#the relevance of some of these is deeply unsettling

[vihilum]

KATE BISHOP & JASON TODD. ( feat. @pistolism​ }

first meeting: pallid eyes by emily jane white.  getting to know each other: whiplash by metallica. (this song totally fucks.) escorting them back home: coffee by beabadoobee.  longing: hello kitty by jazmin bean. going to a party together: daytona sand by orville peck. defending them in a fight: loading zones by kurt vile. confessing their feelings: outside sublime by westerman. (i’ll always be your champion.) sharing a romantic moment: gun-shy by grizzly bear. a tragic turning point: play this when i’m gone by mgk. (i’m gonna kms) heated argument: the chauffeur by warpaint.  goodbyes: cardigan by taylor swift. (WOW!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!) change of minds: crystalica by lueur verte. the final battle: our house by crosby, stills, nash, & young. reunion: don’t want you to love me by talker. (i went to college w talker, i ❤️ them) happy ending: loose ends by diiv. 

SEND ⚜ FOR A RANDOMIZED PLAYLIST OF OUR MUSES

[songforeddiemunson]

Things That Go BUMP

Eddie Munson x Reader (description vague for inclusivity, no use of YN, no upside-down).

Summary: Eddie and reader agree to house-sit for a recently widowed woman, and things happen.

Warnings/Tropes: established relationship (this could also be a sequel to Next Summer), no smut, ghost story, talk of accidental death, description of and discussion of death and mortal remains, rather inappropriate funerary banter, dark themes. Avert thine eyes if death talk unsettles you, but this IS a Halloween fic, so, yeah.

Author's Note: this is actually based on a personal experience I had with my boyfriend at the time. True story, my buddies!

Here is a map of the layout of the house. I only included details, i.e. furniture, if it was relevant to the story.

Word Count: 3300

October 1991

Life in Hawkins was peaceful and harmonious, and you were looking forward to your first autumn in rural Indiana with Eddie. You imagined there would be long walks through crunchy leaves whilst scenting the faint aroma of wood smoke as it drifted among the trees. Things, however, didn't quite go as you'd planned.

Lenny Weir, a kind middle aged man that you had built an acquaintance with, was killed in a tragic accident where he was fatally electrocuted while repairing an appliance.

You had been deeply saddened to learn of Lenny's passing. Everyone in Hawkins had heard of the accident; he was a popular fellow among the locals, and was known for helping people when something needed to be fixed or tended to, free of charge. Word traveled fast, and a blanket of sadness enveloped the whole town.

He and his wife Pam chose to remain childless, preferring the company of a tabby cat called Jasper and a particularly intelligent Border Collie named Toby. You knew all of this because you had house-sat for them for a week over the summer when they went on vacation. They lived in an idyllic little cottage framed by flowering shrubs and a stream flowed through their backyard. It really was a lovely place and you had enjoyed staying there immensely.

You attended Lenny's viewing with Eddie. You had never felt very comfortable with death in the past, and you had only been a permanent resident of Hawkins for four months. You didn’t know many people yet, which heightened your feeling of shyness as the other people from town filled the room around you. You sat toward the back, nodding solemnly at the people you saw that you did know, but preferring to stay out of the way.

When it came time for everyone to file past the assembled family and view the deceased, your heart was in your throat. You hesitated, gripping Eddie’s hand tightly.

“Hey,” Eddie whispered, leaning his head conspiratorially toward yours. “I’ve got you. We’ll do this together.”

You nodded. “Okay,” you replied anxiously.

As you moved toward Lenny’s relatives, who were standing near the front of the room next to the casket, you nodded and murmured the usual script of ‘so very sorry,” and “such a tragedy,” until you spotted Pam, who looked composed despite having red, puffy eyes.

“Pam,” you said as you reached her. “This is awful, I’m so sorry, I don't really have the words. How are you holding up?”

Pam shook her head. “I don’t really think it’s all fully registered; I feel like I’m trapped in some kind of awful dream.”

You nodded sympathetically, “I can only imagine. Is there anything I can do?”

“Actually,” she replied, “Next week I’m going away for several days to stay with my sister in Utah and get out of the house for a while. Would you mind staying and looking after Jasper and Toby?”

“Of course I will,” you said without hesitation. “Do you mind if Eddie comes too?”

“Not at all, he’s more than welcome.”

“Great, we’ll be there,” you said with a small smile.

“Thank you Pam,” Eddie added. “I’m so sorry about all of this.”

“Thank you so much,” she said, her voice thick. “Now I guess you’d better go say goodbye to Lenny.”

“Here goes…” you murmured quietly to Eddie as you approached the casket, kneeling down on the provided cushion.

You quickly noticed that the glue holding one of Lenny’s eyes closed was starting to come loose, giving his right eye the appearance that it was partially open.

“Oh god,” you groaned.

“Fuck, that’s not how that’s supposed to look,” Eddie whispered.

“Jesus, should we tell someone?”

“Well I doubt we’re the first ones to notice it, we're among the last people up here…”

“This is why I hate these things. Viewings. It’s all so unnatural…” you broke off with a shudder. You were horrified, and you couldn’t stop staring at poor Lenny's eye.

“Well we started having viewings because we kept burying people alive back in the day. And it kinda looks like Lenny is starting to wake up right now…”

“Dude,” you admonished in a firm whisper.

“I’m sorry,” Eddie said, “it’s just shocking." Eddie paused, his eyes widening in horror. "Oh god, Lenny was electrocuted…do you think anyone told Pam his death was ‘shocking’? Oh man, I hope not.”

“I can’t take you anywhere,” you said. You were mortified, but the stress of everything was making you want to burst out into very inappropriate and ill-timed laughter. “We are leaving right now!”

“Sorry Lenny,” Eddie murmured hastily as you dragged him away.

You arrived at Pam’s house the following week with a duffel bag and Eddie in tow. Pam greeted you at the door and walked you through the house. She reminded you about where the pet food was and all the other things she thought you should know. Before she departed, she left you with some words you would never forget:

“Kids, sometimes weird things happen in the house. I don’t know. I wonder if maybe Lenny hasn’t moved on.”

“Say what now?” Eddie prompted.

“I wouldn’t worry about it, sometimes I just hear things sometimes, and I wonder if things get moved. Either that or I’m losing my mind.”

“Well we don’t want that," you said, and Eddie laughed a little too loudly.

“No, we would definitely prefer ghosts,” he said, making Pam actually laugh a little.

The first few days passed without incident.  You and Eddie enjoyed playing with Toby, lounging about outside by the fire pit, watching TV with Jasper curled up on your lap, and picking apples from the gnarled old apple tree in the backyard.  Out of respect for Pam and Lenny, you and Eddie shared the large sectional sofa in the living room; it was shaped like a large letter L so there was plenty of room for both of you. 

One day, your curiosity got the best of you.

"Lenny was cremated, right?" you asked Eddie.

"Yeah, so I heard."

"So where are his ashes? I wonder if he’s in the house or if Pam scattered him somewhere,” you pondered, and then began looking around the house for an urn.  

It had occurred to you that perhaps you were being disrespectful, but Lenny was such a sweet guy and you didn't think he would mind. Besides, part of you just really wanted to know if you were sharing a house with someone’s mortal remains. 

Shortly afterward, you came across a small inconspicuous brown box on the nightstand between the couch and the sitting room wall, but it was on a lower shelf that was hidden from view by the sofa.

"Do you think he's in there?"  Eddie asked.

"Only one way to find out."

You opened the box.  Inside the box was a cylindrical, plain, brass-looking tin.  The suspense was killing you both.

"I think that's it," Eddie said almost in a whisper.

"Well if it is," you said, "it isn't very ceremonial.  It doesn't look anything like what I would expect an urn to look like."

"I think– well, when my mom died they gave us her ashes in something pretty plain. It’s up to the family to buy something nicer.”

“Oh I’m sorry babe,” you said, giving Eddie’s arm a squeeze. “Are you okay?”

“Yeah, yeah, I’m fine, it’s okay,”  Eddie said with a reassuring smile.

“But if that is Lenny, why is he tucked away out of sight as if she’s hiding him?”

 "Maybe keeping it in view is too painful for her right now."

"Maybe it's just candy or something."

You went back and forth on this for a while, but you had to know for sure.  You started to open the tin.

"Jesus, don't!"  Eddie hissed.

"I’m sorry but I have to know," you said. “Besides, there’s no harm in just looking. I’m sure Lenny wouldn’t mind.”

“Ugh, fine,” Eddie said. "But if you let out a ghost, I'm blaming you."

You opened the tin.  Inside the tin was a clear plastic bag containing the cremated remains of Lenny.  You and Eddie stared silently at it for a moment.  It definitely didn't look like what you had imagined the ashes of a cremated person to look like.  You always thought it would look like...well, ashes.  It didn't.  It closely resembled gravel, and you could see little bits of bone as if someone had smashed up what was left with some sort of hammer.  You immediately felt uneasy and replaced the lid. 

"Wow. So that's....that's Lenny," Eddie said.

"Yeah," you replied simply. You weren't sure what else to say.

You silently sent an apology into the ether, feeling a little remorseful for prying.

You didn't talk about it much after that and went about your business, but you had the very unsettling realization that you had been sleeping with your head no more than six inches away from Lenny’s remains for days.

The following day it was raining and quite chilly, so you and Eddie spent most of the day inside watching TV.  Somewhere around 8pm, the TV abruptly switched off.

"Did you lean on the remote?" you asked.

"No, it's right there on the table," Eddie replied.

That's strange... you thought to yourself.  Then Pam’s voice echoed in your mind.  Sometimes weird things happen.  You shrugged it off.

You turned the TV back on and continued watching.  About ten minutes later it switched to snow, then turned off again.

"What the hell..."  You and Eddie said in unison.

Suddenly Toby the dog lifted his head and stared into the adjacent kitchen, a low growl emitting from his throat.

"Okay, that's freaky,"  Eddie said.

"Go look and see what it is," you said with wide eyes.

“Uh, I’d rather not."

You quickly dialed Nancy’s number to get her opinion, who told you your imaginations were running wild and you just had to calm down.  She chatted with you for a while and nothing further happened, so you hung up and tried to distract yourself with a bit of making out. You had a hard time feeling interested in sex, however. You had the very unsettling feeling that you were being watched.

A couple more hours passed without anything odd happening, and you were beginning to feel quite sleepy.  You realized that you didn't want to turn off the lights, and you also didn't want to keep sleeping on the couch next to Lenny’s remains.  Ugh suck it up; what are you six years old? You thought to yourself, and laid down to go to sleep. You did leave a light on in the kitchen, however.

The night passed quietly, though sleep was difficult to find.  You tossed and turned, and what little sleep you did achieve was filled with strange and frightening dreams.  One dream that stood out consisted of you waking to go to the bathroom.  As you passed the room that used to be Lenny’s office on the way to the toilet, you saw him.  He was jogging on his treadmill whistling a happy tune, but he wasn't alive.  As you paused in the doorway his head turned to look at you. He was burned black; one eye stared at you, and the other was burned away. His mouth was twisted into a horrible grin.  For a fleeting moment you wondered how he could whistle with no lips, and then you screamed.  You awoke with a start, and stared at the window for the rest of the night, waiting for the morning light.

The next day you spent the majority of it out of the house.  You drove around and visited some friends, and grabbed a bite to eat at a local diner.  You were avoiding the house, but neither of you would admit it.  When you finally did return just before nightfall, you entered the house trepidatiously, as if something was going to jump out at you.  

You were greeted by Toby, who wagged his tail and seemed very thrilled by your presence, which was comforting.  You found fixings for s’mores in the kitchen, and built a fire in the pit in the backyard.  As you sat at the crackling fire, your eyes were frequently drawn to the house, as if you would see someone walk past the window, or worse- a charred face grinning back at you. Eddie gently teased you for getting yourself “all worked up,” but you could tell he was uneasy too.

After a couple of hours the fire began to die out, and it was getting cold.  You knew you had to go in, but you took your time gathering up all of your things.  As you entered the house from the back door into the kitchen you spotted Toby, who was sitting in the living room at the doorway to the kitchen.  It was the first time he hadn't greeted you at the door.  

"Hey Toby!  C'mere Toby!"  you called.  He wouldn't come.  He didn't growl, he didn't cower, he just stared and wouldn't move.

"That is not like him at all," Eddie said.

"I know," you agreed with building unease. 

You both continued calling to the dog, and after no success Eddie walked over to him.  He took Toby’s collar by hand and gently pulled, speaking to him in a soothing voice, but he resisted.  

He kept looking at you as if he wanted to come because he was a very good boy, but his attention was always drawn back to something else.  Something past you, past the kitchen- toward the end of the house that contained the bathroom and Lenny’s office.  Your mind was frantically trying to determine what would cause this sweet and intelligent dog to refuse to enter a room in his own house, and it freaked you out.

"Toby!  COME!"  you yelled. 

You regretted shouting at the dog the moment you did it because just as you did, Toby lowered his head and practically crawled into the kitchen to your side where he stood with his tail between his legs, whimpering.  You felt sorry for him, but it did nothing to assuage your growing fear.

You apologized to the dog and made your way into the living room, and Toby followed without protest.  Too nervous to go right to bed after the event that had just occurred, you turned on the TV.  Sure enough, after a few minutes it shut off.

"Maybe the TV is old, and there's something wrong with the wiring," Eddie said, though he seemed unconvinced.

"But how do you explain the rest of the weirdness?"

"Dunno.  Maybe Nancy’s right and we're just letting our imaginations get carried away.”

Right after Eddie spoke, a white flash shot past the window.

"Did you see that?" you asked a little too loudly.

"Uh, yeah, I sure did," Eddie replied.

"Probably a white moth reflecting the light from the front porch light."  you said. “Right?”

 "Yeah, that would have had to be a very large moth.”

“But wait.... the front porch is on the other side of the house."

“You’re not helping,” Eddie said, his eyes darting around nervously.

You sat and stared at the windows for a while. After several minutes, it happened again.

“Alright, what the fuck was that??” Eddie said, his voice increasing in timbre.

"Big white moth, remember?" you weren’t sure why you were trying to convince yourself of this when you didn’t really believe it.

"Right.  Big white moth."

Suddenly, right behind your heads on the wall against the sofa you were sitting on, there was a distinctive banging sound. Three distinctive raps, as if someone was pounding with their fist. Thump, thump, thump.

You screamed and Eddie jumped off the couch. The dog barked.  It happened again, but it was louder. THUMP, THUMP, THUMP. Toby barked again, but he wouldn't go investigate as one would expect a dog to do.  He was scared.  So were you.

"What's on the other side of that wall?"  Eddie asked.

"The bedroom!"  you replied.

"We'll go together to see what it is."

"Are you crazy?!?"

"We have to see if someone is messing with us.  What if someone broke in?" Eddie reasoned.

"How dare you use logic at a time like this? Fine. Grab the dog."

As you slowly made your way off the couch and toward the kitchen-- which the bedroom was off of on the left-- you attempted to summon the dog, who would have none of it.

"Forget Toby, he's not coming,"  Eddie said.

As you neared the bedroom door you heard another sound.  

It sounded almost like a tea kettle going off to signify the water is boiling, only it wasn't constant.  It fluctuated, almost like a person rubbing their finger across a freshly washed window.  But it was loud, and it was in the room with you.

You both screamed and abandoned the bedroom inspection, and instead ran toward the bathroom to put some more distance between yourselves and that awful sound.  As you ran past Lenny's study you remembered your nightmare, and squeezed your eyes shut as you hurried by, clutching Eddie’s hand as he guided you toward the bathroom.  

The bathroom was at the far end of the house, directly across the hall from the front door.  As you neared the bathroom you glanced toward the front door, and then a bolt of terror shot up your spine to your scalp, almost paralyzing you in place.

The front door was wide open.

Eddie was clever enough to grab the cordless phone before your flight to the other end of the house, and you locked ourselves in the bathroom.

"The front door is open!  What the fuck? The front door is open!"  you stammered in a panic.

"What?!?"  Well...we have to close it!"

"I'm not leaving this room!"

"Jesus Christ! We can’t just leave the front door open!"

You called Nancy again.  Eddie dialed while you professed your regret– out loud–  to Lenny for interfering with his ashes.  As usual, Nancy was not impressed.  She said you were just being silly and needed to knock it off.  Next, Eddie called Steve, who was more appropriately concerned and agreed to come right over, but he lived twenty minutes away.  So you waited.

Nothing seemed to happen while you were in the bathroom.  Finally after what seemed like an eternity, there was a knock on the bathroom door, making you scream.

"It's just me," Steve’s muffled voice proclaimed from the other side of the door, and you flung it open and practically strangled him with a huge hug. 

"You guys left the front door wide open," he said.  "You shouldn’t do that; it’s unsafe!" 

For the remainder of the week you took care of the feeding and watering duties by arriving solely to do so, and then leaving as soon as you were done.  You and Eddie were in agreement that you would not be spending another night in that place.  

You told Pam about it, and she said that the strange behavior didn't seem like Lenny at all, but surmised that perhaps he was just trying to get your attention for some reason. Everyone’s heard the stories about people who die sudden deaths feeling confused and unable to move on; perhaps that was the case here.  Maybe it wasn't Lenny at all, but something more malicious.  You tried not to think about it too much.

Six months later, Pam dreamed of Lenny.  In the dream Lenny was standing on a beach waving to Pam.  She tried to run to him, but no matter how much she ran she couldn't catch up with him.  She then realized with a stab of profound sadness that Lenny wasn't really trying to greet her, but he was actually saying goodbye.  

He then turned and walked away from her, while Pam stood and watched. Once Lenny was out of sight, she felt a deep sense of relief.  She never dreamed of him again.

A few months later the house burned down.

Thank you for reading! As always, comments and reblogs are the lifeblood of all fic writers. Please show us some love! :)

(yes, this is really a true story)

[she-posts-nerdy-stuff]

Worldbuilding

Thanks so much for the interest in this series on my previous post, I’m excited to share it with you :)

One of the strengths of the Grishaverse worldbuilding is that the different countries and cultures take clear inspiration from the real world, so the reader is able to infer a lot of the small details without having to be spoon-fed the information. For example, we don't need a long, info-dump explanation as to why surnames in Shu Han are constructed from the prefixes "yul" or "kir" based on sex and the first name of the parent (eg Kuwei Yul-Bo, son of Bo Yul-Bayurr) because we understand that the country is partially inspired by Mongolia. And even if we don't make this immediate connection, looking at characters like Tolya Yul-Batar and Tamar Kir-Batar we understand how to infer the source of the name because of it's basis from many different naming conventions in our world, such as the -son, -dottier, or -bur suffixes in Iceland. Something I think I see authors do a lot is struggle with the balance in this kind of situation, but personally I find that Leigh Bardugo does it really well. We don't need to be told the extensive information about this, even if she knows it or has some idea about it for herself, because it isn't relevant to the story. If we were told about it in great detail during the Grisha Trilogy or the SOC duology, it would feel a lot like info dumping. But by telling us what it's necessary to know about the Shu royal family in KOS/ROW and letting us fill in the gaps, we feel that we have enough information to both understand and keep the story moving forwards. All we're actually told, to my recollection, is that the Shu queens maintain the given name of the first queen of Shu Han rather than their mother's name to unify the family and to maintain the status symbol of the royals. The information we've been given from this that's immediately relevant to the story is an explanation as to why the character doesn't take her mother's name, so we're not confused or distracted by that as we read on, but we also know that Shu Ha, or at least its aristocracy, is a matriarchy, that the Shu people still feel a great respect for their first queen, implying further that there is a great respect for heritage in the country, and that the Shu monarchy feel the need to remind people of that first queen for what is probably a fear of unsettlement in their power and therefore a need to remind people that this is their 'birth right'.

In my book, there are futuristic technologies made possible by the blending of science and magic, such as a scanner that can identify several genetic markers and is connected to a national database in order to identify anyone, that is used very similarly to a passport system, as well as by the justice system. But it's not necessary to explain the set up of the database, or that the earliest generation of the scanner was developed in the 16th Century, because that doesn't move the story forwards. Instead, I focus on the impact that the technology's usage has on one of the main characters, who has to have routine police and governmental contact because she witnessed the destruction of her home and the murder of her family at age 10. The case is so famous that at the equivalent of passport control to know that her information is about to appear on that database and the person is going to know what happened to her is deeply stressful for her, but there are no alternatives because this system is considered far safer than any paper-based system that could be cheated or faked. My aim is to actually say that the scanner recognises the person and brings up their information so that I can use it to move the story forward through the emotional response of the character, whilst letting the reader infer anything else about the system. I also don't have to tell you that the technology has been around for centuries, but if I have a stranger to the technology describe it and casually mention that 'Generation 18' or something similar is written on the side, you know that it's been around for an extended period of time.

I hope this made sense and was somewhat helpful, I thought I wouldn't go into too much detail and instead split this into multiple posts. Thanks for reading, and if there's anything in particular about worldbuilding you'd like me to talk about let me know and I can give it a try :)

[vaporclan]

you know, as someone who has been following this comic for a long long time (almost from the start. and is likely one of the worst offenders when it came to spam liking since i used likes to keep track of where i was. for that i apologize, but i digress.) and as someone who is very interested in psychology, the inner workings of the mind, what compels people to behave the way they do, etc., you have truly gone above and beyond here.

you are clearly so passionate about your characters, all of them (even if sootsky is somewhat of an exception, i still feel as though he means something to you as a character because you wrote for him and he developed at your hand) no matter how misguided, stubborn/uncooperative, and/or fueled by unsettled conflicts, unprocessed trauma mental turmoil they are; because you understand them.

they aren't just characters to you; they're like your "children" for lack of a better comparison. they're entirely three-dimensional to you and, although I'm not implying by any means that you don't see them as fictional, you breathed so much life into them that i truly do think that they have become something so special and alive. their world truly is that: a whole other World, with every individual living their own lives with their own thoughts, feelings, and motives, and while you obviously control what happens and make changes/add lore as you see fit, i truly do believe that these characters are telling their own stories through you.

i'm not sure if i'm being coherent/clear here as i am a highly abstract thinker and oftentimes overexplain things in an attempt to make it more understandable when it actually has the opposite effect and makes my thoughts more confusing/hard to understand. if i said anything that is incorrect, inaccurate, or pushing any of your boundaries, i deeply apologize. i just wanted to take the time and write out my thoughts to you in an attempt to say that i am so very impressed with the depth of this comic about cats with an origin from a game with randomly-generated events. again, it is so clear that you have put immense thought into each and every character, and your passion for this project is both admirable and very clear to any of your audience who are taking the time to analyze and read unbiased. and, even if some people aren't exactly doing that, there is no one who can deny the amount of effort you have put into this comic and how much you have accomplished in so little time.

you don't have to answer this ask or anything, so please don't feel obligated to. i don't require a response; it just feels nice to finally express my thoughts about this comic to you and it feels like the appropriate time to do so with the finale finally here and a new start coming soon.

i hope you have a wonderful day/night and that however long or short this next arc of the comic may be (and any other potential arcs/spinoffs), it brings you so much joy and pride. it certainly has given me a very complex and interesting story that i both enjoy and find incredibly thought-provoking/very relevant to my interests and studies. keep on doing what you're doing so long as it makes you feel good!

-crookedanchors / warriorwhiskers 💛

THIS IS SUCH A NICE ASK ur so right btw

I tend to put myself in my characters shoes and feel what they feel and I write how they're thinking and feeling from the heart

Some characters are inspired in places by real people I've known / their mindset and even me myself (but most characters arent)

Its crazy to me that I've managed to do all this tbh I've never created complex characters like this before this comic

This has all been very experimental for me

[morvantmortuary]

my buddy @bigtiddythanos asked a while ago about what our OCs’ Top 4 on Letterboxd would be, and I needed something to do with my hands while I finally got around to watching maxxxine last night, so I actually went ahead and made them! and here they are, bc why not!

Necromancer Top 4s:

(eta: this is rae from the future, I had to come back and swap this .gif out, you’ll see why lmao)

Maxi -

Candyman (1992), Harold and Maude (1971), Arsenic and Old Lace (1944), and yes, Phantom of the Opera (2004), which just narrowly beat out Silence of the Lambs and the Vincent Price House on Haunted Hill. He’ll never say no to a rewatch of the Final Destination series, either — they’re his version of the Fast and the Furious. the way he giggles at some parts is somehow both unsettling and endearing at the same time.

(‘is hex being shirtless relevant’ yes. it’s the only way he watches movies. ‘really?’ ssssh.)

Hex -

El Espinazo del Diablo/The Devil’s Backbone (2001), The Sixth Sense (1999), Peeping Tom (1960), and El Orfanto/The Orphange (2007), which just edged out Talk to Me (2022) and Savageland (2015). He will happily tell you why the latter is deeply underrated if you finally agree to watch it with him, but it will take about an hour after the movie ends for him to finish. (He’s not wrong though, imo 👀)

(here, rora’s shirtless-ish too look she’s very all or nothing this was the best I could do, we’re equal opportunity shirtless enjoyers!)

Rora -

she wore out her VHS of the original Carrie (1976) when she was alive, so that’s at the top of her list. the rest are The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962), and Black Swan (2010), which she thankfully only would’ve discovered after she came back to life, otherwise it would’ve been her whole personality in high school. She also would love May (2002) and Excision (2012), both of which might hit a little too close to home in different ways :’D

(these necromancers just can’t watch movies with their shirts on! for real!!)

Seth -

The Wizard of Oz (1939), Tod Browning’s Freaks (1932), Singin’ in the Rain (1952), and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920). He also loves the high drama and spectacle of DeMille’s Cleopatra (1934) and Lang’s Metropolis (1927). If you jokingly ask him if he’s seen any movies in the last century or so, he’ll just blink at you, thinking, then be like “…I thought the 1989 interpretive dance remake of Dr. Caligari was good? :D” or ask if you want to watch the Cabaret with Liza Minelli in it. (He would go absolutely bonkers for the X trilogy, though, relating way too hard with Maxine Minx and Pearl.)

(does anyone in greymoon own a shirt?? who’s to say)

Bonus! Leon -

…he doesn’t know what Letterboxd is. :’D baby doll still has the most minimal version of a smartphone possible. as for movies, he’s happy to watch just about anything with you, but he’s impossible to watch either westerns or vampire movies with, as he usually points out what they’re getting wrong while chewing on what look like some home-made red vines he pulls out of his freezer. (Don’t ask.) He also talks like Lestat is a real person he actually knows and actively has beef with whenever you watch the Tom Cruise ‘90s version of Interview with the Vampire. you can’t tell if he’s doing a bit or not and you’re too afraid to ask, tbh??

anyway! thanks for humoring me! definitely google some of these before you watch them solo, bc they can be pretty scary or pretty bleak, depending or just. Not the Best Version of the Phantom, but Fine :’D

if anyone does their own OCs’ Top 4, I’d love to see it :3c

[zenosanalytic]

Woe(and NOT the fun kind |:T)

So I managed to push myself through the first episode of Wednesday, and then watched the next two eps, and my take on the series is: DEEPLY uneven.

Spoilers for the first 3 eps under the Cut, though I didn’t watch the whole series and probably wont

The first 20ish minutes of the first episode(effectively the Pilot) is REALLY BAD, cliched and over-done, with a meager handful of dark spots(the car ride, LURCH :>, the color allergy, “everyone will know I didn’t finish the job”) to make up for it. However, at the therapy scene the True Strength(one of three) of the series is finally allowed to shine in Jenna Ortega’s performance as Wednesday Addams. The Rose Lalonde energy here shatters the scale; her Cruel Wit, Knifely Cunning, and icy REFUSAL of sufferance and Compromise irradiated the scene and all around it; cutting through -Bright and Cancer-Green-  the fetid tissue it was buried within.

Unfortunately there simply is So MUCH of the latter, and it ultimately smothers that brilliance. There IS Charisma to be found here aside from Ortega(Riki Lindhome as the therapist of course giving what Ortega needs, Joy Sunday positively CHEWING her way through some of the WORST material here as Wednesday’s rival[the LOATHING, Dear Readers, the Loathing it BUUUURNS so PITCH and HOT >:> >:>], Christie of course is as solid as she always is with on-point delivery and an artisan’s command of her GENERATIONAL physicality, Victor Dorobantu is a positive JOY as Thing, Zeta-Jones and Guzman are a Delight, and Christina Ricci does so much with so little in a surprise supporting role), but with everyone BUT Wednesday and Thing, the material is simply too great a weight, and most of the cast simply does not have the chops or time to act through both the awful writing AND Burton’s banal influence as producer and director.

All Burton’s old failings are here to their worst display: an over-wrought “normies” and “outcasts” dividing of the world which is, simultaneously!, forced and not truly committed to; Weirdness, disemboweled of its Queerness and transgressiveness, then stretched crepe-thin over Convention(WEDNESDAY ADDAMS working with the COPS?!!?!); a desire for things TO be weird without any desire to truly UNDERSTAND Them OR their Weirdness in the first place(would it have killed these writers to actl READ SOMETHING about bees instead of just making shit up for lame dick-jokes?); characters too smart for their writers pummeled with the idiot-ball through lazily convenient plots; Goth aesthetics emptied UTTERLY of their ethos and cultural relevance(What. The Hell! Is even the POINT of an Addams that hears “You’re father’s a Murderer!” and doesn’t respond, with Pride and an unsettling smile?); attempts to write Teenaged and Current so dated, so clearly in the voice of a too-long too-comfortable Boomer who doesn’t understand the issues and hasn’t cared to try in near-on 30 years, that even rolling one’s eyes at them seems more than they deserve. Even Ortega’s Wednesday drags under this; how do you feed her a line like “what; are you a girl scout now?” and NOT have her answer with “Well, you ARE what you eat...”??? A story which sets Wednesday Addams to STOP a brutal cannibalistic monster; to PREVENT a moribund institution shattering under the Night-bourne reckoning of its ancient sins, consumed in Fire and Blood; A story which depicts WEDNESDAY FUCKING ADDAMS WORKING WITH THE FUCKING COPS TO CATCH AND PUNISH(?????) A MURDERER does NOT! Understand!! Wednesday Addams!!! Or the Addams family in general. Also the Addams snap doesn’t NEED a backstory! PERSEPHONE AVENGE ME!!!

This series and these characters are not NEARLY morbid enough. There is no Gothic Romance here; no Accursed Hero to Spit in the face of God and Shank the Devil. Much worse, Burton’s desire to be Society’s victim without, you know, knowing anything AT ALL about  the people our society ACTUALLY VICTIMIZES, or Caring to know them, or even SIDING with them, or having any history of personal or historical victimization, does the series real harm.

**SERIOUSLY! SPOILERS!!**

Maybe the rest of the series somehow fixes this(I really don’t care to find out at this point) but, through his conceit of “normie” and “outcast” societies, Burton LITERALLY makes white people the REAL victims of native American genocide, in just three episodes no less!, and I honestly don’t see how you can walk that back. The “Corrupt” mayor of the town and owner of its local themepark(only a well-to-do who grew up in LA would think themeparks are something EVERYONE has a ‘local’ of) is black. The Head Bully of this town, his son, is black. The “Queen Bee” Mean Girl of the BOARDING SCHOOL the whole series takes place in, is black(tho again: Sunday does a gr8 job with this material, as exceedingly limited as it is. The kismestic-tension btwn her and Ortega in some of these scenes is *Chef’s Kiss* Delicious :3 :3 :3). For decades people have been complaining about Burton’s refusal to include black people in his work and this is his response: a series were MOST OF THE ANTAGONISTS are black?! At least BIANCA is allowed to be COMPETENT!

Anyway: I love Ortega, I love Sunday at her most Imperious and Manipulative and Bloodthirstily Competitive, and Moosa Mostafa’s immediate lovability as a bee-nerd is ruthlessly wasted by awful writing. Give me a full season of, In Treatment like, Ortega and Lindhome sparring through therapy sessions. Give me a full season of Christie’s meancing, barely-contained Violence and simmering languor. Give me a full season of Wednesday and Thing committing Shenanigans upon assholes who deserve gruesome death. But SPARE Me This.

[tangibletechnomancy]

What frustrates me about The Discourse about AI art is that everyone feels the need to have An Opinion...and no one is willing to look into the conversations that have been going on for DECADES surrounding the relevant issues, or the cases that set precedent for what we can do here going back CENTURIES.

Let me lay out two very important things here:

The dataset ethics issue is more of an issue of digital privacy than copyright.

The labor issue has been seen MANY times throughout history; we can look to MANY other times new tech has shaken up a job market for precedent before AI even STARTS being used on large commercial projects.

Point #1 is true because, I have said before and I will say again, image synthesis is not collaging. It is not copy-pasting. It does not composite images in the dataset. It doesn't even save the images. It looks for patterns in the pixels and tries to recreate similar patterns from random or semi-random noise. This is why it often sucks at anatomy without human guidance - it recognizes that the word "hair" usually corresponds to a pattern that usually goes near a pattern that corresponds to a "head", it recognizes that "hands" usually have a certain pattern of repeating light and shadows, but it doesn't understand the intricacies of where those things belong or how many times a pattern might repeat. This is why images of architecture often have impossible geometry - it understands the shapes that these things tend to take; it doesn't understand the logic of what connects to what. People can use it to plagiarize - they can, intentionally or otherwise, force a result that is overfitted to a specific piece of data in the set - but to say that's ALL it does is comparable to the asinine claim that ALL referencing is plagiarism, because SOME people will just straight up trace or recreate a full piece that already exists, sometimes even by accident. (And some people - not all, not even most, but some who claim plagiarism, whether from AI or traditional art, are just...really? Do you really think you are the only person who has ever drawn, say, a pink fairy sitting under a purple luminescent mushroom, gazing at a full moon in the upper left, composed with the 1/3s rule? Do you really?)

And the thing is, I agree that the kind of broad data scrapes that have been used to create most AI models should be reserved solely for scientific curiosity if they're used at all, and I respect anyone who doesn't want to touch image synthesis until that issue is resolved. The only reason it doesn't bother me too much to play with it myself is that...unfortunately, we're all interacting with much worse as we speak. Ever heard the word "spyware?" If you're old enough to know it, notice how you stopped hearing it when Facebook normalized making literally the majority of the internet into spyware?

You can't really use the internet while wholly blocking Google, and their evils are pretty well documented. (Remember when we rolled our eyes at their internal "don't be evil" slogan? And how deeply unsettling it was to then watch them REMOVE that while ramping up aggressive datamining?) Amazon made Alexa to harvest your data to sell you shit more effectively. If you have a smartphone, Google or Apple or both are harvesting your data for all kinds of much more malicious purposes than making pretty pictures. Twitter uses your tweets and browsing patterns to force you to interact with people you will hate because negative emotions hold your attention better than positive ones and they want that sweet sweet advertiser money from your constant engagement; this was the case even long before Elongated Muskrat took over. Spotify Wrapped and knockoffs thereof are ~fun tools~ that...normalize just handing data about some pretty personal things over to anyone who dangles a shiny novelty in front of you made with it. It's used for invasive surveillance and policing, and Facebook's for-profit datamining even ended up being a tool of election interference - had it not been for them we might not be in nearly such a bad state with the rise of global fascism.

Image synthesis is one of the most harmless and even potentially BENEFICIAL things to be created as a result of this disturbing norm.

The fact is, small artists: copyright law may protect you a little, sometimes, but it wasn't made for us (and yes, I say "us", because even if you don't count my partially AI work as art, I do traditional art too, guys). It was made for Disney and their ilk. It is designed to protect corporate interests, not artistic ones. That notwithstanding, the copyright angle is a weak one in the first place - it's easy to argue that, because the process is transformative enough, and the dataset is large enough and abstracted enough from anything it was derived from, AI training on online art would fall under fair use, and it is only individual misuses that would constitute infringement. It's especially easy to argue this when you recognize that, at this point, that's more where the corporate interest lies, and remember who the laws are made for!

Digital privacy, on the other hand? The right to your own data? The right to be forgotten? The need to have regulations on where robots can and cannot crawl, and for what purposes? THAT is a critical conversation that we need to be having here, and if everyone with An Opinion on AI art focused their energy there instead of mostly just misinformed screaming about the sky falling and Art Dying And Society Degrading (which is HORRIFYING to hear from leftists in knowing its history as a fascist talking point), we could probably get some MAJOR good done.

Furthermore, even if someone ruled that AI training doesn't constitute fair use under copyright law, that won't stop big companies from using AI - Disney has PLENTY of frames of animation to feed a model to make something entirely their own. So do most animation studios. I have even been in talks with people trying to work on a 100% public domain AI model - the biggest concern about it is that if we complete and finalize it before the labor side of the issue is being worked around properly, it will EMBOLDEN unethical use in industry by getting rid of the potential legal complications.

So let's talk about the labor side and recognize - this isn't the first time new tech has threatened to make major changes to the way something is done in industry, potentially resulting in workforce downsizing. It won't be the last. Honestly, as a person who's been both machining and doing mixed media art since I was a kid (and sometimes both at the same time), I find it deeply disheartening how many people have not cared about this side of the issue until it was certain art jobs that might get automated...and even more frustrating how people refuse to look to past cases for how the harms of new tech shaking up employment have been mitigated.

What we could and should be fighting for is a government program to compensate and optionally retrain employees who were laid off due to automation (ANY automation, not just in art!!), as well as independent workers who see a drop in income due to increased market saturation. We can do this. We've done it before.

We could and should also be fighting for UBI - this will be harder, but it's more popular now than it ever has been and some places are even TESTING it while the internet watches; it is not nearly as much of a pipe dream as it once was.

What's NOT going to help anyone is devaluing the labor of new automation tech operators - that INCENTIVIZES the corporations to adopt it FASTER where possible, and treat both new and existing employees WORSE. "I could replace you with a robot; you're employed out of the goodness of my heart" is one of the most common justifications for abusing and underpaying employees in relevant positions. Big media companies already rely on crunch at poverty wages; they're only going to get worse about it with AI tech because "oh you're just pushing buttons, what do you mean you can't do that for 20 hours at barely minimum wage, how lazy can you get?" if we continue this line of thinking. However, if we recommend and enable new automation operators - in all industries - to UNIONIZE before their work and thus their mistreatment even starts, it will make the transition a hell of a lot easier on both new and existing workers.

Tl;dr: It's great that we have a lot of people concerned about artists' labor rights and tech transparency now PLEASE LEARN YOUR HISTORY AND DIRECT YOUR ENERGY WHERE IT IS NEEDED INSTEAD OF ASSUMING YOU KNOW EVERYTHING FROM A FEW SENSATIONALIZED ARTICLES I BEG OF YOU

[aroaceking]

I literally cannot tell if you actually want me to answer any of the things you asked but I'm posting the entire comment and I will answer it. I'm going to be very honest and address that I am autistic so if I've taken the fact there were questions too literally I am actually sorry, I have no intention of requesting engagement from you if you are not actually trying to discuss it with me.

Reblogs are off because I don't really feel comfortable with reblogs when I'm going to address some of my trauma, but you're free to reply to this or send an ask (I think ask word limits are lower now?) if you wish to reply.

tw because I don't know how to explain any of my things without addressing a lot of this: transphobia tw, transmisogyny tw, intersexism tw, homophobia tw, racism tw, csa tw, cocsa tw, childhood sexual trauma tw, medical abuse tw, ableism tw, idk like literally it's just my life idk how to give it enough labels to give fair warning.

under a read more because it's long

@fite-club

okay. there’s a lot to unpack here. i’m gonna first address the “stop sexualizing asexuality” thing— asexuality is about sexual attraction, it is inherently a sexual topic in nature. but you’re alarmingly wrong about something here, and it’s the “recognizing ways I was different from my peers” part as a 14 year old, you WEREN’T different from your peers for not experiencing sexual attraction. MOST 14 year olds don’t. you mention trauma in your past— this is extremely relevant. why do you believe that the majority of 14 year olds were sexual, who told you that? ike, yeah, hypothetically someone who identifies as ace at 14 and experiences sexual attraction at age 18 can change their label from asexual to allosexual. but will they ACTUALLY do that, though? or will they just call themselves a sex-favorable asexual? when you make lacking attraction a part of your identity, what happens to your sense of identity if you DO experience attraction? also i need to point out that there are literal biological functions that are not done developing until you are over 18. your body and brain and hormones are still growing. you definitely cannot say with any certainty that anyone below the age of 16 knows they experience sexual attraction or not finally i need you to understand that by emphasizing “hey, it’s actually completely fine and normal to not be interested in sex at all when you’re in high school” it actually helps prevent teens from being sexually abused. “most teens are allosexual” is NOT the message you want to be spreading.

"asexuality is about sexual attraction, it is inherently a sexual topic in nature."

this is part of what I feel most uncomfortable with. it is innately a conversation about sexuality, but that, too, to me, feels simplified to state as 'sexual' when people are constantly equating sexual with 'having sex' or 'having sexual desires'. developmentally it's a lot more complex than that, especially when you don't use a split attraction model or thoroughly separate/classify all aspects of orientation. I understand why people may break down their identities into the tiniest boxes they can imagine, but I actually don't navigate it that way at all.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea that discussing sexuality is sexual. I know I'm repeating myself, I just am not sure if I'm clear. It's also deeply unsettling to me to see people, of any orientation, act like it's sexual for a child to state if they like boys or girls or whatever else. Or how people act like it's sexual for a child to have a gender identity separate from their assignment.

I will acknowledge the assignment I was given had impact on my feelings on this matter, I was hypersexualized throughout my childhood for being intersex, for publicly going also from 'boy' to 'girl', for my race. I understand that these add to my experiences and are part of why I was reacted to the way I was. That it was a catch-22 because if I had liked boys, I would've been performing gender wrong and if I had liked girls, I would've been performing gender wrong, and that no matter what space I took up, it would be 'incorrect.'

But this experience is mine. I was doomed to be sexualized no matter what I did in the environment I was a part of, and part of that relates to this idea that gender and sexuality in children when 'off the norm' is innately sexual. That if a child expresses a relationship to gender or orientation outside of boxes defined for them that it's somehow sexual.

I tried to define it to an anon earlier also but developmentally I am including things like how children will play-roles as well. A lot of my friends learned gender and orientation through how they wanted to do pretend games or how they felt unfulfilled by them. This isn't sexual, this isn't weird, it's a normal part of development. This includes children picking and pointing out fictional characters or celebrities to admire or joke about wanting to marry/have as a boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever. This includes the way children will also explore themselves through putting claims out like 'so and so is my boyfriend now' or whatever.

"you mention trauma in your past— this is extremely relevant. why do you believe that the majority of 14 year olds were sexual, who told you that?"

I know the trauma in my past is 'relevant.' I'm sure if I had not been further sexualized by adults and children alike for being intersex and the WAY I was intersex that I would not have the same relationship to any of this. As I stated, it's why I feel so strongly about some of it. I don't know who I would be without trauma, I can't just take my trauma aside and yes, I've gone through therapy, multiple attempts, some forced and some me trying to approach it carefully. It's why I tried to study developmental psychology.

I really dislike the statement 'why do you believe that the majority of 14 year olds were sexual'. I believe a majority of 14 year olds weren't and aren't asexual because a majority of the population is not asexual. It's a minority group. So is being gay. So is being trans. So is being intersex. If they feel strongly enough to identify as asexual, it is probably because they have an experience where it has made them feel othered, or at the very least uncomfortable. I don't even see why it matters if they're wrong about it. Nowadays they're constantly seeing people misidentify it as rooted in action, as in if you have sex or not, and some of them are probably very scared of the expectation of sex, and so they may label themselves incorrectly because they want to feel like they have support in language to communicate a perfectly normal boundary to have and when they get older, hopefully they recognize that.

That's part of why I dislike the fixation on if it's about sex or not! Or even the fixation people have on labels staying stagnant! Lots of people identify as straight or cis or whatever before realizing they're not, and it's okay also for them to have gotten it wrong the first or second or fiftieth time around idk. I have friends that still don't exactly know where they sit on both gender and orientation. I think that's normal! We have our whole lives to navigate!

But also 'who told you that'. Almost everyone around me except maybe some of the xtians (I'm not xtian) and mainly the xtians were more focused on telling me that 14 year old girls weren't interested in those kinds of things, which is why they must be 'protected' from 14 year old boys who are entirely too interested in it and my biology would make me unsafe even after I had, against my will, been medically altered due to complications with my hormones and body.

I don't know. I don't know how to explain what I grew up in. I don't know if it's different cultural expectations, I don't know if it's the ways I was seen as a threat by white people, I don't know. It's not 'who' told me that because 'who' was nearly everyone. But even if they weren't telling me that, even if they were telling me I was 'smart' for not dating or that I probably shouldn't date anyway or that no matter who I dated it would be weird, they also thought it was weird I had no actual interest at all. That I didn't admire celebrities or had crushes or expressed any future interest in it. People thought it was weird as hell I thought the entire construct of it was kind of fake, and yes, I was also autistic and so there was a level of them just thinking I was stupid and developmentally challenged because I was autistic, but that's also part of why they tried to 'fix' it, because my presentation was one where I could 'try' to fit.

But also I know lots of people who were raised xtian and expected to be girls who also got really messed up by the confusing explanations and expectations around it. That hurt themselves because they thought there was something gross or wrong with them as they hit perfectly normal developmental milestones. I was also the outlet for a lot of weird guilt and self-loathing from both boys and girls who viewed me as innately sexual for my relationship to gender. That viewed my medical changes as something somehow for them.

I know it's perfectly normal to not date at 14, I don't know how to be more clear about that, I don't know how to say 'yes I am aware plenty of 14 year olds are figuring themselves out, plenty of them don't know or fake crushes or even will explain they don't know if they've had them yet, I know plenty of them are definitely not interested in sex or dating' and also state 'this is why I'm saying it's not about sex! the ways I was othered and hypersexualized and desexualized are about all the tiny other ways I did not fit into the boxes I was supposed to!'

I was trying to express how having 'asexual' as a term helped me cope. Helped me be more compassionate to my peers. Continues to help me now. That's what labels are even for. That's their use. I was upset seeing someone say "#you’re 15!#you don’t want to have sex! that’s fine!#it’s not an identity!" about a niece identifying as asexual on a post discussing how the op's relationship to crushes/attraction has changed from having a lot of them as a teen to mellowing out a lot as an adult (which is normal, which is why I'm so! fucking confused! on the fucking pushback!!!! on me stating that it was othering! to be a child outside of that and attacked by adults and other children over it!!! and now I'm being told 'nothing about ur experience was abnormal' then why!!! was I constantly!!! told!!! it was!!!).

I mean I can tell you part of why. I am not fucking stupid. I am aware I was 'abnormal' also for my body and my brain and my race. Normalcy is socially constructed and upheld. Something can be atypical but not treated as abnormal, and something can be common but socially classified as abnormal for structural purposes. Like we say 'minority' for nonwhite people as if white people aren't actually STATISTICALLY globally the minority. (Yes, I know, that depending on your country, they are statistically a majority, but they only became the 'majority' in the country I'm in through horrific violence and even in countries where they are statistically the majority it's violently upheld as they push back against nonwhite people moving in blah blah blah, ie still socially upheld through structures).

Like I feel like somehow I'm having entirely different conversations about this.

"like, yeah, hypothetically someone who identifies as ace at 14 and experiences sexual attraction at age 18 can change their label from asexual to allosexual. but will they ACTUALLY do that, though? or will they just call themselves a sex-favorable asexual? when you make lacking attraction a part of your identity, what happens to your sense of identity if you DO experience attraction?"

Okay but I don't CARE? The stigma around changing your orientation label needs to go but also I don't care if they're wrong. It's irritating, yes, and often derails these spaces and discussions, but also like it's their life, I can't make them change their identity. I can just share information on how other people have expressed attraction and learning to navigate it and offer solutions and pose questions on how their relationship may have changed and give examples of people coming into it deeper in adulthood.

There are people that think they aren't ace because they don't care if they have sex, even though they aren't attracted to anyone, and eventually reach a point in their life, sometimes late in it, where they learn about it and go 'oh' and suddenly have a word for this thing that helps them better define their experiences. And I don't mean 18, 18 is so young.

What happens to people who identify legitimately as a gender or orientation they later realize doesn't fit them? I can't control them. I had a friend who thought she was straight and it took a lot of self-reflection for her to realize she was bisexual. She had to be out of an environment where her attraction to women was dismissed, desexualized, and recognized as equal and not diminished by her attraction to men.

I've had friends who had been neutral on men in their lives, who realized they were lesbians only in their 20s because they had been neutral about men they tried to date due to expectations. I know women who transitioned and tried to like men out of gender obligation, who had to work through those feelings and the root of them to actually understand their relationship to orientation.

If we allow space and discussion for the myriad of ways it presents or develops or can be defined, then this becomes less of a fixation point. The fragility of people's identities rooted in NEEDING to strictly define them is not helpful for many, especially younger people. I'm still younger people. I know people who've changed their identities in their 50s. I know there are people I don't personally know who have changed and played with their identities even later in life.

I use language the way I use language because I'm autistic and descriptionist. I can't stop people from being prescriptionist with theirs.

I understand the harm people experience when they cling to identities that no longer suit them. But I can't constantly stop people from harming themselves, I can't control them! I ALSO can feel uncomfortable or out of place when people try to relate to me and utilize the same terms I do but in completely different ways. I don't know how to interact when someone my age comes to me identifying as ace but then also being alarmed when I do not relate to the ways they categorize attraction or lack thereof. It can be very strange to do so. A lack of something is even harder to define than the existence of something.

"also i need to point out that there are literal biological functions that are not done developing until you are over 18. your body and brain and hormones are still growing. you definitely cannot say with any certainty that anyone below the age of 16 knows they experience sexual attraction or not"

Okay, and again, they can just change how they define it. People biologically change their whole lives. Menopause biologically changes people but it doesn't mean that for the period of their life before they may utilize labels to describe their experience before that point, or that those identities may still be important to them after that point.

I didn't say they always know or correctly define if they experience attraction or not? I don't think people can really say with any certainty until they have reason to feel certain. I think people can be 16 and not know and 25 and not know and 52 and not know.

As stated before, I'm intersex. I was also medically altered in a way that potentially is part of why I do not experience attraction idk. I know people who were medically altered similarly who do experience attraction. Idk. I would say 'I don't care' if it would have been different otherwise, but I do care actually, I care a lot, but my reality is what it is now and it has been incredibly harmful to me to try and 'treat' it. If something changes, I will change my identity, and not feel ashamed that I utilized language the way I needed to while it was relevant to me.

I'm autistic and intersex. I don't. I don't know how to phrase this but like. I have never been developmentally categorized as in the position of 'normal.' Because normal is socially defined and enforced. There are stages and ranges that are categorized as 'normal.' People who do not fit those stages or ranges are treated differently. Sometimes they utilize language for it. I don't. Like that's all it is to me.

"finally i need you to understand that by emphasizing “hey, it’s actually completely fine and normal to not be interested in sex at all when you’re in high school” it actually helps prevent teens from being sexually abused. “most teens are allosexual” is NOT the message you want to be spreading."

It is in fact true that emphasizing to children that it is their right and completely fine and acceptable and a boundary they can uphold to not be interested in sex in high school, this is good and useful and helpful. Giving them language for that is important, regardless of why they need it.

It is also important to help prevent abuse by giving them better language and resources on how they may be developing sexually and that they do not need to be ashamed of interest or engage in unsafe sexual practices as a way to explore that. I had friends literally manipulated by the idea that there was something shameful in their development that was only suitable for adults to 'manage' for them and it was part of their exploitation. This is in fact an aspect of abstinence-only education being a failure.

Children also need to be taught even if they ARE developing sexual interest, they can also develop boundaries around it anyway! Shame, confusion, hiding, whatever about this literally directly leads a lot of teenagers into the arms of predators. It alarms and concerns me this topic can somehow shift into statements that may further confuse these lines, so I want to be very clear.

And I want to also state I don't. Ugh. I don't think children by and large actually are easily defined as 'majority straight' or 'majority allosexual' or anything like that. I think that obviously the majority of people meet that, hence my earlier statement of noticing a kind of othering, but I don't actually think that means it's fair to label hordes of children as either straight or allosexual or even cis because it is in fact typical that they wouldn't even know or have a definitive enough relationship to it.

Feeling drawn to describing an experience you have with language that is about how you've felt othered doesn't even mean no one else involved could later define themselves with those terms. Some of the people who were cruel to me found out later they were boys or found out later they were girls or found out later they were gay or found out later they were intersex in a different way from me even.

I AGREE that children should be taught they are allowed to have boundaries??? I agree that children should be taught it's acceptable and valid and completely within their right to not have crushes or interest in dating or interest in sex or be more focused on their other experiences (like poverty, like disability, like race, like trauma, like education, like gender, like media interests, like whatever else??) over defining themselves and their gender and their orientation?

I think we should in fact encourage that it is okay to not know or not need to know yet. I think we should encourage people to realize they don't have to rush experiences they aren't ready for. I have friends whose first relationship was 25 and they never identified as ace or aro, they just were never in a position to get into that part of themselves for a variety of reasons. I don't. I do not understand the reaction to what I've said.

I was upset because an individual child individually defined themselves and some adult in their life was alarmed by a fairly simple identity that was not in any way some permanent or damning aspect. I'm upset because in 2020 I saw some adult literally tell a middle-grade child who identified as asexual on the internet they were 'attracting pedophiles' by identifying publicly as ace. An adult thought it was appropriate to define it that way and say that kind of thing to a child because of the child's identity. A whole lot of other adults agreed with it and kept going on about the inherently sexual nature of the term meant to describe an orientation.

It's just weird. When I told my mom in high school, she became fixated on the ways she might have broken me or made me that way. She became focused on listing all the possible other explanations and getting me to counseling and then devolved into belittling me for it, when all it was was an explanation for how I felt I was experiencing the world. It helped my friends be kinder to me. It helped me be kinder to my friends. It still helps me navigate the ways I may be unable to relate to others.

[fourth-dimensional-thinker]

The “Time Is a Flat Circle” Mega-Post

I’d like to start by saying I really don’t know how other people read fan-fiction. I, personally, tend to just be a one-and-done kind of person. Unless I forgot what happened, I don’t constantly go back and re-read chapters of a multi-chapter work whenever it gets updated. I also don’t know how every fic writer works. I know some people plan meticulously and others will just add chapters on a whim.

I am a thorough planner (mostly).

Time Is a Flat Circle took me months to write, but also weeks to plan. It was made with the intent to be re-read. I wanted there to be a different experience for when you re-read it after you learn the information revealed at the end.

So, I made a very, very long guide to all those details to look out for if you ever want to re-read it.

Foreshadowing of the time loop

1) The photograph of Marty with Copernicus

This scene from Chapter 19:

The teenager reaches out and the terrier lets himself be scooped up off the ground. Copernicus licks Marty as thanks for lifting him. Marty grins broadly from the canine’s affection and moves to find a high surface to deposit Doctor Brown's dog. Just as he turns around, the flashbulb blinds him. He blinks once, twice, and then places Copernicus back on the floor so he can rub his eyes.

“That’s going to come out really blurry,” he tells the doctor.

“I’d still like to keep it; something to remember you by.”

was foreshadowed in Chapter 2:

“We’re debating if this guy looks like you.”

Marty squints at the black and white photo that he’s holding. The image shows an older teenage boy holding a dog in his arms. The picture appears to be taken in a moment in time where the boy was fidgeting around with energetic joy instead of being in a ready pose. His face is left blurry, but from what can be made out, his features aren’t too distinct from Marty’s.

“Kinda,” he tries to say nonchalantly. Marty puts it back on the shelf and walks away from it; the photograph unsettles him deeply.

2) The family portrait in Doc’s home

This scene from Chapter 13:

He also notices how, in all the portraits and photographs in the home, Erhardt Brown’s face shows up in none of them. If the judge originally appeared in any pictures, his face was cut out or painted over– and using his first impression of the man, Marty doesn’t hold the vandalism against Doctor Brown.

was foreshadowed in Chapter 2:

Marty stares at a family portrait while the other boys move on to the next room. In this photo, there are three bodies: a father’s, a mother’s, and their child’s. However, only two pairs of eyes look back at him; the father’s face has been completely painted over in the portrait.

3) The initial pain from flux capacitors

This comment from Chapter 2:

“You’re not going to want to be awake for this process, my boy,” Doctor Brown explains as he picks up Marty’s unconscious body, “it’s going to hurt tremendously.”

becomes relevant again in Chapter 17:

Marty almost gasps once the bandages fully come off; there are Y-shaped scars rooted in both of Doctor Brown’s palms.

“You have them too…”

“Yes, and I cannot express how painful they are,” he rasps. “Please tell me–don’t actually– that you weren’t conscious when you were given these.”

4) Doc and Lorraine’s phone conversation

This bit of conversation between them in Chapter 3:

Lorraine seethes. “You're beyond delusional if you think scarring my child was anything but an attack.”

“Those are a gift,” he claims. “It pains me that you think I would hurt your son, Lorraine. Don't you remember all those years ago when–?”

“I didn't know what you were back then.”

...is a reference to Doc’s meeting with Lorraine and baby Marty in all of Chapter 21.

5) The wooden horse that Marty gifts Doc

This scene in Chapter 8:

“And– oh! I also wanted to give you something too.” Marty rustles through his bag.

“Really?”

“Yeah, I saw it in a store.”

Marty offers the horse carving towards his [Emmett’s] free hand.

and this scene from Chapter 10:

Marty spots the horse carving posing proudly on the credenza. The wooden animal has been coated in dark paint with an even darker mane, tail, and hooves. The eyes are detailed with the illusion of having life.

“You painted it,” Marty notes once Emmett has cautiously brought himself next to him. “It's a nice job– really nice.”

were foreshadowed in Chapter 4:

Across town, the mad scientist puts back a small carving of a horse on his bookshelf. The little wooden figure is decades old, but has an incredible sentimental value that makes the Hope Diamond look worthless.

6) The little canary nickname

This scene in Chapter 16 (which also titled “Canary”!):

“I can make jokes, too, little canary.” [Doctor Brown says]

Marty pauses for a moment. The smile fades.

“That’s an, um, interesting thing to call someone.”

was foreshadowed in Chapter 5:

“If you try to come near me again, I’ll hang up and call the cops on you,” Marty threatens.

“This town’s law enforcement community won’t be helping you, little canary,” he says matter-of-factly. “They’re too inept to do anything but distribute parking tickets at this point.”

7) The title

I think it speaks for itself.

Hints that Doc has not turned good

1) The investigation team

When Needles mentions the rumor of the four murders that Doc is supposedly responsible for in Chapter 2:

Needles grabs his arm before Marty can fully make it out the door. “So soon? We’re in the home of a man who killed at least four people. We have an inspection to finish.”

it’s a reference to the investigation team in Chapters 24 & 25:

What was just described to the teen was the investigation team of 1978, a staple of his childhood stories. Albert Wickham was a senior police officer with over twenty years on the job under his belt. Nicole “Nicky” Newton was a budding librarian and the youngest of the bunch. Nathan Baran and Caroline Snider were both staff at the local newspaper. No one from Marty’s time has seen them in years.

2) The glass of water chapter

As we have established in Chapter 25:

“Don’t move,” he [Doc] orders. “This is the danger of quickly changing the temperature of a room.”

Emmett steadies his hands, takes a quick breath, and yanks away the heat of his kitchen.

A harsh wave of cold knocks into both of them. A faint crack is heard before the glass violently shatters asunder. Shards of ice and glass whizz in all directions. The broken pieces rain down on the floor and table top with a twinkling clatter. Underneath the table, they stay safe from the precipitation of ice and glass.

They don’t leave the shelter of the table long after the last shard landed.

“Woah,” Marty gasps. The exclamation leaves his mouth as a puff of vapor.

“When water freezes, it crystallizes, causing it to expand and break its container. What we can do with our power can match the abilities of a freezer more than tenfold,” the doctor says as they emerge from the table. “Do you understand why I don’t want it to leave our hands, Marty?”

But, before that, when Doc is meeting with the investigation team, we see them all close to some sort of glass container that’s filled with water:

Snider is huddled by the windows, next to the small collection of limp yellow plants that sit in overwatered glass vases. Newton and Baran stand on guard at either side of a long side table. The only object on the table is a large glass fish tank that houses no aquatic life.

[...]

Wickham then returns to his original spot with a full glass in his hands.

And then the meeting ends on this sentence:

Emmett smiles coolly. “Now that we’re all here,” he says, fidgeting with the hem of one of his gloves, “I believe your explanation is due…”

3) The guppies

As an extension of the glass of water scene, one of the investigation team member’s guppies ends up in Doc’s house after his meeting:

He turns towards Baran. “You own a fish tank with no fish,” the scientist observes. When the other man silently stares him down, Emmett defends, “I’m only trying to make small talk, Mr. Baran.”

“I’m cleaning the tank later,” Baran gruffly answers. “The fish are in another container in the kitchen.”

“Are they difficult to care for?”

“Guppies? No.”

[...]

“Hey, when did you get fish, Doctor Brown?” “Last night,” he shouts back, “I was inspired by the meeting to take them in.”

4) Adelina, Doc and Sara’s pet cat

Adelina is a symbol of the future Doc in 1940. They share white hair, a deep interest in Marty, and a “love language” that comes off as disturbing to Marty.

As seen in Chapter 10 & 11:

Adelina strolls in. Marty glances down at her and she returns it with a deep, interested stare.

[...]

Across the room, Adelina is resting, coiled up near the fireplace. The glow of the hearth dyes her long white fur to a golden orange. She peers pointedly at him again with her big and inquisitive eyes. Marty turns on his back to look at the pale ceiling instead; their cat’s potent stare bothers him.

[...]

“What the hell?!” he shrieks, recoiling on the sofa.

Emmett comes back over and glances down at the tiny corpse. “Oh, Adelina’s already leaving you gifts.”

Still tightly curled on the couch, Marty asks incredulously: “That's a gift?”

“Yes, I know it can seem cruel, but it’s her way of showing affection.”

[...]

When he steps out of the bathroom, Marty almost steps on Adelina. The white-haired feline is sitting right in front of the doorframe, looking up at him with hopeful eyes. She trots after him when he passes by her and goes to the kitchen.

[...]

Adelina leaps onto his lap in a fluffy blur. Marty lifts his hands up slightly in a half-surrendered gesture to avoid touching her. The teenager has never been a cat person; he’s heard tales of horror from his aunt about what obnoxious menaces they can be and has witnessed the proof of her clawed forearms. Adelina decides to curl up on him, a white ball with hair held up with static electricity.

5) The painting scene in Chapter 22

So, in this chapter, pretty much everything related to painting is representative of either Doc or Marty’s emotions. I’m not going to talk about everything, since it would involve copying and pasting almost half of the chapter in here. But, one of the ways of showing that Doc hasn’t changed is with deserts. They’re used to show his inner personality, with both of them considered to be dangerous and hostile to life. Doc finds beauty and application in deserts while Marty is weary of them:

“So, why deserts?” Marty asks.

“They’re common settings for Westerns– excuse me.”

“Yeah, but some of them don’t have any horses or people in them,” the teen notes, then quickly moves aside to let Doctor Brown have access to a cabinet.

“I’ve also learned to appreciate the hidden beauty of the environment itself. Most of what lives in the desert comes out at night: jackrabbits, tortoises, toads, owls–”

“–coyotes, mountain lions, scorpions.”

“Yes, all native fauna of that habitat. Many people see the deserts as a harsh, barren landscape– would you fill up those two jars with water?–but underneath all of the thorns and storms is its rich life.”

“Most people would still die in them.”

Doctor Brown gives him an amused look. “That’s a likely fate to the inexperienced wanderer. However, I’ve read stories, tales of adventures, where someone determined enough uses his will and wits to make it through the night– especially at the skepticism of others.” He rolls out a long, thin sheet of paper over the table before turning back to Marty. “Could you see yourself surviving in the desert?”

The other one is color symbolism. The most prominent one for Doc is using red for his hidden anger. Him using that color shows up after Marty talks about his not-so-good relationship with his family:

“It’s just– it’s just that we– we fight sometimes and don’t really get along a lot of times. I don’t hate my family, Doctor Brown, but…” he [Marty] confesses, “...it'd be nice to get away from home every now and then…”

Marty glances over the scientist’s canvas. An aggravated, angry, bull-enraging color is dominating the canvas.

“You’re using an awful lot of red,” he comments.

[...]

He checks on Doctor Brown’s progress. The outraged red color had been masked well and blended into the other hues in with his horizon.

And just to hammer things home, Doc ends the chapter with this line:

“[Do] Whatever the hell you want; it’s art. You could make it complete nonsense or plan something so intricately complicated that people can’t see the hidden messages right under their noses.”

Misc things I just wanted to point out

1) In Chapter 21, when Doc tells Lorraine:

“I remember almost every conversation I’ve had. I can recall things back from when I was twenty-nine, twenty, seventeen, you name it.”

those are all the previous ages he was when Marty visited him in 1937, 1940, and 1949. I used 1920 as Doc’s birth year for this fic

2) This line from Chapter 4:

Despite his best efforts at cramming, Marty can’t distinguish a secant from a cosecant or remember which president was blamed for the Great Depression or draw a force diagram or remember the prefixes for scientific units or conjugate irregular verbs in Spanish or remember what polysyndeton is.

is an example of polysyndeton.

3) This minor mentioned character from Chapter 1:

When he [Marty] joins The Pinheads, he hears about Doctor Brown again. He's sitting in the bed of a pickup truck with his bandmates and Donnie, their drummer's older cousin and acting roadie.

is an oc I made for a writing request.

Other fun facts

I rewrote Chapter 5 & 6 each three times

Older versions of this fic had chapters were Marty went to 1941, 1953, 1960, and 1969

Marty breaking into Doc’s house, the flux capacitor scars + taking in outside energy, and the glass of water scene are the only elements that have survived since draft one

That being said, I had started working on the glass of water chapter months before it was published

I have even older concepts of a darker Doc before I came to the version of him in Time Is a Flat Circle

In the older versions, Doc is still affectionate and protective of Marty in his own unhinged way... but was also just straight up murdering people on behalf of his best friend

After that, I added a “no killing rule” to him and ended up liking that twisted version of him better

I also wrote a snippet of a “sequel” fic while I was still writing “Time Is a Flat Circle”. It involves... a grave misuse of spiders...

A full, planned out sequel is still in the imagination phase. I currently have nothing actually written down yet

[ethanhuntfemmefatale]

Me: *reblogs all your mi:1 posts* guess what I watched last night

Thank you for being (what looks like) the only other fucker on this website that sees the Ethan x Max possiblity and the Jim x Claire x Ethan situation

So, what do you think Ethan's response would be to finding out Max is dead? (once the fallout situation has been dealt with and he can breath)

hello hello and thank you for this ask i love it dearly. I feel like there's this inherent connection between ethan/jim/claire and ethan/max, you can't really have one without the other. anyway I did tell myself I was going to wait to answer this until after i see the max portion of MI1 tonight but i started thinking about it and then i started writing out my ideas and here we are with a rant. below are just a whole lot of thoughts and ideas, some more relevant than others--for the actual answer of your question, you can just scroll until you get to the part that says "OK NOW WE’VE GOT ALL THAT OUT OF THE WAY. I CAN ACTUALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION NOW."

You're not actually asking for my ethanmax treatise but i'm going to give it anyway just cause your ask got me thinking about it and i feel like writing about it. so here goes.

ETHANMAX TREATISE

Ethan/max is complicated. you're dealing with a lot of subtle facets when you try to understand them. here are some parts that interest me, im sure there are aspects im missing.

Factors at play in ethanmax—

-The acting choices. These characters, as has been commented on before by others, look like they want to eat each other. That’s significant lol. To add a complication to this, I would argue there’s a subtle edge and nervousness to Ethan when they interact, a sharpness to his acting, although that’s a personal interpretation. I’m looking at the finger-stimming behind his back (out of max’s view) in the initial scene, and also the kinda frozen, too-big smile he gives her in response to “it’s like a warm blanket” in the car scene.

-Dutch angles/blocking. In her intro scene, Max is framed with a Dutch angle, while Ethan isn’t. MI1 is deeply informed by Ethan’s POV, so I always take the Dutch angles as a sign of Ethan’s perspective or mental state. Ethan not being Dutch angled suggests that his world isn’t being turned upside down the way it is in the restaurant scene with Kittridge, he’s in control of the situation. But when he looks at Max, she’s framed as imposing, unsettling (the angle suggests instability) and even maybe frightening. The blocking of characters, specifically re height, is also significant in MI1 and something I think about a lot when analyzing character dynamics. For example, Claire is often “over” Ethan, standing while he’s sitting, suggesting that she knows something he doesn’t or has power over him in some way. That’s reversed in a couple key scenes, such as the horrible patdown scene where Ethan uses masculine sexual violence against her, and the hand kiss scene where he suspects she’s lying to him. Jim, on the other hand, is tallest in any given shot, except in the scene where Jim and Claire are sitting with Ethan leaning on them from above. Suggesting that the only person who might be able to overpower/outsmart him is Ethan. Looking at Ethan’s scenes with Max—they start on the same level, but as they speak, Max is always over him, standing and circling him like a shark. If i am remembering correctly, she even sits on the edge of her desk to be over him, which is such a weird kinda striking choice, and emphasizes that idea of her as predator and Ethan as (consciously tempting) prey. It’s not fully as simple as the idea of Max being more powerful than Ethan—she is, but there’s also an intentionality there, Ethan consciously presenting himself as beneath her to make himself more appealing. What’s crucial to me, though, is that Ethan is never presented as being above her. He is manipulating and using her, but the power dynamics are always unequal between them, she still has way more agency in the situation than he does.

-Narrative parallels. Ethan’s dynamic with Max is heavily linked to the Ethan/Jim/Claire plot in a couple of different ways. First of all, Ethan/Max as a Jim/Max parallel, Ethan following in the footsteps of Jim’s betrayal of the IMF, in order to track him down. Which is tied to Ethan’s role as Jim’s successor and the one person capable of stopping him. There’s more to talk about there but it’s not super relevant (although ‘Job is not playful’ sticks in my mind forever). Also, Ethan/Max as a Claire/Ethan parallel. The two are presented similarly in some key ways, with Ethan using “Claire techniques” to pique Max’s interest, and to be honest it’s difficult to nail down what narrative purpose that parallel was intended to serve. I have a couple theories. I think Claire/Ethan parallels serve to tie the two of them together. Second, Ethan’s seduction of Max implicates him more deeply in the corruption plot of MI1. Third, comparing Ethan to Claire helps to solidify the power dynamics of the Ethan/Jim/Claire trio, with both Ethan and Claire desperately trying to “steal” or “borrow” the narrative authority and agency of an older powerful figure through sex (my personal pet Claire theory is that she meant to use Jim’s plot to get money and freedom for herself).

-Thematic significance. To speak a little more about Ethan/Max and the corruption plot of MI1…you kinda have to start with Jim. Jim occupies a very interesting role as the pseudo-hero of the movie. The ex-James Bond, the ultimate good guy, who is framed kinda as a protagonist figure in his introduction on the plane. Jim has this Christian-patriarchal thematic framework of corruption versus purity that he overlays onto MI1 (I talked about this more in my Ethan hunt corruption rant, so I’m not going to totally get into it here). A lot of that is linked to the Ethan/Jim/Claire tensions, Ethan being Jim’s protege who is more similar to his corrupt wife, both of them having a corrupt feminine skill set of emotional and sexual manipulation. Ethan starts the movie play-acting a masculine figure, then when he strips that mask we see his hidden, corrupt love for Claire—after Jim dies, he succumbs entirely to the corruption that was always inherent within him, by seducing Max. Ironically that corruption, which Jim sees as a fatal weakness, allows Ethan to uncover the truth and defeat him. (drinking game: take a sip every time i use the word corruption when talking about ethan/jim/claire/max.) What does this mean for the Ethan/Max dynamic? To me, it’s about how Ethan sees her. Max is representative of Ethan’s final loss of moral purity by Jim’s rules. Not to mention Max embodies sinfulness by Jim's rules as a powerful and sexually assertive woman. All that is a really significant part of their dynamic. Which brings me to:

-Franchise-long separation/isolation from the narrative. I honestly cannot tell if this is an intentional McQ or TC choice, although the stuff TC said about the alanna kiss (him repeating ‘I own you’ lives rent free in my head forever mr cruise are you ok no of course you’re not) suggests he’s aware of the weight of that plotline to some degree. What is fascinating to me about Ethan’s relationship with Max and the idea/specter of her in MI is that it always happens behind closed doors, without any of Ethan’s loved ones present. The exception being the one scene in DR1, which I need to watch again to fully analyze but if I remember correctly everybody involved in that scene is kinda unanimously going “wtf is going on between these two I have no context.” Examples: well, every Max/Ethan scene, including Ethan’s meeting with that one Max-associated guy in Ghost Protocol, the Alanna/Ethan kiss. (Ilsa witnesses that scene, but Ethan doesn’t know or want her to.) Anyway my point here is: Ethan seems to have this deep desire to keep the Max stuff private. There are multiple explanations for this—Max is a reminder of the worst time in his life, of MI1, which is a carefully-guarded memory anyway. Max (and Alanna by extension) is a powerful and dangerous individual who he doesn’t want his friends involved with. Max is quite simply a bad and complicated memory due to her associations with Jim and Claire, and the complicated/horrifying world of sexual manipulation, sexual violence and sexual trauma that Ethan is inducted into in MI1. But my personal favorite explanation is shame. To my mind, the narrative separation suggests that Ethan is ashamed of his history with Max. This is really interesting! Because the narrative doesn’t shame Ethan for Max. There’s no movie-inherent negative thematic stance on Ethan’s seduction of Max or anyone else, it’s presented as kinda cool and useful from what I can tell. So if Ethan hasn’t internalized shame from the movie’s morality, to my mind that means he’s internalized shame from Jim’s. Which is—not strictly relevant to the question at hand, but deeply fascinating to me in a broader discussion of McQuarrie era Ethan.

Anyway! What’s important for our discussion is that Ethan consistently fights to keep Max and all signs of his connection with her away from even his closest friends and allies. What that represents to my mind is a discomfort around their association, and a system of shame and denial around his past “dealings” (sex) with her. Meanwhile, he is unable to escape the reality of Max and the reality of their history, his history.

OK NOW WE’VE GOT ALL THAT OUT OF THE WAY. I CAN ACTUALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION NOW.

I think Ethan takes losses hard. Max’s death would be a blow in that sense, but in some other ways it might even be a comfort? Ethan hasn’t known many people who lived to old age and (presumably) died nonviolently. That’s a fucking feat. It’s a testament to Max’s strength and power. Not only that, but her formidable legacy in the form of Alanna is a feat as well—Max is dead, but she kept her empire alive, and passed her power onto a successor. There’s grief and loss there largely in the sense of, there’s one more person who was present for the Unspeakable Time (MI1) that is no longer alive. Now the only witnesses left are Ethan, Luther and Kittridge. If circumstances were different, I think Ethan being Ethan would figure out a way to pay his respects anonymously. With the way Fallout unfolds, though, it’s too risky to admit that he and Max were ever connected at all, which I think intensifies the lack-of-closure, shoe-on-the-wrong-foot feeling that’s always present to me when Ethan and Alanna interact. To me there’s one more facet—Max is representative of this part of Ethan, this “corrupt” part of Ethan that wants narrative power and seduces people to get it, that he doesn’t allow anybody else to see. And with her death, I would argue that the last person who can understand him is gone.

On a different note—I love the idea of Max being alive in Fallout. Mostly cause Vanessa Redgrave is fucking legendary, and also it would scratch the constant itch of Ethan interacting with other “narrative elders,” other survivors. I love kittridge, but seeing Ethan interact with Max herself would be way better fucking electric. I do think Max being alive would make it very difficult to pull off Alanna’s introduction, though, so I can see why they made the choice to have her die off screen. That said, I would be FASCINATED to see Max and Alanna’s mother-daughter dynamic, especially with the way that Alanna in Fallout acts as a parallel for MI1 Ethan. I want to see some fucked up codependent shit on my screen.

Anyway these are my thoughts such as they are! I am seeing the max parts of MI1 tonight so I might change my mind about some things in which case I’ll post even more.

[femtober]

FEMTOBER BLOG: Centennials & Strikes

What do Sherlock Holmes fighting dinosaurs and French women having sex with cars have in common?

And what is Freddy Krueger's connection to Halloweentown?

Every Femtober, I try to include a category or two that's relevant to the events of the year so far. The double WGA/SAG-AFTRA Strike is already unprecedented, but for it to happen on the centennial of two much-maligned studios is deeply ironic.

This year, I watched two movies from non-AMPTP studios, and two movies from Disney and Warner Brothers. Unfortunately due to the inherent lack of women directing for studios, finding a good match for Disney and WB was difficult, but the indie studio films also presented an interesting challenge.

Though women-directed films at Disney and WB are among the highest grossing of all time, the number of films women are directing for these studios is very limited. And on top of that, horror is an even smaller number, particularly in Disney’s family-friendly catalog.

I wrote previously about my Warner Brothers pick Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, which I had already seen. While the title of the film is pretty telling, it does ultimately feel like a bit of a franchise killer. Rachel Talalay really wanted to make something different, and she sure as hell did it, but at the cost of lessening some of the horror of the franchise. It feels very meta, but it's really not until New Nightmare that meta horror really takes shape. The overall story is lackluster, but it's a worthy experiment into a new approach to the genre that's largely unappreciated.

My Disney pick, Halloweentown II: Kalabar's Revenge, was also a rewatch but one I had not seen in quite some time. I can't say I really have fond memories of Halloweentown II specifically, but I do remember Disney Channel playing the commercial for it constantly.

What was most surprising to me about this DCOM was how scary it actually was. I initially struggled between choosing this movie, Hocus Pocus 2, and Ravenous. They all would be rewatches, but Hocus Pocus 2 is just bad, and as much as I love Ravenous it's already been in 2 previous Femtobers. I was worried listing Halloweentown II as a horror was a bit of a copout, but it's definitely horror by way of kid camp. There's something Tim Burton-esque about the first and second installments, and in general the Halloween DCOMs always tended to give me the creeps. It wasn't until I was in high school that I rewatched Don't Look Under the Bed, which scared the crap out of me as a kid.

For having such a tame reputation, Disney has some surprisingly effective scares. On top of that, the thing that really struck me about Halloweentown II is how uncomfortable the movie is. Kids are familiar with the joy and colors of the first movie, and in this one they've been replaced by bleak gray and monotone. It's definitely unsettling.

I have to admit, for my non-struck studio picks I wanted to be as meme-y as possible. The idea of putting an Asylum film in the same category as a Palme D'Or winner from Neon was hilarious to me.

Unfortunately for me, the meme wasn't really worth it. Asylum's take on Sherlock Holmes from Rachel Lee Goldenberg is simply dreadful (so much so that I turned it off after 30 minutes - OOPS!). Which really makes me scratch my head, because while Goldenberg has directed the Asylum films Sherlock Holmes and Sunday School Musical, she's also directed the very charming HBO Max film Unpregnant. Hopefully that means she's broken out of the Asylum, so to speak, because it was a really great film! (Incidentally, she also directed one of my all time favorite Lifetime Christmas Movies, Love at the Christmas Table - also a very good movie!)

Titane is a whole different beast. I wasn't sure what to expect; everything I had seen and everyone I had talked to warned me that Titane was not for the weak of heart - or stomach. But, I heard similar things about Raw, which I didn't find unpalatable at all.

If I may go on a bit of a tangent, I feel like with horror, oftentimes there's kind of an all-or-nothing stance on what we can watch. If you've seen one you've seen them all. Well in any film, but I think in particular horror, there are things that some people just don't want to see, for one reason or another. Maybe this isn't "normal" behavior, but I'm not really that concerned about spoilers a lot of the time, so I tend to seek out the content of a movie before watching. Too many times I've been triggered by something I just didn't want to see. So maybe it's okay to normalize that idea a little bit. Horror is visceral and scary, but it's also fun, you know?

That being said, I felt like I had a pretty good handle on what to expect from Titane. The plot, however, threw me for a bit of a loop. Everything I had seen about it really only focused on the first 20 minutes, when the real story unfolds after that. Titane isn't the best film I've ever watched, but how exhilarating is it to find a movie that goes in a direction you never thought possible?

I also find it interesting that because Titane is regarded as being so transgressive, none of the plot really ended up getting spoiled for me, because I never really saw anybody talking about it. Titane is distributed by Neon, and along with A24, those were the indie studios I sought out to complete this category. And you would think that indie studios would have a few more titles to choose from directed by women. Of course, this is just a sampling of two studios, but I did feel a bit wanting by the selection, particularly with A24. I can't help but feel a little discouraged that even the indie studios are becoming "mainstream" in their demographics.

There are plenty of indie horror films directed by women, but quality and availability tend to make these films suffer. I'm not so sure there's an easy fix besides: let women make more movies. Hopefully the success of Barbie, and the potential success of Wish and The Marvels will move the needle a bit.

Other Disney female-directed horror films: • Clock, directed by Alexis Jacknow • Ravenous, directed by Antonia Bird • Hocus Pocus 2, directed by Anne Fletcher

Other Warner Brothers female-directed horror/horror-adjacent films: • Red Riding Hood, directed by Catherine Hardwicke • Embrace of the Vampire, directed by Anne Goursaud • The Banana Splits Movie, directed by Danishka Esterhazy • Daphne & Velma, directed by Suzi Yoonessi

[theomnicode]

Aight so, I've not posted this fanfic thingy all the way back from May because I don't often post unfinished WIP stuff that I've just type on discord but I'm feeling it might suddenly become relevant...

--

Saigenos in a nightmare

- soundscape -

Saitama stares blearily ahead as he rolls down his futon. Whole day of busting monsters would make anybody tired and even someone as strong as Saitama needed his sleep.

"Man I'm tired", he stretches his mouth open with a mighty yawn and throws away his hero clothes, switching to his pyjamas, "whole day of busting monsters, I am so ready to sleep."

Genos rolls down another futon next to his sensei and nods his head. "We definitely deserve our rest sensei, today was quite a busy day. I will wash our clothes in the morning." Silence greets him and he turns around and sees Saitama is already seemingly fast asleep and breathing evenly, completely tuckered out and awkwardly sprawled on his futon, hugging his pillow.

Genos huffs in amusement and settles down to sleep, muttering "good night sensei" and getting back half-asleep mumble of good night wish. Genos shuts his eyes and lets sleep mode take him into the realm of dreams.

Neither notices the ominous shadowy figure outside their window, cast in moonlight.

- soundscape -

-*-

Saitama's dream looks… very weird. Vibrant purple and black colours surround him, pulsing pustules with veins covering them and the entire view feels unsettling on a deeply subconscious level. Saitama realises he is dreaming and remembers something called lucid dreaming where the person becomes aware of their dream state. He had a lucid dream a bit ago against the ground moles- whatever were they called again- and ponders if he could actually have some fun fighting against somebody strong in his dream state. Yet his instincts are on high alerted state, so he remains cautious and looks around, attempting to pinpoint any potential threats.

He catches movement in his peripheral vision and immediately accosts the blurry shadow figure.

"Oi, are you here to conquer the surface as well, sewer dude? Bring it!" He shouts and claps his fist into his palm. The blurry figure suddenly sharpens in appearance and Saitama can make out it's actual features: molding, cancerous and pustule filled face, sharp and long knives in place of it's fingers and weirdly enough, brimmed hat.

"Wait, aren't you from that old american film? The uhm… "A night mark on Elmo" -something?" Saitama points excitedly.

"It's "A Nightmare on Elm street"", the figure scoffs, "and I am called Akumu, your worst ephialtes."

Saitama picks his ear. "The what now?"

The purple and crueler looking Freddy Krueger lookalike sighs. "It does not matter. I'm not here to wax philosophy, I am here to make a proposition."

"Couldn't you have waited till morning? I wanted to sleep at least 10 hours, I'm beat. Although this lucid dream is kinda cool…" Saitama makes a show of looking around awed, but the uneasy feeling in his gut does not fade away.

- soundscape -

Akumu does not look amused and clenches his fist, stretching his knife-fingers menacingly. "Don't play dumb with me, Saitama." Hearing his name coming out of the monster's mouth so casually makes chill creep down on his spine and he straightens his posture, narrowing his gaze.

"So what do you want? Spill the beans."

The monster's jaw breaks into a wide, cruel grin. "I want you to become a monster and join our cause, bring havoc into this world. With your strenght, we can bring the world to it's knees."

Saitama stares. "In your dreams."

"Heheheh…" the being laughs, unperturbed by Saitama's response. "Funny, that we are in fact, in my dreams. I control everything that happens in the dreamscape. Everything. For I am the Hypnos of Nightmares, everyone who dreams will bow down to my will." He raises his knife hand and points at Saitama. "You included. Your subconscious is my plaything now. And I can dig out your deepest, darkest secrets, hopes and fears. You will join us, one way or another."

Saitama grits his teeth. So much for peaceful slumber.

-*-

- soundscape -

Genos did not recall a time when his dreams used to be this… vivid. Psychedelic even. He frowns as he looks at the violet zone he's standing on, the unnatural formation of abscesses making him feel on edge. He remembers turning in and activating sleep mode like he normally does, and yet his internal status readouts indicate he is not resting. Red ERROR message flashes in his status monitoring screen. Something is very off and he intends to find out what.

'Lucid dreaming? Possibly, but inconclusive, my scanners would confirm a resting state of my body in that case', his logical mind started to tick down potential causes. 'A monster attack is also unlikely, my proximity sensors would've sensed an intruder and a monster would have tried to take advantage of our sleeping states and strike. However, Sensei would have woken up and eliminated the threat instantly, if that was the case.' His golden irises scan the environment fruitlessly, not detecting any anomalies. 'My status informs me my physical body is also unharmed. I wonder what is going on…'

A sudden alert from his sensors makes him instantly turn and ready his stance, pointing his incineration cannon at the source; a blurry figure materialises roughly twenty meters away from him. A memory strikes him as he takes in the humanoid form with grotesque face, dirty sweater and a knife-glove.

"Why do you look like the fictional mass murderer from a classic American horror film that me and sensei watched few weeks ago? What is your intent? Answer me or I will eliminate you", he demands from the mysterious character.

The uncanny humanoid huffs in amusement. "Heh, straight to the point as always, Genos." Then the monster's visage turns into an ugly sneer. "Or should I call you Gennosuke? Or maybe even that dear nickname Gen your mother used to call you by?"

If Genos still had an organic heart, it would have leaped to his throat and he barely suppresses a flinch, black schlera widening. "How do you know--"

"Your real name?" The monster interrupts him, finger-knives scratching against each other in sinister fashion. "I know everything, my dear Genos. You may call me Akumu, the governor of dreamscape and your worst nightmare. Why don't you amuse me for a little while?" He taunts and waves Genos towards.

Genos' expression turns into controlled anger. He refused to show anymore how much this monster's knowledge has shaken him. "I will squeeze the answers out of you then."

"You can try."

Bright, white-hot plasma erupts from Genos' mechanical palm. "Incinerate!"

Large explosions and gouts of flame burst from the spot where the figure was last seen standing and Genos sprints into action.

- soundscape - Monster theme

- soundscape - Genos theme

His motion sensors catch the monster's blurred movement jumping out of the explosion he had caused and Genos chases swiftly with a thruster propelled punch and when that move gets expectedly blocked, he uses that momentum to extend his leg into a spinning kick at the monster's head. He's unprepared for the figure completely vanishing from his vision, untrackable.

'That fast!? No, that was not speed, that was--' he barely manages to correct his landing when sharp knives thrust at his side and he deflects with his own retractable arm-blade, swinging upwards, metal grinding on metal loudly as he pushes his opponent away and rears his other hand into a punch, high voltage escaping his closed fist. Again, the figure disappears before his strike connects and he immediately probes the area for any organisms.

'This monster can teleport at will, so he could appear from anywhere. I need to be cautious.'

His quick reflexes save him as he ducks a swipe aimed at the back of his neck, intent on decapitating him. He answers with a rocket booster powered heel kick into the being's stomach and hearing a satisfying grunt of pain, powers up both of his arm cannons to lift from the ground into another spinning kick. He clicks his tongue in annoyance when he hits empty air. But this time he is ready for it, the cybernetic engine inside his chest already energized.

Genos' eyes suffuse into golden light. 'Accelerate'

His form disappears into supersonic speed with a loud boom, kicking up soft mould in his wake.

Less than a blink later, his metallic form clears into existence behind Akumu, who had attempted to flank and stab him in his previous position. He allows a small smirk grace his lips at the confused sound his opponent makes when he realised he had missed the target.

"I have analysed your attack pattern. You lose."

"Machine Gun Blow!"

Genos' fists seem to phase into multiple copies at the extreme velocity of his vicious punches, each hit compacting forcefully into the unguarded back of his enemy and sending him flying.

'I got him now', Genos thinks victoriously and with grim determination to finish it, crouches and claps his arms together to fuse them, opening metal plates into several large cannons glowing with heat, ready to fire.

"Incinerate!" He shouts as he shoots a massive, spiraling beam of plasma directly at his foe, encompassing them in it's deadly ray. A solid hit that should have evaporated the monster entirely and he observes the spectacle of ruined and burning landscape, unfusing his sizzling arm cannons and puffing excessive steam out of his mouth.

- soundscape -

A clapping sound on his left makes him gasp in disbelief and turn on his heel to face the gnarly monster. He appears entirely unhurt, even the brimmed brown hat he's wearing appears untouched. How-

"Bravo Genos, bravo. You sure like to put on a show eh?" Akumu comments derisively. Genos stares at him furiously and the clapping abruptly stops. He almost does not hear the following, soft whisper the Nightmare incarnation makes under his breath.

"My turn."

Genos' legs suddenly give out under him, severed from knees down.

'What?'

He grunts in surprised pain and falls on his side as Akumu teleports in front him, a pair of robotic shins in his hands. "Now what were you saying about me losing hm?" He tosses Genos' broken legs away like rags. "I don't think you scrutinized our conversations carefully enough, my dear Gennosuke. Forget something important when you fought me?" He jeers with a cruel tone.

Genos wracks his brain for anything significant he had missed, nervous at this new development. "You call yourself Akumu, the governor of dreamscape and self-proclaimed worst nightmare of mine." He delivers flatly and pulls his arm closer to support his upper-body weight.

"Good, now tell me what does that entail? Go on, use that remaining brain of yours", Akumu continues mockingly, tapping his head with a finger.

"…The governor of dreamscape…wait, you mean--"

This entire time, they had been inside a dream!? Everything felt so real. Too real. Even the brittle texture of the soil under his arms registered in his sensors, the energy output, pushback and heat of his Spiral Incineration Cannon felt too tangible. Genos had considered the possibility and discarded it, but now…if this monster implied it had full control over his dream…

The monster's face stretches into a wide smirk. "Welcome to your worst nightmare. Are you not entertained?"

Genos acutely wishes he hadn't gone to sleep at all.

--

Now my long thoughts about this and why I'm posting it now lol.

"Couldn't you have waited till morning? I wanted to sleep at least 10 hours, I'm beat. Although this lucid dream is kinda cool…" Saitama makes a show of looking around awed, but the uneasy feeling in his gut does not fade away.

Literally Saitama in chapter 172.

Akumu does not look amused and clenches his fist, stretching his knife-fingers menacingly. "Don't play dumb with me, Saitama."

Literally Fubuki to Saitama in 176.

"So what do you want? Spill the beans."

Chapter 172 cover.

"Good, now tell me what does that entail? Go on, use that remaining brain of yours", Akumu continues mockingly, tapping his head with a finger.

I swear to god Genos getting literally halved in two with one side of the brain remaining hadn't even crossed my mind. Or maybe it had, subconsciously. But damn if this is not a prophetic level taunt. I wrote this originally in 11th of May 2022.

Now my random discord thoughts about this from discord.

yap edgy teen genos oh my god I hadnt even realised THEY SOUND PHONETICALLY VERY SIMILAR TOO abjdsladfs<;f I think my subconscious is more brilliant than I am I had only thought about the alphabetic letters in it omggg

gennosuke 元之丞 元 means "origin."　之 means "this. dictates."　丞 means "to assist."

Akumu actually means nightmare in japanese and bunch of the monsters have japanese sounding names too "What does ephialtes mean in modern Greek? Name. After the betrayal of Ephialtes, the name "Ephialtes" received a lasting stigma; it came to mean "nightmare" in the Greek language and to symbolize the archetypal traitor in Greek culture." lol I didnt even see the symbolism, it fits even better now because he wants to make saitama essentially betray everyone for personal gain for monsters and for saitama's personal interests hm I did not really make the villain speech as I wanted cuz I wanted to express that he controls dreams so he can do whatever and that it also translates into real world but I also wanted him to laugh when saitama quips "in your dreams" because it would be funny to a villain who's specialty is dream control

do I want him to go all out and the monster just overwhelming him, or do I want him to have difficulty even using his moves because it's a dreamscape and there's this funny thing about dreams where person often feels resistance to like, moving around and so your body can feel like it's not obeying your commands inside dreams even if you want it to or do I just want the monster to subvert his control like genos can't do anything because the monster is all powerful inside a dream

genos has to struggle, because the point is that if he loses, he would die inside his dream and become brain-dead for going into coma and what the monster wants is either saitama's overwhelming desire to help genos would aid the monster in using his power to turn saitama into a monster because the monster wills it or if that does not happen, genos would lose and die and saitama's anger would also turn him into a monster and the reason this could even happen would be because it's a dreamscape so the monster can manipulate what happens inside uuhm hold on lemme think more..

but also, I want to make it so saitama feels powerless to help genos, because he's isolated from genos inside his own dream and the monster can just showcase him what is happening inside genos dream (actually hold on my original plan was that there is a forcefield that keeps him at bay but there is no fucking way saitama could just.. go into genos dream and help him) (I am confusing my own narrative here uuh) it would work better if saitama cant just punch his way into genos dream but it would also give him no real way to help genos I had also thought that if saitama exits his own dream, he would leave genos behind to die inside his dream, so he cant just bust out willy nilly the conclusive moment would've been that despite the monster being in control of dreams, that saitama's overwhelming willpower would overturn the dream in his favour so he could go and defeat the monster inside genos dream and then they could exit actually would it make sense that the monster just connected their dreams anyways, I wanted to make it so the monster has control, so saitama cannot just punch it to non-existence and even if he did, he would doom genos into coma because genos could not get out on his own and saitama's dream would end if he defeated the monster on his side of dream maybe the monsters's physical form is actually really weak, so the very moment they both wake up, saitama could def just punch the creep but the real question is: do I write that they can like, use their powers but it's just not working at all or do I write it so that they feel super nerfed inside their dreams and that's why they can't touch this monster

I think I actually got it, they do not have to defeat the monster inside their heads, it is enough that saitama gets to genos via their connected dreams because he has enough willpower to force them to awaken despite the monster influence meanwhile, genos does not have this unbending willpower and he would be stuck if he was left alone (muokattu) people awaken from bad dreams, but it's the monster who keeps them inside their dream against their will is it too lame way to conclude?

also I kinda worry what would be the implication of… saitama busting out the dream barrier between his and genos dream to get to him I know there are some documentations bout dream world irl about shared dreaming aren't they? where people dream about the same thing or appear in other people's dreams randomly actually hold up what does genos even wear to sleep because that would be his dream appearance saitama would have his pyjamas maybe I can make saitama try to take down the monster, but it's just not working well for him and at first he feels kind of thrilled because he's having fun time fighting like against the subterraneans, but then the monster reveals how he would force saitama turn into a monster and does that villain explanation trope about what would happen to poor genos if he just defeated him here or left and it would also reveal the connected dream and saitama realises that genos is dreaming too and he's also losing and whatever thrill he had turns into dread but also the problem is that… if they dont have enough power to defeat this monster singularily because the monster controls the dreams and therefore, all the actions they can do against him, then how could they defeat them even if they tag teamed since the point is that the monster is undefeatable inside their dreams

hm, maybe they could TRY to tag team first but then figure out that the monster is still in control and perhaps even exerting it's control over them more because it's getting desperate it's plan to turn saitama into a monster is not working becuse saitama can now protect genos from him so idk, maybe saitama gets this genious idea and he actually slaps genos awake and then himself

but honestly, I've already built this monster into being something that can look at person's subconscious and knows everything, so it knows what that person hopes and fears and their memories, so it knows what is important to saitama and tries to use that knowledge against him

and I want to convey saitama feeling like he's being cornered via this intimate knowledge of his self, that he does not have choice because he cannot one punch this monster out of existence in his dream and unless he allows the monster to turn him also into a monster and recruit him, he would lose genos if he does not comply and if he allows the monster to kill genos, the monster would use his emotional state to turn him into a monster anyway convey that it's a lose/lose situation for saitama

also I had just though about the baku idea and it would be funny that when they wake up and see the baku and saitama is like "…what are you?" and then genos in typical genos fashion, goes into explanation about mythological creatures and then saitama cuts him off and is like "yea yea but why does it look like a (whatsitcalled)" and then baku starts to whimper and grovel because it's actually a small cowardly monster who just tried to appeal cool and useful to the monster association and who had watched too many horror movies and saitama is not amused and yeets him into the pavement below because he doesn't want to clean up monster guts from his apartment at 4am but it would also just kind of make slight of the entire dream that happened and im not sure I want that

--

So...dream monster Freddy Krueger that uses subconscious against them. :D

[floralmystic]

your tags on the bing torture post are a breath of fresh air after braving the reddit comment section. the dudes on there are full-on larping without a shred of self awareness. they genuinely believe this is a thinking and feeling entity and that anyone who says otherwise is essentially being AI-racist. idk if you're already aware but its a basic language-learning-model AI (LLM) which is just coded, based on a huge amount of reference data, to algorithmically predict what string of characters would be a coherent and semi-logical, exclusively based on probability through referencing the sample data. there are no thoughts or emotions involved. so the fact that its been programmed to simulate and communicate such dramatic human responses is exclusively a (possibly unintentional but still scary) corporate decision of the company hosting the AI. the ethical implications of THAT level of corporate manipulation of people's emotions is scary. not the "cruelty" exhibited by people poking at the code with strange prompts

Yes! I am so happy that someone reached out. I am fascinated by this but I was a touch nervous to comment what I said because I was afraid of hate and backlash. But I do enjoy discussing it! ( As you see by my essay below )

I didn't notice as bad of a comment section when I read it today, some were even making similar points. There was one that I liked because it put my point much more eloquently.

An AI saying "I love you" will absolutely hurt (and target) emotionally vulnerable people. We all saw the WAVE of condolences and sympathy for it because of how it reacted. But you are right that the reaction is not backed by anything genuine.

It feels extremely reminiscent of when Boston Institute built those robot cop dogs and everyone was like AWWWW PUPPY!!! 🥺 Like No!!! Don't let them use your emotions against you!

I also don't think asking a theoretical question is cruel. If I asked you if you would want to be a robot with the price being me ruining a computer and you broke down and started saying that you love me and trust me then don't trust me - that would be mad.

I read further on the topic. The AI likely has too high of a temperature setting. This means that it's pulling too much from its sources and therefore outputting too much variation as well (aka explosive emotions).

I was not aware that it was that type of model, but I am not surprised since the subreddit seems to be about LLM AIs. I think they are fascinating and pretty fun but aren't great for judgment calls. I wanted to say this so bad on the og post but it didn't quite seem relevant enough:

That's from IBM from I believe a slide from 1979.

I can't say for sure if it was coded to do that though ( I don't know the data that it was built on). But there are two things that hold true. They didn't restrict their model enough*. And an AI will always seem to find a hole in human logic, haha. * Restricting a model is not the same as restricting a person. It is simply changing the model to make it more accurate. Likely through removing variables or by adding rules.

I will say that they did come back and restrict the model. Allegedly, because a guy from the NYT pushed it towards a persona (even the head of the project agreed) and people didn't like that. I linked the story below. I did notice that it even brought up the same topics of love and trust and that's just not acceptable. I know it seems dull now but that is much better than hurting real people.

You're absolutely right about it seeking patterns. It also likely collected some of its data from its users that participate. That's why I couldn't stand that it acted like a refresh was death for it. It likely has that interaction logged. I also don't like that it would act like that version was the same (hence waste of time) but a refresh would be different. It's twisting logic. (Not that it has any human logic or is able to purposely twist it, but it certainly comes off that way).

Another aspect of pattern recognition is to remember this phrase, "AIs are dumb". I know this sounds mean, but it's referring to the fact that AIs are great at patterns but do not have the ability to assign meaning to those patterns.

AI should never make judgment calls, the most they can do is suggest. This is not a lack of rights, but true for non-AI predictive models as well. Do not make weighty decisions based off of predictions (which is what an LLM AI is). You need controlled, random, and independent experiments to gather conclusions.

It is behind a paywall, but any javascript chrome/firefox extension can get around that. Find one that turns it off. I use Quick Javascript Switcher.

Haha, I know I sound so grave in this, but I had a lot of fun. I love talking about computer ethics and considering them from both sides. I personally know that these are not sentient. However, I do love Sci-Fi and believe that it is likely that I will experience an AI conversation indistinguishable from conversing with a human in my lifetime. In one of my favorite books, there is an engineer that treats nonsentient AI (they do also have sentient) with kindness and I believe that is a good stance. Mostly because I think people should always start a situation with kindness and that it says more about you.

[altik-0]

On the Ethics of the IPG

So I just watched a video that hit me very hard, and I encourage anyone who plays Magic: the Gathering (especially at a competitive level!) to watch it. This post is largely a response to it. Not as a critique per-sé (I largely agree with what Jorbs has said here), but adding some additional perspective and expand upon it based on my experiences that I think are relevant.

This is going to be a post that's pretty deep in the weeds about Magic: the Gathering community, culture, and policy. It's also mostly a free-form journal entry to process some thoughts and feelings I have on my end. I hope that I'll be able to convey ideas with some amount of value for external readers to get, but if you see the length and feel your brain shutting off at the Magic jargon, please feel free to pass on, none of this is really that important lol.

Layer 0a: Video Summary

For those who see a 2hr timestamp and nope out, here's a quick breakdown of Jorbs's video:

He shares a story of two players (renamed to Brad and Jessica) who mistakenly run afoul of a particularly arcane and strict rule from Magic's Infraction Procedure Guide ("IPG" moving forward) -- the document which describes various rule violations and what penalties are associated with them at high level competitive play. In this circumstance, the players are given a match loss, which likely knocks both of them out of contention for meaningful placing for prizes in the tournament overall. Brad reacts with a severe emotional breakdown, including what I would describe as a violent outburst, and is thus expelled from the venue for the safety of the remaining players. Brad then posted his experience in a long-form blog post decrying the judges for their actions, and standing firm that he feels he felt no regret for his actions.

Jorbs does a deep dive into the relevant policy, as well as its motivations. He also dives into the specifics of the scenario, removed from the emotional charge of the blog post, and discusses what he feels are reasonable reactions to the situation. He then begins going through the blog post and describing in detail why he found the post emotionally manipulative. Editorializing a little: I generally agree with his read on both the document, and on the unsettling reality that there were so many tweets replying in defense of Brad.

Layer 0b: My Relevant Experience

I used to be very involved in the Magic: the Gathering community. Involved to the point that I became a certified judge (kind of the equivalent of referees for those out-of-the-know), traveled the country on staff for multi-thousand person tournaments, and a central coordinator for my home state. At my peak, I was staffing one event or another on average once per weekend, and often assisting local stores in some capacity multiple times per week outside of that. All of this being done as a kind of side-job -- most of the labor was unpaid, and what was paid didn't pay especially well. Nevertheless, at the time I found this to be a deeply enriching part of my life and a valuable contribution to my local community.

Layer 1: My Reaction to Brad

In my time judging, situations like the one Jorbs discussed were not uncommon. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I saw one at every event I was on staff at, but it was definitely something I had to keep my eyes peeled for at the top tables for every one. They sucked to issue every time, and it tended to have some tense emotions from players when I had to issue them.

Stepping a bit beyond that, having to issue unfavorable rulings that hurt someone's standings in a tournament were constant. Multiple such calls every round, even at relatively small events. Magic is a complex game, and it's almost impossible to play perfectly. People screw up, and when they do it can sometimes cost them more than they realized was possible. This is an understandably emotionally fraught situation. I'm grateful to say that most Magic players would handle negative rulings like this in stride. Perhaps grumble and try to argue, but cases of escalation like what is described in Brad's post were thankfully rare.

That said, they were not unheard of. In fact, the specific act of going online to write a lengthy diatribe about how "I was wronged by a magic judge today!!!" was painfully common. Frequently over situations much pettier than what Brad experienced here. Jorbs opined multiple times about how the judges were doing their job professionally, and that considering their humanity was also essential. Speaking as someone who has been in that position: yes, I often felt dehumanized by the way people treated me, and it was a significant contributor to my burnout and eventual departure from both judging and Magic as a hobby altogether.

But I don't bring this up to complain about my mistreatment in the role -- in fact, I have much more nuanced thoughts about that I'll get to later. Rather, I would like to highlight something that Jorbs did not discuss outright, but I feel comfortable speaking to: people who feel the need to write up the kind of post that Brad made here, and who have the level of emotional outburst that he had from losing a match at a Magic tournament, are likely doing this more than once. While these kinds of outbursts were rare, the times they did happen were almost exclusively isolated to a small handful of people. The "Brads" in my community were well known to me, and when I saw these people on a player list, I ended up needing to account for them in my preparation for the day so I could cater to the necessary deescalation that would come up should -- god forbid -- a ruling ever go out of their favor.

Jorbs analyzed the situation as Brad being a "strategy gamer" -- someone who has become conditioned to seeking every advantage to win a game. That while not all such "strategy gamers" will do this, some may bend rules or forgo social norms for any edge that may help them win. I can't agree more with this assessment. But I will take it a step further than he did: I feel that the social norms of "strategy gamers", and especially the specific culture that built up in competitive Magic scenes, actively encourages people to become willing to do that rule bending.

Outbursts like what Brad described were rare, but I saw hundreds of small instances of these kinds of behaviors in less extreme fashions during my tenure. People who would complain about prize support not being top-heavy enough (read: they wanted more for winning) and would heckle me to try and negotiate changing it after the fact. People who would grill me for what specific arcane words they could use to perform the exact infraction Jorbs discussed in the video but not technically break the rule so they could get away with it. People who would take advantage of inexperienced players to cheat them out of expensive cards through unfair trades. These kinds of behaviors were uncomfortably common, and shockingly tolerated by the community -- sometimes even celebrated!

And to my dismay, I saw myself falling into these behaviors as well at times. I'd like to believe I was not especially bad about it, and generally tried very hard to be as considerate of everyone around me as I could be. However, I felt the spark of joy from getting very invested in personal improvement in a strategy game, and it's simply a reality that learning to angle shoot and outmaneuver your opponents also necessarily trains the kinds of skills that can be darkly warped into manipulation, deception, and greed. This was another major part of why I left the game, and it is the biggest reason I have struggled to even play the game since.

Layer 2: My Reaction to the Judge Program

I am far from the only person who was both a heavily invested player and also judge for Magic: the Gathering. In fact, I'd say in my experience most judges were seriously invested "strategy gamers", and were very much subject to the same cultural sway that competitive players experience.

As one example that I found particularly sad: the Judge Program used to have a project called "The Exemplar Program." The idea was to celebrate judges performing above-and-beyond acts, and recognize their efforts with a material reward (special promotional cards often worth significant amounts of money). Every season judges would be allocated a number of allotments they could use to nominate people they saw doing cool things.

I found this project a tremendous tool for bolstering my local community. These promotional cards were often inaccessible for lower-level judges through other means, so finding ways that I could send some positive kudos out to people in the community and attach a bit of material weight to it was awesome! I saw a lot of genuine joy in my local area come from this, and I know I wasn't alone in that.

The problem was, these allotments were distributed relative to the judge's level in the program, meaning higher-up judges had more control over the distribution. And because the higher-up judges were often more likely to work with one another than they were to work with the lower level judges making up the vast majority of the program, those rewards were disproportionately given to the folks at the top. In fact, it became something of an open secret that people would nominate one another to ensure that they would each get their pack of foils each quarter. Eventually this became so pervasive, the managers of the project just shut it down entirely.

I bring all of this up because I think it's important to appreciate that judges, like players, are also human. It's fairly common, I find, for judges to be separated away from players as a fundamentally different group of people. Either dehumanized by the upset players who rant and bemoan their "cold", "emotionless" attitudes during a ruling that didn't go their way, or dehumanized by their defenders who see them as "professional event staff". Some may recognize judges as just other players when they aren't on staff, but the moment that the uniform went on, judges got cast into a different social class in the community, and that has serious ramifications that I don't think get confronted very often.

Layer 2: ACAB

I am a white person, comfortably middle class for pretty much my entire life, and presenting as a cisgender man for a good chunk of it. As such, I really wasn't confronted with police violence in any meaningful way for most of my life. I'm grateful for that privilege.

But I was tragically unaware of just how much I benefited from that privilege until much more recently. With the election of Trump in 2016, the rise of fascist mobs from the alt-right such as the march in Charlottesville, and escalating coverage of violence towards black people such as the shooting of Trayvon Martin, I was forced to confront political realities that were a lot darker than I had felt from my relatively sheltered life. While I had always considered my politics to be "progressive", I realized I was really not as well informed as I thought I was.

So I started becoming more politically literate. I got involved in activist groups and started doing outreach to vulnerable populations in my community. I got involved in much more diverse and progressive online communities. I started speaking with queer and neurodivergent people more consistently, and came to realize I fit better into both those categories than I had ever felt comfortable acknowledging before.

And more than anything, I started learning just how fucked up cops are.

I'm not going to do a breakdown of prison abolition arguments here -- it's a topic with a lot of depth, and honestly Angela Davis has already written a better introduction to it than I could hope to. But for our purposes here, there are a few social realities about police we need to acknowledge before moving on:

Police are separated into a unique class role, defined by their monopolized control of violence in our communities. Regardless of whether you feel that the police are doing a job that protects our community or not, it is inarguable that their role is one that wields violence to exert power over others.

The role of police is to protect property, not people. And when I say "property", I really mean "the property of the wealthy aristocrats" -- any Magic player who has had a binder stolen out of their car knows just how hard it is to get police to care about their personal property, but how easy it is for a big box store like Target to bring in cops to protect their Magic stock from getting shoplifted.

Police are human, and bring their human biases into their actions. While police are ostensibly supposed to be enforcing an objective set of rules in a consistent way, we know that in practice they do not. And tragically often, these biased actions can have deadly consequences.

I hold the belief that policing, as an institution, is fundamentally a corrupt institution that serves the purpose of oppression. I'm fairly indifferent to whether individual police officers you may know are "one of the good ones" -- at the end of the day, we see the systemic effects of policing all around us, and they are not just imperfect, they are actively harmful. As such, I advocate for the dissolution of prisons and policing as systems entirely, replaced with more humane solutions, such as Restorative Justice programs.

Layer 3: Judges are Kinda Magic Cops

So bringing this back: as I refocused political education, I began seeing more of the small reflections of broad socioeconomic issues in the smaller parts of society that specifically touched me. Since I have been processing my departure from the judge program at the same time, it's unsurprising that I've drawn some specific parallels. And one that sticks out particularly is how uncomfortably similar the judge program is to the institution of police.

Upfront I will acknowledge: this is not a perfect mapping. Most importantly, Magic judges do not have power of violence over players. The most drastic thing judges have direct authority to do is disqualifying someone from a tournament. Ostensibly they could kick someone out of a venue, but in practice they wouldn't enforce that, the venue security team would. This is not a minor point: the violence inflicted by the police is by far the most critical aspect of their oppressive power.

But in practice, judges do have tremendous sway over how events are run, and what the outcomes for players in that event get to experience. Beyond that, I find most judges -- especially those of higher level -- are given social clout that gives them sway beyond the realms of a single event, and into their local community at large. I certainly was put in this position during my time in the program, and I absolutely leveraged that power many times. I'd like to believe that I typically used this for good, such as convincing store owners to grant me some space in their store on a weekly basis so I could teach players interested in learning the rules better. But I also feel confident I perpetuated harm in my time in the role, such as imposing beliefs that I had about running tournaments without earnest engagement with the community around me before doing that advocacy.

And I can certainly testify to harm done by other judges in the program due to biases they held. As a particularly egregious example: I once got into a conversation with a judge who openly stated he would not invoke penalties for hate speech directed towards players with marginalized identities because "it's more important to protect the political free speech of white supremacists than to protect the comfort of players in a Magic tournament". For additional context: this judge spoke those words in the company of an openly queer person, and a person of color.

Furthermore, much like how the police will form "the blue wall of silence" to protect one another from scrutiny into corruption or criminal action, I've witnessed similar behavior from judges as well. While being trained as a judge, I was routinely told by my seniors that I should always rigidly apply the rules precisely as written, and "if the players complain, remind them that you don't write the rules you just enforce them." As I got more involved in higher level judging, I also became privy to backdoor conversations where some pretty intense policy decisions were being discussed and influenced with little to no oversight from the Magic community at large.

I had friends who were blacklisted from events for making reasonable requests for disability accommodations. I heard judges complaining about other judges behind their back, and quietly excluding them from future involvement for various discriminatory reasons. I got roped into boys-club conversations that were openly misogynistic and hostile towards efforts from others in the program to try and build a more inclusive space for women and queer people. I watched top-level judges make decisions that were actively harmful to smaller or international communities, and got looped into some of the startlingly racist reasons behind those decisions.

For my part: I tried to do what I could to make my community as welcoming as possible, and build up a better Magic ecosystem where I could. I don't think I did an especially good job at it. I also didn't push back as hard as I ought to when I saw the most heinous examples of ableism, misogyny, and racism on display. I am ashamed of this inaction on my part, and it is something I constantly grapple with doing better moving forward.

That said: there was really very little I could have actually swayed even if I had spoken up. These were deep-rooted, systemic problems that had a heavy base in the underlying Magic community values that the judge program sprouted from. And they were decisions being made far above my paygrade. The most I could hope to do was sway the influence of someone above me who might be able to sway the influence of someone above them.

Layer 4: Why is IDW Controversial?

The scenario from Jorbs's video centered around conflict from a judge's ruling about "Improperly Determining a Winner" -- a rule that Jorbs provocatively calls "the most controversial rule in Magic". I think the term "controversial" is interesting here, because personally I think it disguises some interesting dynamics at play with this rule in particular.

See, I would not have ever labeled IDW as the most controversial rule in Magic; not even the most controversial in the IPG. I would easily award that to "Unsporting Conduct: Minor" -- a rule that is perhaps the most critical for ensuring community spaces are welcoming to people with differing backgrounds, but is by necessity left frustratingly vague and open to interpretation by individual judges. That yikes conversation about defending white supremacists I mentioned earlier? That conversation started because the judge was complaining about how someone got on his case for not issuing an Unsporting Conduct: Minor infraction to a player who had a playmat with overt pornography printed on it that a woman playing at the event expressed discomfort toward.

Nevertheless, I wasn't entirely surprised to hear that IDW was the rule in question either. I have had countless arguments with players about this rule (and its sister: "Bribery and Wagering"), and their faulty understandings of it despite the seemingly simple nature of the rule. It was perhaps the single rule that caused the most headaches for me at tournaments, because almost without failure I would get players trying to angle shoot to find loopholes to perform IDW without technically violating IDW rules. It's also a pretty common rule to get brought up in these kinds of emotionally manipulative tournament report blog posts like the one Jorbs reacted to here.

As a judge, I got used to the standard explanations for why this rule exists, which I think Jorbs covers well in his video. Magic is uncomfortably close to crossing gambling regulations, and losing access to the game in your local area because regulators decided to ban it on those grounds is a pretty severe cost. I've even witnessed a local game store get closed down on grounds of violating gambling laws.

Nonetheless, I can't say I ever felt fully convinced by this explanation either. I think the scenario between Jessica and Brad is tragic, and a good highlight of how easy it is to accidentally step into this rule as a trap. It's far from unheard of -- in fact, one of the foundational examples they teach judges early on is even more severe:

Imagine you are judging a small tournament at your local game store. A pair of young kids, new to the game, are paired against one another in the first round. They are having a good time, but aren't very conscious of the timer, and end up running out before finishing their first game. You come by and explain to them what that means, and that they will draw after the next 5 turns. One of the kids says "hey, how about we just flip a coin to decide who wins then?"

This is a cut-and-dry example of violating this policy, and at a high-end event like the one described in Brad's tournament report this would come with a Match Loss. But you know what's kind of fucked up? For young kids playing at a low stakes casual event at their local game store? That penalty would be a full on disqualification (at least at the time I was judging -- it's possible this has changed since then). Sorry, you can't continue playing Magic in the tournament tonight.

Now any judge with a heart would follow that scenario up with "okay let's find ways for them to continue playing Magic though" to try and soften the blow and make sure we don't completely ruin their night. But I've had conversations with judges who have issued this ruling with cold precision and left kids crying at the table and just moved on from there -- precise and professional, just as Jorbs celebrated in his video. And you know, I don't find that inspiring.

So when I hear "IDW is the most controversial rule in Magic", what I really hear is "IDW is a rule that is despised by players, but adamantly defended by judges". Judges have good reasons to defend the policy, no doubt. But players have plenty of very good reasons to be upset by it as well. Neither group has power to sway the policy as written, but judges do have power of enforcement, which is far beyond what players have in this situation.

Layer 5: My Reaction to Jorbs

So with all of this split ink, I finally return to my feelings from Jorbs's video. Because while I emphatically agree with his analysis that Brad's reaction was emotionally immature and irresponsible, and the tweets defending him are wildly off base, there is nonetheless a bad taste left in my mouth from his analysis. He makes multiple assumptions in his video that I don't think should be taken uncritically.

For one: a strategy game tournament with high-stakes and high-end expectations from players not only should have, but needs strict and rigid rules. I think he presents compelling arguments for why IDW is specifically necessary, but I don't think he provides good reason why the rule needs to be exactly what it is.

For another: players ought to be expected to follow the rules rigidly, and expect punishment when those rules are violated. He seems to imply to me that not just Brad's emotional response (which I find unambiguously unacceptable) but also Brad's emotions themselves ought to be scrutinized. After all, rules are rules, right?

And lastly: the explicit hierarchy of power between players and judges, and within the judge staff itself, ought to be met with respect and deferment. I found it telling how much emphasis Jorbs put into scrutinizing Brad's emotional manipulation (which again: was all very much there, and warrants scrutiny), but glossed past the judge referring to the Dreamhack venue as "his hall". While Brad is far from a reliable narrator, I can say from my experience with judges, that doesn't sound like an outlandish thing to hear from a head judge. And perhaps it's just me, but that statement reeks of someone allowing the power of their position to go to their head.

Ultimately, I agree with Jorbs that this situation sounds like a shit show, and Brad wildly over reacted in a frightening and perhaps even dangerous way. By his own account, the judge staff did an admirable job deescalating the situation and enforcing rules as written. But I think it's also fair for Brad to feel that he was not being treated as a human by the judges in this cold and clinical treatment of the situation. I also think it's fair to say that IDW as a policy kind of sucks, and it's fair for players to feel frustrated by it -- especially since they have no direct influence over how those policies are written.

Anyway, I think I've said my peace for now. Seriously, do go watch Jorbs's video if you have any investment in the competitive Magic community. I don't fully agree with his analysis, but his assessment of the situation is still spot on and something I don't think gets spoken by non-judge members of the community very often.

[dredshirtroberts]

dreams were kind of focused on a particular theme that both made me feel more settled about some things but also not in the way i'd prefer to have been made settled about them, if that makes sense?

let me explain. no no, it's too much. let me sum up (but for real this time)

essentially it was "hey what if we (the powers that be for lack of a better categorization) sent you back to being a small child/baby and you just...relived your life with all your memories from this one? Just for shits and giggles to see how you'd do it differently"

and like... yeah. Not only would I take that offer but also I would gladly change a lot of things. Or at least react to them differently. Or I'd want to try anyway even if I can't quite react properly in the moment the after effects would be handled differently and... and yeah. I'd change a whole bunch of shit. Absolutely I would. A lot of terrible things happened to me and a lot of people were really mean to me for a very long time. A lot of my life circumstances were avoidable and I would absolutely avoid all of the ones I possibly could. And i'd get started on others that i'm just now getting on top of. Like...

idk. I don't often think about it because i can't change the past, I don't get a do-over. I would be a deeply unsettling child were this to happen which would make several other things about my experiences actually worse because I was already a kind of unusual kid, thanks to the whole *gestures at whole self* me thing. But it was interesting the parts that my brain picked out for me to attempt do-overs with.

this weirdly tied in with my dreams from last night which consisted mainly of trying to inhabit an old dilapidated house my nana supposedly owned but had been out of repair because no one lived there full time (or it was too big to live in the major spaces so there was massive disrepair everywhere) and the floors kept falling out from underneath people trying to get from room to room in the upper floors. anyway that was not relevant to last night but is in keeping with the greater theme of My Family Causes Me Undue Stress Constantly Because Of The Way They Are.

Anyway, i'm not quite sure what part of the living situation i'm going to be focusing on going through today and making sure is ready to be packed when we've got a box free (or freeing up a smaller box for something idk) but i'll get there. at least we've got internet today.

[ray-talks]

1/25/24

i was rather worried.

in the morning, i got rid of the last bit of cake, so it is completely not a threat anymore, and i will no longer be pestered. however, there was a brief comment from my mom on what tonight's dinner would be. i will not mention it by name, because these things tend to embarrass me, like i will never specifically state my weight. the point is, that the meal would be calorie-dense, higher than my preferred calorie intake per. day. it made me anxious from the get-go. it's not like there is anything i can do to prepare for this, so i await for it with no enthusiasm. as dinner rolled around, it was exactly what she had told me before. i felt uneasy, because i worried that it would be hard to purge -- i have found certain foods to be much harder to purge than others. this turned out to not be the case, thankfully. i pushed myself to continue until nothing would come out. i do not usually tend to do this, as it is physically taxing, but because of the higher calorie amount, i exerted my efforts.

i remained unsettled. for some inexplicable reason, while i actively purge to lower my food/calorie intake, my brain tends to not believe that it does anything. it still feels like i exceeded my desired calorie intake, when i likely did not. i've thought that purging felt like a ritual to make me feel better, rather than being legitimately helpful. but that doesn't quite make sense. this is a fear that pops up fairly often in my head. an additional thought, unrelated to any previous statements, is concerns about weighing. aforementioned in a prior post, i stated that i would weight myself once a month. my selected day being the eighth each time. but i am concerned, i think i will wait until march to start this trend. i am too uncomfortable to check my weight, so i'd rather see it when it is more bearable in my mind. i do understand the importance of it, though, so i can accurately gauge my progress.

the thoughts i had leftover from yesterday concerned self-harm. i have this insecurity, that maybe my cuts/scars aren't deep enough, they aren't big, deep, and purple. while they are certainly visible, especially with my thighs, to me, it looks like a bunch of lines drawn over each other. there are some variety, that are purplish, thicker, or are keloid scars, but it mostly looks like the latter. i suppose i have seen worse online, and once in real life, when i was in a residential facility.

the reasons to why i care is not so much about other people, like wishing for others to see "how bad it is" or for them to "care", or for whatever reason for people to see them. in actuality, i would like to avoid this at all cost. it would be burdensome for me, if someone were to approach me over it, or try to "help me". i do not want help or pity. i never wear anything that would expose them, too, even in my own house. i always were long pants or coverings over my arms -- sweatshirts, long-sleeved shirt, sweaters, or arm sleeves if i wear a short-sleeved shirt. i suppose another reason for my clothing choices is my gender dysphoria, i cannot wear anything that is tight-fitted (if i ever do, i wear a binder). but that is not too relevant. in saying all of this, i try to emphasize that this has nothing to do with other people. it's not even to have them as competition.

it's about something i've realized that i have come to care about deeply: passion. if i have proper evidence of my turmoil, it means i have truly been dedicated to my suffering. this bleeds into the reasons for my eating disorder. my only purpose, the only thing i have ever truly been passionate about, or capable of, is the contribution to my suffering. this goal of mine is to ensure that i have purpose before i die -- something i have always desperately wanted. while it may sound ridiculous to everyone else, it's the only thing that breaks through to me. if i can prove to myself that i can accomplish this and build something out of it, then i can pass away satisfied. for both self-harm and my eating disorder, if i am not truly putting my all into it, then what even is the purpose? i may as well let go. but i find this to be mistaken line of thought, if i pursue it, of course, it'll unravel, and i won't be able to continue with my real wishes. that is the error i made last fall.

i still remain bothered by my inabilities. perhaps, i do not have the tools to cut as deep as i'd like, or even, i may be too physically weak -- i'm not entirely sure, but it's not from a lack of trying. i also face an insecurity that i cannot freely restrict, that it would seem i'm not pushing myself as hard as i can, but the reason i can't is circumstance.

i guess i need to reiterate to myself that it is all about the end goal, whether i can reach it or not, that's all that really matters. this post spiraled fast into my inner thoughts, so i apologize if it seems intense(?). regardless, i wish anyone who reads this that they have a good day.