all concerned with how this looks. I've been concerned with the welfare of Ryan and I’ve been concerned to make sure that I didn't at any stage interfere in the police's investigation that's that important process that they should go through you know whether it looks good or bad that's not been my concern and it's not my concern now.”

The subject has moved from the uncomfortable question of whether Ryan’s father has tried to contact him to where he portrays himself as a victim of the media. He is the victim now.

As well as a victim he continues to portray himself as the good guy. When a subject has the need to portray themselves in this way it is indicative of the opposite.

Why would you be concerned that you would interfere in the police investigation? The subject doesn’t mention the receiving of special treatment.

The subject is sermonising about the importance of the police investigation. Sermons are often included in the statements of those harbouring guilt.

Justin

“all right well just a couple of questions that I had off air to people people asking me so please don't take these as uh as trying to lead into anything else. Was your wife breath tested?”

Andrews

“the police did not breath test her no.”

Reliably stated information

Justin

“okay do you would you consider that to be unusual”

Andrews

“well, I've not been involved in an accident like that before. I don't know how how usual or unusual that is. Now this was one o'clock in the afternoon um we had three little kids in the car um you know she spent quite a lot of time with the victoria police they were on scene before the ambulance. she's cooperated with police. She spent you know there was every opportunity and she would have had no difficulty in in uh in being breath-tested if they asked her to. they didn't raise it you know.”

The subject has used a lot of words to answer a yes or no question. “Well” is a slight pause to think.

The subject then tells us why he doesn’t know if not being breath tested after an accident is usual

The subject also floats three reasons why he doesn’t know if it is unusual to not be breath tested after a car accident. He has not been involved in an accident like that before. The time of day and “3 little kids” being present in the car. This is to avoid telling us that his wife (who still remains unnamed) had not been drinking.

Is it difficult being breath tested if you have been drinking? Would she have had difficulty passing a breath test?

Did the police breath test him? If he were the driver they would have no need to breath test his wife who remains unnamed.

Justin

“Had she had a drink at all?”

Andrews

“absolutely no, no no way at all we've been at the we've been at the beach. I want to be very clear about that absolutely no alcohol whatsoever.”

Who is the subject speaking about here? He does not tell us that he is talking about his wife. He could be answering for himself as well as his wife. He uses no pronouns or names.

“No” would be reliable language. “No My wife had not had a drink” would also be reliable. Using her name would be better.

The addition of “absolutely” weakens his denial.

Stuttering on the word “no” and “we’ve” is an indication of stress at this question.

“no way at all” weakens the denial further.

A hina claus is where a subject has the need to tell us why something happened or didn’t happen without us asking. The subject needs reinforcement for his words. It is like he is telling us someone did not drink because they had been at the beach. This is a need to persuade.

He then tells us what he wants to be very clear about. This is not to tell us what is true. It is simply an intention of clarity which has no bearing on truth. It adds to the need to persuade.

More additional unnecessary words. “absolutely and whatsoever”. The subject has demonstrated an excessive need to persuade that no alcohol was involved whilst being unable to say who he is talking about, and without telling us reliably that there was no alcohol.

Justin

“was ryan wearing a helmet?”

Andrews

“he was yes, and I and I'm very thankful that he was.”

This is a reliable sentence from the subject.

It tells us that he, when not having the need to persuade and deceive will give reliable language. The contrast is evident.

Justin

“all right and look the last one uh is that uh why do do we need a four-wheel drive is that as your as your taxpayer car?”

Andrews

“well it's not a four-wheel drive it's a it's a ford territory like it's a large vehicle it's a family vehicle um it's not on a four-wheel drive as it's as it's as described in the paper it's just a normal ford territory”

Justin

“that seems fair you've got three children so that seems fair oh well yeah yeah”

Andrews

“So, look Justin I want to be really clear about this you know our thoughts have always been right from the moment the incident occurred, have been with Ryan to to give him whatever support we could um and to make sure that we were kept informed and we have been regularly uh I was never going to interfere with a police investigation. If people mark me down for that well then I can't help that but the the last thing I was ever going to do was try and speak to him before the police had spoken to him. That would just not be right. I'm just very grateful that very grateful that he's been able to get the best care possible at the royal children's hospital. That he's going to be going to be okay.”

What is this support for Ryan that the subject speaks of? He has not contacted him or his family.

Justin

“I mean this is something that not everyone is obviously going to care about but but would it have been better for you if you had have been not not so much up front but you had disclosed straight away look my family and i've been in an accident it's under police investigation early on?”

Andrews

“Well some people might come to that judgment you know i think a one or two line statement that probably would have posed more questions than it answered or wouldn't have done much good i think it's more fulsome statement that would have seen us putting our version of events out there into the public domain before the police had an opportunity to speak with the other party you know I don't think that would have been appropriate um you know people will make their own judgments on that but I I just make the point again that  Ryan's welfare has been foremost in our minds and second to that I've been absolutely determined not to be interfering with Victoria police investigating what was a very serious incident. Thankfully he's going to be okay thankfully his injuries weren't more serious. i wouldn't wish it on anyone and my my thoughts and my best wishes are for him for his family”

The subject is the “good guy”

What does being absolutely determined with not interfering with Victoria Police’s investigation look like?

Being “absolutely determined” is to be committed. Being committed takes effort and work.

“I’m certainly not going to interfere with the police” is now “I’ve been absolutely determined not to be interfering with Victoria Police”. A change of language indicates a change in reality.

We do not have to be determined to not do something we do not desire to do. The additional word “absolutely” weakens this.

Is there an unintentional recipient to this statement? Is Victoria Police the unintentional recipient?

What is the difference between “Police” and “Victoria Police”? Is “Police”, rank and file officers and  “Victoria Police” Higher up the ranks in charge?

If the subject does not get the “special treatment” will he then submit to his desire to interfere with the Victoria Police higher up officers?

Andrews

“uh you wouldn't wish it on anyone Justin”

Justin

“yeah no absolutely and, and also to your family too I hope your wife is fine and your children are okay and yourself. Thank you very much all. Right thank you Daniel Andrews State opposition leader”

Dan Andrews Statement Analysis Conclusions

Is the subject truthful? Is this a reliable account of what happened?

This is not a reliable account of what happened on the day of the accident between the Andrews vehicle and Ryan Meuleman. There are many indicators of sensitivity and missing information about what happened.

Who was driving the car?

The subject had and created many opportunities to say his wife was driving the car at the time of the accident. He consistently used the pronoun “we”, for all actions involving the car which served to conceal the identity of the driver.

An argument could be made to say he is protective about his wife and so unified them in the accident. However if he wished to buttress his statement in protection of her, we would expect to hear more reliable language saying what she did, and what she would have been unable to do in avoiding the accident. For example, “My wife could not have seen Ryan or avoided colliding with him”. He did not do this. Instead, he used the pronoun “we” to hide in the collectiveness of them both.

He did not linguistically defend her actions as the driver of the car. In all actions involving the car the subject used the pronoun “we” unifying himself and his wife in the control of the vehicle.

In a casual conversation we may say “we went for a drive, and we stopped at a café” showing unity in the actions involving a car. Context is key. The context in this café example shows the unity of a recreational drive and visit to a café.  The context of the radio interview with Andrews is not the same. The actions of each individual had consequences, which should lead the subject to speak for themselves and to say who did what and when. In this context repeated use of the pronoun “we” is not appropriate.

The language used by the subject leaves the question of who was driving suspiciously open. As the question of who was driving, was not addressed by either the interviewer or Andrews further questioning is required to make a solid conclusion. It is noted however that the language used by Andrews is consistent with him being the driver although not conclusive.

Was alcohol consumed?

The subject does not tell us reliably that alcohol was not consumed by either his wife or himself.

Who was at fault regarding the accident?

From the statement the subject has a need to persuade us that Ryan was at fault for the accident making it likely that either some or all of the blame lies with the driver of the Andrews vehicle.

Has Andrews used his position to influence the Police investigation?

Whether directly or indirectly the language is consistent with the use of position to gain favour with both Police and Victoria Police. He is likely aware they will listen to this interview.

There is a call now (June 2023) for the Triple Zero Emergency call from Andrews to Police to be made public. If this happens it will provide us with a valuable sample for analysis. Emergency calls are an excellent source of information usually free from contamination. They have helped solve many cases in the past. Emergency call operators job is to gain information free from outside concerns such as keeping their interview subjects happy, entertaining the public or ratings figures. All things that radio hosts have as concerns.

If you enjoyed reading this article, you can read more analysis on Dan Andrews’ behaviour and statements:

Body Language Analysis: Dan Andrews' Alleged Fall

Statement Analysis: Dan Andrews' Alleged Fall

STATEMENT ANALYSIS SERVICE

As well as writing for my blog, Colin Ector analyses statements as a paid service. If you have a written or verbal statement that you’d like Colin to take a look at, please get in touch for details.

[hellspawnmotel]

haha okay okay, I'll share my thoughts (this got long whoops. lots to cover)

first of all, just to clear I'm not saying that I think toby is trying to make the fanbase assume wholesomeness in EVERY relationship he writes, or even every lesbian relationship. I don't think he did that for alphyne, I think that is just a genuinely wholesome relationship for the most part. they have some stuff to work out (mostly based around alphys' lying and insecurities) but what couple doesnt? I did theorize that toby might have kept that in mind while writing suselle specifically though, given the surface-level similarities to alphyne (which essentially just boil down to 'tough girl x shy girl'). considering that toby's been developing noelle and susie since at least 2015 I doubt that's where he started out with the two of them, but I think it's plausible it influenced how he chose to frame their scenes in the final product.

I haven't seen whatever post you're talking about discussing alphyne vs RG01/RG02, and to be frank I don't remember seeing a lot of art of the knights that was overly sexual as opposed to just cute. I do believe that there's some level of it that I just haven't encountered but I don't know if it was the best example to illustrate this point. it IS true though that when it comes to shipping, there's a trend of viewing relationships between two men as inherently more sexual than relationships between two women, because misogyny and I can't get into why that happens in more specificity without going on a massive tangent and I trust you guys already know all that.

so let's just assume that we all understand these basic societal ideals, and the fact they get subconsciously drilled into our heads whether we like it or not: the default way to be a woman is to be a domestic caretaker. gentle, kind, pure, level-headed, someone who does all she can to avoid emotional conflict. or any conflict for that matter- a well-adjusted woman hates conflict, to avoid it she'll become submissive or run away or try to mediate or just faint into the arms of a man about it. men are the ones who initiate or confront conflict, who "make things happen".

then what happens when there are no men around? if a relationship is just two women in love, and the relationship is healthy, then there must be no conflict. all you're left with is sweet and pure domestic bliss. that's when it's "wholesome". therefore, if a relationship between two women DOES involve conflict, it must be unhealthy because it means something is "wrong" with one or both of them. so to that end I think it's much easier to conclude that a ship between two women is "toxic" than a ship between two men. or a ship between a man and a woman, for that matter. picture your average romcom centered around a heterosexual relationship, and ask yourself, if everything was exactly the same but it was two women instead, would it get called "toxic yuri"?

FTR, I understand that the phrase "toxic yuri" rose in popularity and prominence as backlash against this exact kind of thinking- we want lesbian relationships that involve conflict, and calling it "toxic" affectionately is in direct response to those who argue that any relationship between two women that isnt all sunshine and daisies is unhealthy and abusive. and there are PLENTY of girl/girl pairings that I would actually describe as "toxic" in sincerity and that's the appeal and what makes them interesting. but I think the (over)use of the word has gotten to a point where you gotta look at yourself and ask if that's what your ship really is, or if you just want to use a popular phrase- and more importantly, if mislabeling these relationships as "toxic" when conflict gets involved is just looping around and perpetuating the problem in a different way.

(remembering this was supposed to be about suselle) UMM. in conclusion I think if more people start to acknowledge the conflict or potential for conflict in susie and noelle's romantic storyline then we're gonna see it called "toxic yuri" even though nothing about it has changed. and I think that on the other side of that, those who exclusively want cute and lovey-dovey suselle are prone to ignoring any conflict or even denying it's there. not all the time! but it happens.

[bats-pajamas]

with the new episode out I think it’s time we admit that Duke is the hottest Nevermore man.

“What about Prospero!? “B-but Montresor!” Duke can be classy and an asshole. He’s the best of both worlds! Not to mention he consistently serves so much cunt in a way the other two can only dream of.

You like your men angsty and broody? He has plenty of that too! Just naming one, an entire arc was dedicated to him being trapped in a wall.

Is it’s the mustache? That’s what turns you off? Skill issue!!!! skill issue!!!! mustaches are sex af actually and I’m tired of clean shaven twinks. Is it because he’s french?…okay that’s understandable but I’m of Armenian descent so I don’t mind

anyhoo Duke is hot and if you disagree than you’re a idiot dumb dumb poopy loser.

Stan the fearless fortunato ;)

[groceryreceipts]

beautiful orange dress patterned with fall leaves that Katniss thinks Peeta will love vs. clown suit she wears in the movie for the district 11 stop

[starcurtain]

I wish everyone collectively understood aventurine’s character like you…things would be so much easier! I genuinely don’t understand how people keep getting his motivations wrong??? Could it be because some of the most popular Aven fanfics were written prior to his release? That could have contributed to some of the takes we tend to see about him…thoughts?

I struggled all day to come up with a concise way to answer this and couldn't think of one, so here, have a long-winded ramble:

I don't think early fic writers have much impact in the situation with Aventurine's character now, since most people can look at when a story was posted and go "Oh, this was before we had ____ information."

I think that Aventurine's problem is being a male character in a gacha game. Gacha game characters are designed to sell. Hoyo can sell female characters very, very easily. Give her huge tits and a visible underwear strap and you're good to go. I love all my guy friends, but I'm not gonna sugarcoat it: straight men are not the hardest audience to please. Hit a particular fetish (feet, spandex, dommy mommy), and you're gucci.

Nah, we all know why Jade's trailer is Like That.™

Male characters in gacha are harder to sell because women as consumers are a little harder to predict. Does every woman want a tall, ripped hunk? Shit, no, small cute boyish models like Aventurine are selling better now? Why?! Would a bad boy be more popular than a nice guy??? It's harder to account for women's tastes, especially because they are often (a little) less visually-oriented.

Hoyo is good at what they do though, and they've figured out that male characters sell very well when they possess at least one of two specific traits:

Endearing vulnerability/helplessness

Gay ship tease

Give a character both, like Aventurine? They might as well be printing money.

That sound you hear is Hoyo's stock prices rising.

So, from the very beginning, Hoyo is incentivized to create a character that appeals to people, a character people will want to crack their wallets open for. And they achieved this, first and foremost, by giving Aventurine traits that female players (in particular, but men too), find especially appealing: emotional and physical vulnerability.

We see Aventurine's pain. We sympathize with his grief. We identify with his struggle to make meaning of his difficult life. He's our woobie, blorbo, babygirl, whatever the hell they're calling it now.

He can't hide his suffering anymore. He's on the very edge. He's a dude in distress. He's surrounded by enemies! He misses his mama! He's been betrayed! No one understands him like you do, dear player!

The ultimate feeling evoked is: He needs to be saved.

When people talk about male power fantasies, I think they forget that women can experience them too, and "Emotionally vulnerable man that only I (or my favorite character) can fix" is actually a female power fantasy.

And from there it's really easy, right: the people who shell out cash to buy warps for their harmed-husbando feel like they've saved him; the people who are into mlm ships look for the nearest hot dude to be the savior Ratio was waiting for his time lol.

Morally and intellectually, this type of deep-down-golden-hearted, emotionally-wounded male character is very easy to digest. There is nothing to dislike about this type of character or role in the story: this character is a good guy who has just gone through so many terrible situations, whose victim status makes him endearing, and whose lack of agency means that any of the questionable or downright bad things he does are always the result of someone else forcing his hand, and never something he would have chosen himself.

His motivations are always clear and consistent: get free, heal, and live happily ever after.

Insert the Wreck-It Ralph meme: "Do people assume all your problems got solved when a big strong man showed up?" But to be fair, a big strong man did kind of solve Aventurine's problem, so--

Anyway, it's simple. It's straightforward. Morally, it's pretty cut and dry, black and white: Aventurine is our hero, which means everyone dictating the course of his miserable life is evil.

Hoyo is not remotely discouraging people from literally buying into this emotional appeal.

And trust me, I get it. I'll be the first to admit that hurt-comfort is its own entire genre in fandom because it is so appealing. People eat up Aventurine's tragic backstory like candy! The idea of watching a character go through hell at the hands of bad guys just to finally find a happy end is like the definition of everyone's favorite story.

In fact... people love Aventurine's suffering so much, they have invented whole new ways for him to suffer that aren't even in the game.

This is where we get all the headcanons that Aventurine was a sex slave, every single person he meets hates him because of his race, the Stonehearts are executioners holding knives to his throat, Jade enslaved him to the IPC with a lifelong contract, his material possessions belong to the company, the IPC is forcing him to take only the most dangerous missions where he is being required by his evil jailers to continually put his life on the line... You name it and I promise you, I can find a fanfic where Aventurine suffers from it. 😂

Bro can't even sleep in on his day off; life is so hard for this man.

Being serious: if the game is telling us that Aventurine is a victim... Why not make him the perfect victim?

Why not envision an Aventurine with no freedom, who bears no responsibility for any of the horrible situations he is in or any of the dubious things he does?

It's so natural to like that version of Aventurine, so appealing to see a totally powerless underdog use his own wits and charms to claw his way up to freedom. Or, if you're the kind who really relishes angst: It's even appealing to see Aventurine lose more. To delight in fics where he loses his wealth, where the IPC punishes him for past crimes while he's powerless to stop them... (I assure you, this is many people's cup of tea and the fanfics prove it!)

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with liking characters who are exactly this straightforward! It's completely fine to embrace characters that are intentionally written to be morally above-board, whose primary role in the story is to generate angst by being a good person who suffers, or those characters who never show unlikable traits, bad decisions, or contradictory actions.

The problem is that that's just not who the game is telling us Aventurine is.

Hoyo may be capitalizing off people who love to envision poor Aventurine still living his life as a slave... But the game also needs to tell a complicated enough story overall to appeal to people who don't care about this specific husbando--Aventurine's role in the actual game's plot has to be interesting enough for almost everyone to appreciate it, not just Aventurine's simp squad. (Don't get mad, I'm in the simp squad with you.)

So his character doesn't stop at just being a pure-hearted victim who is still waiting to be saved.

Aventurine is not that easy to label, and I think the biggest struggle in this character's fandom right now is between people who prefer the even-more-angsty, still-a-slave Aventurine versus people who want a morally grey, self-destructive character instead.

To me personally, while I greatly understand the appeal of fanon!Aventurine and the joy of a really juicy angst fic where characters lose it all, I think that missing out on the depth that canon is suggesting would be a real loss on the fandom's part.

The character motivations that Aventurine shows in the game are complicated. They cancel each other out. They're basically self-harm! He makes almost every situation he's in worse for himself--on purpose.

He is a good person, but also a person who has done unspeakable things. He does have morals, but he's not above allowing those who don't have them to use him to their advantage.

He's both the victim and the victor. He's his own worst enemy. He's a lost little boy who's been making terrible decisions for himself since he was like eight years old, and a grown ass man who is barely managing to fake his way through an existence that destiny is not letting him quit.

This kind of character is a lot harder to embrace. He's done things that most people would find appalling--like willingly joining up with the organization that let his entire race be massacred. He's invented a whole new peacock persona to frivolously flaunt riches he doesn't even care about (Poison Dart Frog Self-Defense 101). He actively plays into racist stereotypes about his people to manipulate others through their preconceived expectations. He's made a mockery of his mother's and sister's hopes and dreams by endlessly trying to throw his own life away.

He has flaws! He bet everything he had on a ploy without doing his homework to find out if the people he was risking his life for were even still around. (Maybe he already knew, and couldn't bear to admit it, even to himself.) He's intentionally off-putting and obnoxious to everyone he meets (Poison Dart Frog Self-Defense 102). He terrifies everyone who gets close to him by (seemingly) carelessly throwing himself into the jaws of death without the slightest provocation.

He knowingly allows the IPC to exploit his power and talents for profit. Did everyone forget that his role in the Strategic Investment Department is asset liquidation?! Like, his actual day-to-day job is ruining people's lives. Canonically, Aventurine kills people when his deals go bad.

His motivations change off-screen in two lines of story text. We're told in one line that his biggest reason for joining the IPC was to make money to save the Avgin, then in the next line we find out that's impossible. And... then what? What motivations does he even have now? The whole point of his character arc from 2.0-2.1 is that he was on the edge of giving in to utter despair and nihilism because he couldn't even perceive a single reason to stay alive. He has no purpose in life before Penacony, and that didn't start with the Stonehearts at all??

People keep saying Aventurine was held in the IPC by golden handcuffs, but how do you tie down someone for whom profit is meaningless? What can you offer to a man whose only desire is to bring back something already lost forever? How do you imprison someone whose only definition of freedom is, canonically, death?

Working for the Stonehearts is obviously not healthy. But that's why Aventurine was doing it--because taking dangerous missions allowed him to put himself at risk. The job that he originally pursued hoping to save his people became a direct means to self-harm, and the IPC's only real role in that was just happily profiting off the results.

The journal entries for Aventurine's quests are there deliberately to tell the player what is on his mind, and none of it has to do with escaping from his job:

Like... Work is the least of this man's problems.

At really the risk of rambling on too long now, he's also just a massive walking contradiction:

Aventurine is among the most explicitly religious characters in the game, yet he's one of the only people in the entire game that we have ever seen actively question his people's aeon.

You might be tempted to think Aventurine's risky gambles with his life as an adult are a result of giving up after finding out about the Avgin massacre... Butttt no, Hoyo makes sure to tell us that even at knee-high in the Sigonian desert, Kakavasha was already willing to risk himself in a fight to the death against monsters because even back then he found his own life to have less value than a single memento.

He's the "chosen one" who will lead his people to prosperity... except they're all dead.

He's explicitly suicidal... andddd also a pathstrider of Preservation.

He wants to die... He doesn't want to die. He wants to make it end, yet goes to staggering lengths to continually survive. (Every plan risks his life on purpose--but every plan's win condition is also to live.) He life is the chip tossed down, but his hand is trembling beneath the table. When faced with an otherwise unsurvivable situation, Aventurine literally became a winner of the Hunger Games. He beat other innocent people to death with his own chain-bound hands just to come out alive.

He knows the IPC failed the Avgin and left them to die... and he still willingly sought out a position of power in their organization. Maybe he really is after revenge... but maybe not.

He starts his journey in the IPC with a truly noble goal in mind: to help his people using his newfound wealth and power. He's a good guy who did genuinely want to save the Avgin and repay all those who helped him. But once it became clear he was too late, once it was obvious he would have no use at all for that monetary wealth and power he risked his life to get... What did he do with it? Unlike Jade, we don't see him over here donating to orphanages. (I'm not that heartless; I'm sure he does actually do a lot of good things with his money on the side, but the point is that the game does not show us that--it shows us, over and over again, Aventurine putting on a wasteful, over-indulgent persona toward wealth. We've supposed to feel how meaningless money is to him, how meaningless everything is becoming to him.)

He outright refuses to use underhanded tactics or to cheat at gambles, which is meant to show us that's he's more morally upright than his coworkers. There's an entire exchange where he says that he'll never stoop to using manipulation the way Opal does. But... he doesn't have any issue fulfilling Opal's exact agenda. He was never remotely morally conflicted about denying the Penaconians their freedom by dragging Penacony back under IPC control.

He's willing to risk his own life, which is one thing--but he's also willing to risk other people's well-being. Topaz accuses him of constantly egging their clients on into dangerous situations; we've actively seen him shove a gun into Ratio's hands and pull the trigger with no care for how Ratio would feel about that on their very first meeting... Dragging the Astral Express crew into the entire Penacony plan in the first place was exceedingly dangerous...

To me, I just think it's vital to understand his character through the lens of these contradictions because they demonstrate the extreme polarity of Aventurine's life: from rags to riches, from powerless to empowered by multiple aeons, from willing to kill to survive to killing himself... He has quite literally lived a life of "all or nothing," and while he is the victim of many terrible situations out of his control, his arc as a character involves facing the truth of himself and the future his own actions are hurtling him toward.

Frankly, the Aventurine that canon is suggesting is a little annoying. You want to grab him by the shoulders, shake him, and say "Why are you like this?!" And he won't even have an answer for you, because he doesn't even know why he's still alive.

In the end, to me, this is so, so much more interesting. I can read an endless supply of hurt-comfort fics where Aventurine escapes the evil IPC and Ratio is there to fill the void in his life with the power of love and catcakes and be a perfectly happy clam online, but I want canon to continue to serve us this incredible mess of a man who constantly takes one step forward and two steps back.

Who is fully aware of his role as a cog in the grotesque profit-wheel of cosmic capitalism and still manages to say he never changed from the rags-wearing desert rat of the Sigonian wastes.

Who over and over again flirts with nihility but, ultimately, even if he has to wrest it from the grip of the gods themselves with bloody, chain-bound hands, chooses life.

[inchidentally]

oohhhh my... when you recall how much physical affection Andrea made sure to show Oscar from the very earliest days (especially the one special hug in Australia 2023) when Oscar was clearly still feeling so new and dealing with the fact that he'd never be able to do what Daniel did and just slip into the void created by his predecessor - that he both wanted and needed to create a space for himself in the team bc he'd never be gregarious guy or have that easy physical and verbal affection with Lando (and not bc he can't when we saw in Prema he can! but kinda awkward when he's been this much of a fan of Lando's since they were both kids) but he also had an extra uphill battle in his predecessor being arguably one of the most popular and beloved drivers in modern F1 history… and that the many times Lando has soared while Oscar has quietly swallowed down his own disappointment (the added twist of both drivers being almost identical in age but with a huge gap of experience between them !) Andrea has taken special care to go to the boy and make sure he isn't alone and knows he's appreciated… (and that he makes sure to do on the occasions Lando is in that position as well !! bc no matter what certain fans and the media try to say, those are HIS sweet boys who he's raising and who adore him !!)

and then ^this photo^ from Melbourne where Oscar has clearly already taken moment to feel the disappointment and/or cry but then done his customary shower and a change into the team kit - not even the driver hat, he's wearing the all black that the rest of the team is - because if he hasn't gotten a podium, his favorite place is to blend in with everyone else on the team and Be There For Lando… and Andrea notices. he could be riding high with the rest of the team on what that race has proven for McLaren for the upcoming season and Lando sitting atop the WDC. it would be very easy to know that Oscar has his whole support system there and he'll be okay. but Andrea's eyes drop to Oscar, who's extended his contract at the first opportunity every time and who shows up for the team no matter what, and his big celebratory smile softens bc his big Italian heart is so proud of both his boys at that moment in two different ways, and for Oscar it's a quiet deep pride because where Lando sparkles, Oscar glows and jfc I'm a fucking mess sorry !!!

[saudrag]

APPARENTLY SOMEONE POINTED OUT THAT AZIRAPHALE AND CROWLEY ARE KISSING IN ONE OF THE WINDOWS IN THE TITLE SEQUENCE AND I NOW JUST CANNOT BE NORMAL???

Neil said that THERE ARE clues for s3 in the TS AND THIS IS WHAT WE’VE FOUND??

aa you can see, this is totally DIFFERENT KISS. aziraphale is now THE ONE TUGGING CROWLEY IN, GRIPPING THE HEMS OF HIS JACKET????? WHAT IF IT IS THE GET-TOGETHER KISS WE WILL SEE IN S3? also SOMEONE IS PEEPING IN.

[farshootergotme]

"Dick Grayson has anger issues-" okay, but does he actually? When I thought that was true I come to find that most of the evidence to make that claim come from a time in which Dick was being mentally controlled by Brother Blood or right after the death of his parents which obviously would cause anger after finding out they didn't even die naturally but were murdered on top of that.

[stitcherofchaos]

TBH my ‘vision’ of Maglor is more of a music nerd than any kind of drama queen fanon makes him out to be sometimes.

Like someone who just doesn’t see the political ramifications other people saw in his songs, when it really was just a good metaphor. Someone with messy hair and pulls it back without even brushing it before going to a royal festival. The geeky, melancholic version of Finrod in his own family. A Maglor so obsessed with music and words he thinks about the sheer art of the Oath’s words rather than the context within itself or what it entails. Someone who wasn’t aware of how the Noldolantë could have been taken the wrong way and didn’t even finish it before he vanished from history (or, who knows, he probably forgot to bring the lyrics written with him when the Gap burned), probably had a meltdown when he realized that he had lost it. Someone who loves music so much that, after all is finished, he fades while singing, because it was all he had left.

Someone who once had a joyful, innocent spirit which was brutally killed after he did.

[corellianhounds]

Some headcanons for Mando:

Anything he uses to shower or wash his clothes with is unscented. Those scent-neutralizer dryer sheets keep his clothes from smelling like anything that can be detected while he’s on a hunt. Very few species are exempt from being unable to detect him

He keeps a clean ship and a consistent schedule. He’s been self-sufficient and on his own for long enough he knows how to cook and take care of himself. Keeping your tools, gear, weapons, armor, and ship in clean, efficient working order means you’re less likely to have to spend time fixing one of them when it breaks from your lack of routine maintenance, and his body is just another tool in his arsenal; sleep, food, necessary medical care, staying limber and getting vitamin D at some point all go a long way towards ensuring he can last longer in the field. You can’t run something ragged every day and expect for that to be sustainable.

That also means he’s well-equipped to handle long stints without different necessities when needed from time to time; you can push yourself pretty far when you’re already in prime condition.

Wilderness survival skills were some of the first things he learned while being brought up by the Mandalorians. Being aware of your surroundings, setting up and breaking down camp, foraging and hunting for food, building impromptu shelters, purifying water, navigating and tracking, having a variety of general and specific medical knowledge— All of those skills are building blocks for self-sufficiency. You never know when you’re going to be alone or thrust into survival scenarios, so it pays to be prepared.

That also means he’s capable of stomaching a wide variety of what some might consider inedible. Beggars can’t be choosers, and it’s rude to decline someone’s offer of food or hospitality so in any scenario where food is in short supply and/or it’s been offered to him, he’s taking it. As long as it’s something he knows humans can digest, he’s open to whatever cultural or regional dishes his travels have to offer, and he’ll muscle through the less pleasant tastes or textures of food he’s had to make do with when he didn’t have other options.

He does know how to make food taste good, but that more often than not requires more spices and ingredients and hardware than he can afford or spare the room for, so he makes do without. Once the kid comes along he branches out a bit more to make sure he gets some variety.

Along the lines of self-sufficiency and independence, he has a lot of general repair skills: you may not always have somebody who can fix things for you, and he obviously isn’t going to pay somebody else to do something he’s capable of learning, except for when he’s short on time or resources. We see him working on the interior circuitry of his armor in the second episode. He knows how to bypass and pick locks. He has the electrical, mechanical, and structural know-how to fix his ship and would know how to weld and use a torch cutter and a variety of other tools, but it also means he’d know how to sew and mend his clothes. Soft goods are just as necessary as hardware.

Injuries where he genuinely needs professional medical care are few and far in between partially because he’s very good at what he does, and partially out of necessity. Though it is by choice, him tending to his own wounds may not necessarily be because he is neglectful or prideful or has a penchant for pain; medcenters cost money, and submitting to that care means he is vulnerable and at risk of somebody breaking his creed by force, or doing more damage when he can’t fight back. It’s why he likely refuses anesthesia or anything that will put him under and make him unaware of what’s happening while he’s asleep. Either he will find somebody he’s close to to help him, or he will find a way to muscle through self-administered medical care yet again, or he will die from his injuries (which means he will have gone down because of a fight)

Though he has a few physical reference materials and logs he’s written down important details in, a vast majority of his knowledge concerning trade routes, ballistics, geography, maps, various customs and cultures and languages, exchange rates for currency, Guild bylaws— anything he could possibly need to know for a hunt— is committed to memory. He travels light, and the Mandalorians have an oral history more than a written one; belongings and archives can be destroyed, but their people live on and carry the knowledge that’s been passed down through centuries. It just makes more sense to him to commit everything to memory.

That being said, he does a significant amount of research before each hunt anyway, though the bulk of it is centered around the target themselves. Having all of your prep work done means the acquisition itself will go smoother.

He’s mathematically sharp: engine repair, manual piloting, vector calculus, electrical work, ballistics, basic engineering, weapons maintenance, financial management, and navigation by maps or by stars take a lot of mental acuity to understand and apply as quickly as he usually has to use them.

He’s not going to back down from others who purposefully encroach on his personal space, but he dislikes being in close proximity to strangers for extended periods of time. So much of his life is spent evading threats and fighting off challengers it’s hard to trust anybody to be that close. It’s not an aversion so much as it is an irritation that makes him tense. When you’re always looking over your shoulder, it’s just reflex to act defensively.

He doesn’t drink alcohol or caf unless he has sufficient time and he’s secure in the Crest without worry of attack; both impede his marksmanship and reflexes, neither of which are things he can afford while he’s working, so it’s usually only when he’s traveling through space that he’ll indulge

He doesn’t sing, but once the kid comes along he’s found that it’s easier to get him to sleep when he hums as he holds him and walks around the cargo hold.

[tumblingxelian]

OK I am just gonna say it.

In regards to the whole "The writers said Ironwood sacraficing his arm means he is giving up his humanity" thing?

I think that they are 100% talking from Ironwood's perspective there.

Now hear me out.

Ironwood is one of the people who most dehumanizes Penny. Yeah sure he's superficially 'nice' when everything is going his way. Be he explicitly had her made as a weapon and the moment its more convenient to treat her as a tool than a person he does so.

Ironwood is fucking weird about his prosthetics. He is always trying to hide them until they are too bulky to cover up with clothing. He's clearly deeply uncomfortable with them and defaults to blaming them for his own behavior.

Compare & contrast to other characters. All of the heroic characters constantly emphasize Penny's personhood and even when disagreeing with her never start couching their language in commands but convincing arguments as they would anyone else.

What's more, Yang, Maria, Fox, Pietro & hell even Tyrian all wear their prosthetics or disabilities very openly and without shame. The shows framing, theme & narrative do not present these things as some kind of loss of humanity or otherwise as a negative. If "Prosthetics eat your soul" was a thing the writers actually felt, it would be more obvious.

Note: I am unsure whether the writers regard Penny as disabled, so I didn't put her with the others.

Penny's new body. Much for much-ness is made about Penny "Becoming a real girl" as though the show hadn't consistently treated her as one from her first moment on screen. & while ignoring the fact that her new body was clearly a magical/Aura construct given it was made up of wobbly green energies under a scan not flesh and bone like other characters.

Even if we ignore all that, when it comes to her new body and that whole angle, while she did show an appreciation for her new tactile senses, she was also shown to be far more vulnerable & generally to be struggling with the new body & it ultimately led to her fall.

This is very much not on brand if we were meant to regard her mechanical form as some kind of problem outside of how others used it to mistreat her.

One of Atlas's core themes' is dehumanization. The people pf Mantle are dehumanized into a faceless mob, a few city blocks that can easily be crushed beneath Ironwood's heel.

Cinder Fall was "adopted" into child slavery where the rights of her abusers to own and harm her always took precedence over her humanity.

The Ace-Ops are trained to regard themselves, their fellows & everyone else as inherently expendable. Cogs in a machine that can be replaced and should not be cared for or mourned.

& most integrally, when Ironwood sacrificed his arm so he could beat Watts. When he had Watts dangling over a lava pit & said he would sacrifice anything to beat Salem. Watts smirked. Because Watt's knew Ironwood's penchant to view harming himself or others as "Ruthlessness" and thus pragmatism was alive & well & would destroy him. Which it did.

The 'other' statement. There is one other line people point to, namely Yang's V8 line, regarding "The mechanical bits are just extra" as somehow ableist. Even ignoring as I said before that I am unsure CRWBY even regard Penny as disabled, or as equivalent to a person using prosthetics. The fact is, I can only view taking that statement as dehumanizing Penny by virtue of her mechanical nature as at best, misinterpreting Yang's statement.

Seriously, they are talking about the fact Penny will still have a soul. IE the very metric of personhood that's used to define every person in universe! It'd be no different if she was made of clay or cloned flesh.

Conclusion. As I said above, if the writers really felt that way about prosthetics, it would be much more overt than one off hand statement that very much seems to reflect Ironwood's thinking not the writers. Ironwood thinks giving up his arm and replacing them with prosthetics is something that makes him less human, a trait he explicitly admired in/projected onto Salem. It makes so much more sense for the writers to be commenting on Ironwood';'s thought process here given it thematically does not align with the rest of the show at all otherwise.

[generalsdiary]

given Sunday's canonical ocd, it is unknown if he was taking medication for it or not- but if he got the diagnosis as a child, there's a high possibility that that awful man medicated Sunday which just made it easier for him (G. Wood). ocd meds make you numb, apathetic, not like yourself one bit, lacking passions in life or excitement for anything, basically a shell of a human being (+ they're usually given with antidepressants).

to put it in perspective after the livestream; Sunday may be off his meds and finally learning how to live again, how to feel again and who he is on a another level.

[l-in-the-light]

The most embarrassing series of posts about Lawlu you will ever read: edition Dressrosa (part 6)

Two long posts in one day?? I guess I really wanted to get into "carrying Law like a bag of treasure" mini-arc that badly haha. Love is a hurricane so let's go!

Luffy's back to his "I don't have time for this" antics. He wants to save Torao, there's no time to be idle or to waste, alright!

Luffy's done with being patient and sticking to plans. He was interested in his life to stick to only one plan anyway, which he believes is shattered now. Too bad, Viola. You're just not Law.

Luffy has enough of waiting! Faster, faster! And again, not interested in any other plans, unless they're Law's. (yes, he asks about the plan, but only to complain. He's not gonna listen)

Torao's fine! Luffy looks really happy and he calmed down a bit and does he have a slight blush here or what lol. But like I told you all, he's not interested in listening to plans and idling around. He wants to go, go, go and he isn't even trying to understand what they're waiting for. This is the Luffy we all know, the "before Law" Luffy lol.

To understand why Law says that the alliance is finished, we need to rewind to his fight with Doflamingo. He said that to protect the Strawhats. In case Law gets captured and loses (and he expected to be defeated), cutting his ties with Strawhats should make them all leave the country, right? After all they will have no more business here because the whole alliance was focused on Law's plan, and once that is no longer their business, in Law's mind it means they will leave. After all that's what pirates do. They don't care about countries, old allies etc.

I mean, if it was anyone else than Strawhats, Law would be right, wouldn't he? He just didn't know them well enough yet at this point. He probably thought saving kids at Punk Hazard was just a whim on their part, a precedence, and normally they would only do such things for their friends. And Law isn't their friend, neither is anyone in Dressrosa.

Luffy: Omg Law I missed you so much!

Law: Not this again!

Luffy wastes no time anymore and is so, so happy to be able to rescue Law it's unreal. Meanwhile Law tries to push him away, shocked that he's here.

He tries three different tactics to push Luffy away: 1. You were supposed to take care of the factory, did you do it already? 2. The alliance is no more, scram from here 3. If you rescue me, I will be your enemy!

This is probably The Moment when Trafalgar Law realized Luffy treats him as a friend, someone to risk your life for to help. Law isn't having any of that. Luffy risks his life for friends, and Law wants the exact opposite: protect him no matter what. Those two desires clash here.

Luffy almost fell for it, to be fair. But then decides he will rescue Law no matter what he's saying. He did the same for Ace in Marineford, despite Ace screaming this is not his business, so why would Law's words stop him now?

I love how Luffy calls Law selfish. I mean, he's kinda right about it. Law doesn't take into account Luffy's feelings here. And Luffy also doesn't take Law's feelings into account here. It's a battle of who will rescue the other, lol. They're so hopeless, I swear...

Law's last attempt gets completely ignored. He again is dragged into Luffy's pace here and he knows it. He lost to Luffy, again. Hence why he will allow himself to "get saved" from this moment on, which I think makes Luffy actually happy - after all Ace didn't allow himself to be saved.

And yes, the "I'll kill you" is a lie. All things Ace said at Marineford to keep Luffy away were also lies. Those are all hints for us to connect the dots here. Not that anyone believed Law here anyway lol. There's just no way he would actually harm Luffy after trying to protect him for freaking two arcs now. But he would and will say just about anything, if it has even a slight chance of pushing Luffy away.

Now we have to address the elephant in the room. Does it all mean that Trafalgar Law was suicidal and actually expected Luffy to leave him to die? Well, yes and no. Yes, because he does care for Luffy more than he cares for himself, for multiple reasons (low self-esteem might be one of them actually). Let's not forget Luffy is the life he saved in Marineford. Saving lives means everything to Law.

No, because did you notice Viola magically spawned a key to Law's cuffs? Did you notice how prepared she was in this whole arc, even handing Sanji a map to secret factory, almost like she knew that's exactly the thing they're missing in their plan? Well. I think Law lied and did visit Dressrosa before. And made Viola his secret ally, a great chess piece on the board that's capable of making her own decisions and prepared in case Law needs a backup plan (remember fake cuffs in Punk Hazard? It's the same logic applied here. Law always covers ways to recover from precarious situations/possible emergencies/mistakes). In other words, getting captured by Mingo and rescued with help of his ally, was a part of his backup plan. Yes, he planned his own capture, you heard me right. It wasn't his plan A. Just a backup plan B or C.

You're welcome if that turned your understanding of Dressrosa's plot upside down. I'm always happy to deliver! Oh if you only knew how much of Law's plan was probably obscured from us. Because I don't think Viola is his only secret ally. Ofc you're free not to believe it and just accept the old truth fandom believes in, which is Law being a selfish suicidal idiot. Let's move on for now!

Important to remember: this is Law's narration here. After all he's the only one in this group that knows what Doffy's birdcage is, having experienced it before. He has a clear PTSD moment about it and speaks his actual mind here. Which is him being terrified that innocent people will die, all because Law's plan went to shit. He's most likely already blaming himself for that. This is definitely not the result he wanted, which might be one more reason why his original plan was so indirect in dethroning Doflamingo. He was hoping to avoid stuff like this.

Luffy taking care of Law's sword <3 Busy talking with Zoro over some stuff, meanwhile Law pays attention to Doffy's broadcast, because Luffy doesn't. Those two really fill each other's blank spots, and they do so naturally.

First time Law hears that Luffy is now after Doflamingo. He reacts to it, trying to make Luffy understand that it's a dangerous decision, assuming Luffy is just swayed by emotions.

And their wishes clash again. Law tells Luffy it's better to give it up and scramble. Law no longer tries to push Luffy away, he realizes he lost that battle already. But he's still not giving up on keeping Luffy safe. Ironic, considering he's practically helpless and cuffed here (but the key to the cuffs should be nearby). Just moments ago he clearly regretted the fact innocent people got dragged into this deadly game, but here he is trying to downplay it and even disregard it as not important.

Luffy's not having any of that. Either he heard his regret before and connected the dots, or he still deeply believes Law to be a good person. He expects him to want to help this country too. If Luffy doesn't doubt Law even once, no matter what Law has to say about it, why should we? Luffy's usually the best at reading people, their emotions and judging if they're good people or not. I definitely trust him when he calls someone a good person, and i think you all should as well.

What Luffy and Law are actually communicating here is this:

Law: "This is going too far, we should stop. We might lose our lives here" (as in: I don't want you to lose your life here).

Luffy: "This is no time to be worrying about that! We're already dragged in this!" Or even... "I'm not letting you give up everything just to protect my life! I will carry your wish to save Dressrosa!" (but I doubt Law understands it this way)

Of course Law is taken aback here. He doesn't understand why Luffy is so attached to this country already or why he made his final decision already (and we might also question it with him, because we saw how Luffy respected the plan before! Not even Rebecca or fake peace could sway him! And Law apparently was more aware of it than we expected him to be). It was less than a day. He will find out eventually though, because it will keep bugging him and be constantly on his mind, hence his immediate reaction:

And now he finally gets it. Yep, it was because of food. And it will be because of food again in Wano. It's not the full reason, but oh god it is hilarious. Neverending cycle of suffering for Law continues on.

I guess Luffy's deep interest in Law is reciprocated after all. Law is also unusually interested in things concerning Luffy and stuff about Luffy seems to be always on Law's mind.

Law already knows what's gonna happen, just by hearing "the direct one!!" answer. He still is in disbelief.

Neverneding cycle of suffering. No wonder he becomes a zen monk by Wano.

And it continues. He clearly doesn't enjoy the freestyle jumping off the cliff while being at someone else's mercy or being tossed around. Luckily for him, Luffy holds him tight.

Considering how he was just so heavily manhandled, you can't hold it against Law here that he's kinda petty. Also Luffy's panic is adorable, he's like "oh no, I totally messed it up" which he usually wouldn't care much about, but now he's literally carrying Law with him, so it's no longer about his own safety (he doesn't care) but Law's (he cares about that a lot). And can I just point out since Luffy grabbed Law he never lets him go anymore? Yeah, he loses him occassionally, but never lets Zoro carry him even for a second. Nope, Luffy's gonna carry his own treasure the whole way all up to Mingo's castle and no one's gonna put hands on it!

And I believe this to be the reason. Luffy knows that the whole Doflamingo's Family got a beef with Law, but also normal citizens would be trying to get Law, and Law is still wearing seastone cuffs so can't do much. So Luffy takes it upon himself to take care of him now! And he's so overprotective he won't let anyone else do that!

And again, it's mutual. Law, despite his position, will still fret over Luffy's wellbeing all the time. My god, can they just stop being so obvious? Worry for yourself for once, Law!

He worries and worries some more and doesn't even complain when he lands face first on the ground.

Special mention for Luffy caring about innocent people, because this proves to Law that Luffy actually does care deeply about things like that! By Wano Law will accept it as the truth and Luffy's general MO.

I wonder how it felt when Luffy laughed while holding Law on his arm like that. Law must have felt him laughing through the vibrations in his own body. It's just... so casually intimate between them. Of course Law doesn't miss the chance to actually scold them both, because they do attract unneccessary troubles on them and they're already in bad spot. Law's worrying never ends!

I just wanna point it out: Luffy is falling here, but he still holds Law close, refusing to let him go.

This is here just so you can also stare at both of them lying down at the same time, because that's so rare, whenever Luffy's not on guard, Law usually is, but not here. Here they're just both little sheeps and Zoro has to step up his game instead. Maybe on some subconscious level, Law actually feels safe when Luffy carries him, because he felt safe when Corazon carried him forever ago as well.

I just love how Luffy realizes what Cavendish is up to and rescues Law. And there we go, the infamous "crewmate" debate. Let's start with Luffy. Many people assume Luffy just lied here to protect Torao, because that's the easiest option. But it doesn't take into account Luffy's personality. Luffy never jokes about crewmate's status and if he calls you one, he actually means it (yes, I do believe he tried to seriously recruit zombie tree and Kinemon's legs. He was so deeply disappointed when he found out Kin's legs aren't a seperate entity!). Luffy means every word he said here and he only voices it outloud exactly because it will help keep Cavendish away from Law. And it's not the first time the "nakama" thing is hinted at:

He says it here as well. "My crew's life is more important than flame-flame fruit". But at this point none of the Strawhats is in any immediate danger. Law though, is, indeed.

But when did Luffy start to think of Law as his crewmate? Punk Hazard? Dressrosa after he saw Law being shot? Well, my personal bet is right after Marineford. Because by rescuing him Law proved to Luffy he's a good person. And that's all Luffy needs to want someone as a crewmate. It does help though that he saw Law fight and must consider him really strong.

There's one interesting thing here though. Usually when Luffy declares someone his crewmate/nakama, he would pursue them no matter what. But in Law's case, he just... waits. Seems he wants Law to be the one to make the final decision, and until he does, Luffy will wait for him forever. You think I'm reaching? Watch till we get to Wano haha.

Funny thing is, Zoro caught up on that before Luffy even put it into words. Let's remind ourselves of Zoro's sword languague in Water 7 for a moment:

He explains he doesn't pick sides and he draws his sword a bit and closes it again ("clicking" it) to make the point. He also gives his friends a choice: they need to decide now whether Robin is an enemy or a crewmate (original uses the nakama word). Now fast forward to Dressrosa:

Zoro does the same gesture from Water 7 and it's meant for Law. He's telling him basically the same message here "choose your side, are you with us (nakama) or against us (enemy)." It's right after Luffy and Law quarrel about fleeing or staying and helping the country. Law is also a swordsman, he most likely understood the message, hence his shocked reaction, because he was faced with an ultimatum from Luffy's wingman.

And what's Law's stance on it? He clearly refused there, right? "I'm not!" but that was before he was ready to give his actual answer, so of course he would be mad, he semi-expected this is Luffy deciding things for him. He realizes just a moment later that it's actually not the case and why Luffy said it, hence he shuts up. He shares his final decision only after Zoro leaves to fight Pica and I bet you anything it was on purpose, he was avoiding giving his actual answer in front of the other. Maybe he just thinks Zoro's crazy and might indeed treat him as an enemy as the result... or maybe, just maybe, he is actually torn. I mean, he's allowed to feel confused, he just evolved from a friend to a crewmate in a matter of one hour or less.

Law's hat is on and so is Luffy's, at the exact same time. Shared solidarity <3

Law isn't often taken aback by Luffy, but here he is. I guess it's the first time he sees Luffy so stupidly stubborn over something and the realization hits him like a truck. Yes, Law, Luffy can be just as stubbornly petty as you, are you up for the competition? Seeing your face I would assume that's a "no" haha. He might later on.

Law: Too close! (he's making a very uncomfortable expression and Jeef is leaning all over him).

Luffy: Hands off and get off!!

It looks like Luffy wants to protect Law, but actually I think he's just trying to literally push the guy off so he can win the petty competition of who reaches Doffy first. I'm sure Law appreciated Luffy pushing the guy off.

But it can be also because Luffy wanted Jeef and Abdullah to get away from his treasure that he tugged on Moocy right behind himself lol.

Should we ask ourselves another question? Why is Law allowing himself to be handled this way? There are actually multiple possible reasons for that: 1. He decided that no matter what Luffy wants he will tag along with it, there's no way he's leaving Luffy alone to face Mingo 2. He actually likes being carried around (we have Corazon to thank for that) 3. He's actually too weak in those cuffs to get himself to that palace. Which would explain why he doesn't even try to sit up while on Moocy or why his guard wasn't on around Cavendish, normally he wouldn't allow himself a mistake like that, no matter how much Luffy manhandled him. Though like I said before, I don't exclude "trust" as the partial reason as well. I just don't think it would be enough to make Law stop fretting and worrying.

The love adventures of Luffy carrying Law around will continue in next part!

[tikiki05]

“you people cant handle complex/morally gray characters!!1! 🤓”

DUDE. WHAT IF I K*LLED YOU. IF A CHARACTER IS COMPLEX AND/OR MORALLY GREY, THEN WE’RE GONNA TALK ABOUT HOW THEIR ACTIONS ARE COMPLEX, AND MORALLY GREY, AND HOW THEY DID BAD THINGS. THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN’T HANDLE THEM. ITS CALLED DISCUSSING AND ANALYZING MEDIA!!!!!!! YOURE THE ONES WHO CAN’T HANDLE THAT!!!!!!

[crime-wives]

when emma’s hurt by something, she pushes it down and away and pretends until she can’t anymore. she bends and bends and sometimes she can steady herself, pull herself back from the precipice. until she breaks, and all the hurt springs back and she’s an open wound. a lost girl who’s always running, always afraid. emma fears her pain will make her unlovable. that the people she loves will leave if they realize the breadth of the wounds she carries. emma is bruised knuckles and hard, lonely eyes and an indescribable ache.

regina is more obvious in her hurt. she’s angry. a storm. she wields her pain as a weapon. she is not afraid to be seen in her intensity. often, it’s a mask to cover to the grief she feels. her life has been a series of losses strung together with only her as a constant. love is often the source of her pain. she feels so much hurt because she has the capacity for so much love. beyond the anger is so much self loathing and hatred. anger is the easier of the two. she is rage and she is destruction, and if she can’t find someone to destroy, she destroys herself.

emma grew up angry, regina grew up sad. they both became what they needed to survive.