#their core characteristics are so important to me

[tothefiniteyou]

Something that's been in my head a while concerning the brothers and their "roles", so to speak. This is meant to be about the original Mirage comics, but applies to 2003 and IDW as well. Potentially 2012, maybe more. I don't remember the exact issues, but this WILL contain spoilers for IDW and the original comics.

Raph is the one that takes on the responsibilities no one else does/wants to. He very often has to play the part of the bad guy because his convictions are more rebellious in comparison to what Splinter teaches them, core beliefs and rules that Leo in particular takes to heart. Raph keeps his family in line through his anger, for better and worse, being the one of tough love. In volume 1 of Mirage when they retreated from New York after Leo was almost killed, he calls his brother a coward for not "finishing the job" and goes off to face the Shredder alone. He almost got killed because of his impulsiveness, yes, but Leo's always been about saving his family. So really, he had the courage to face Shredder again because it was for someone else's sake. Their whole fight was kind of gruesome and full of harsh words, but at the end of it all, Leo thanks Raph for it. It's very interesting to me. It shows that Leo, even if he was originally mad, understands that his brother was only doing it because he was scared of his family being hurt again. He sees that it was for his own good, so he expresses gratitude.

Alongside that, I've said before that it's not that Raph wants to be the leader because of the title itself, but rather that he wants freedom, and for others to listen to him. He resents Leo for holding him back, not fully understanding his brother's reasoning. He focuses more on action and less on the consequences of said actions and choices.

In essence, Raph is often the one that has to do the dirty work. His parentification in Rise is even similar to this, having to parent his brothers and be the one to tell them "no", even when it isn't his responsibility. But if no one else is going to do it, then he has to be the bad guy, even if his brothers resent him for it. At his core, he always has his family in mind, even if the execution is flawed.

Raph being thought of as the shield has always felt right to me, as shields can still be used to hurt.

On to Leo - Leo is a very existential person, and that also makes him the most spiritual. Kind of a yin and yang ordeal, with him seeing how there's a balance to things. (I would also say that he needs to assign a purpose to everything, if only to rationalize bad things. It's sort of why he has a bit of a crisis in several iterations when Splinter isn't there to guide him). He's the most "warrior-like" because of the way he values life and honors things like bushido. He'll kill to protect, but that doesn't make him callous, just "strong" (putting this in quotes for multiple reasons). I think IDW tackled this quite lovely, especially when he goes on to have a greenhouse just full of life.

However, I can't say all of this without mentioning the fact that Splinter's teachings are often flawed. I've said before that a lot of Leo's major "arcs" and "growing up" is about becoming his own person and leader, and that's still very much true. Blind Sight is my favorite story to have come from the original comics, and I think it really puts into perspective how Leo struggles to see himself as anything but a weapon. It's that bad habit of his where he must assign purpose to everything, struggling when proven wrong or having to recontextualize things. There's so much more I want to say about him and his role, but a lot of it would be reiterating my points from this post. I struggle to call Leo the sword of the team considering his words to Mikey about how, if he were to throw his katana off the roof, would that be the same as throwing himself. But in Blind Sight, he does learn that he's more than just some sword for his father to wield, and that a sword not only hurts, but protects.

People infantilize Mikey wayyyy too much in this fandom for just being the youngest, which makes me have to pick and choose my words very carefully for fear of the wrong impression. He's definitely the goofball that tends to not take things as seriously, but I think something that The Last Ronin meant to emphasize is that his "raw talent" is from a place of love. It's not that he's not the best of them all just because he lacks focus, it's that he's never seen a reason for him to have to be a warrior like that. Surrounded by his brothers, he doesn't have to try so hard. He'll watch their backs and they'll watch his. He's got the same warrior's spirit as the others, it's just that he rejects some of those teachings in his own way? Raph is often seen as the contrast to Leo, and that's typically true, but I think Mikey can be as well... In a way, Mikey has the most ties to humanity, and that's why I think he's similar to Leo in some ways. Not to say the brothers don't have humanity, but... It's so hard to word what I mean, bear with me.

Being a better warrior kind of means losing his fun-loving and go with the flow nature. He would be less like Mikey. Not to say that being good at fighting exactly equates to being deadly, but that's always a possibility, you know? IDW Mikey is such a good balance and blend of his little shit characterization and his more empathetic side. When he's the first to leave and reject Splinter's ways in IDW, this shows what I mean with him being more strong than Leo's way of being considered strong. He might not be "the best", and he might not tap into his raw talent that several characters mention, but I don't think that's what he necessarily wants. Splinter's idea of strong isn't necessarily the best.... Hopefully this section makes sense and my point gets across that Mikey is both the heart and armor of the team.

And as for Donnie... Oh boy! He has to use a gun in the original comics and actually be the one to kill (since only Raph and Leo really did that from what I can remember), and it shakes him up SO BADLY... And volume 1 just ends with him not choosing to go back to the sewers with his brothers, but to stay on the farm with Splinter for a bit. This is quite a finishing scene after ending a whole war within the city...

Donnie doesn't love his brothers any less, it just goes to show that he's never wanted to be the one to have to kill, and maybe wasn't prepared for it. While Mikey is definitely a pacifist, you can argue that Donnie is more of one. Him wielding the bo even supports this idea, as it can still be deadly, but not as lethal as his brothers' weapons. He's a very soft-hearted person that prefers to invent and give life to machines.

I hate when people think he's any less skilled in fighting than his brothers, because that's wrong! He just doesn't like violence and, dare I say it, I don't think he ever wanted to be a warrior in the same way. His intellect is a mightier and more useful weapon to him, because he can use it to keep others safe and make machines that can do all sorts of things. He'll fight to protect, same as the others, but disarming is more of his goal in the end. This makes Donnie, at least to me, both the brains and armor for the group. He's more than that, but... something something, things falling apart when Donnie is missing in SAINW.

At the end of it all, something you have to remember about all of them is that, even when they grow older, they started out as nothing more than child soldiers cultivated for the sake of revenge. Killing was always in the books, but they all have a different role on the team, and killing wasn't meant to be Donnie's. He helps with plan-making and would probably rather be support than a tank, if that makes sense.

They're heroes but but but. They're just kids, too...........Gripping my head

[friendlyneighborhoodplebeian]

Damian shouldn’t be a hero. Or at least not in the future when he’s all grown up. His whole story is that he’s this godlike being that’s learning to be human, which is in contrast with the rest of his family; humans become so much more and becoming godlike. While the rest of the Batfam abandons and leaves behind civilian life Damian is reaching out for it. They look for extraordinary, but he’s finally finding ordinary. And while I like him becoming Nightwing, becoming his own hero, or taking over the LoA and turning it around to be something more morally light, him not being any of those things brings me so much joy. Because I don’t think any of those things would make him truly happy and I think he deserves a happy ending. His whole story is him becoming a “real boy” and him not stepping away from the hero life feels like a betrayal of that.

[ladysophiebeckett]

me when the fic has armando trying to be selfless and pulls the ‘I’m not good enough for you 😔you should be with someone else’ card so betty will leave him:

me when the fic has armando be extremely selfish and say ‘she can’t leave me—I won’t let her leave me 😩’ and then basically foils her getaway plans and she's tricked into staying.

[nadinediary]

The 7 Dating Bare Minimums from 𝒩adine

1. Shared Values + Belief

Values are prioritised characteristics that build who we are as individuals and our belief is what forms our world view and lifestyle. I find it easier to build a relationship with someone when your values and beliefs align. I cannot envision a relationship or even casually date someone who I can't see eye-to-eye on the core attributes that form my life and character.

I can understand being lenient on religious and political beliefs when casually dating although for long term relationships, I need to be on the same topic about religion, politics, children, cheating, etc.

2. Romantic (Considerate)

I personally can not be in a relationship or date a person who can’t exhibit romance. Romance to myself isn’t the flowers (not saying I don’t adore flowers), or the chivalrous actions shown in the rom-coms.

Romance is the small intimate actions that show you’ve been paying close attention to your loved one wants and needs. It’s the considerate small things that may take a little more time but are worth it.

3. Chivalrous

Talking about chivary, don’t get it confused, I love a chivalrous man. The door opening, pulling the seat out, making sure I’ve gotten home safe, I’m quite old fashion when it comes to dating. I love it all.

I find it charming when someone is chivalrous to everyone not just when it pertains to myself. If they see someone needing help and step in, I think that's a great trait to have. I don't want someone who just does things out of attraction but rather because of kindness.

4. Well groomed

Personally a man is most attractive when they are well groomed, actively upkeep themselves and pay great attention to their hygiene. This idea that only women get manicures and pedicures is ridiculous. I know plenty of men that like keeping their cuticle healthy.

Every man that has had the honor of taking me on a date or more, has had a skincare routine (even if it's just a three step routine). They’ve all had beautiful nails and I could tell they cared about cleanliness.

5. Adaptable + Resilient

I‘m a first-generation immigrant who has seen poverty and wealth, I’ve gone from living in the scums of rural Nirobei to the upper class Australian suburban area. This is all because of God’s blessing and my family’s resilience.

I need a partner who is both resilient and adaptable when in situations less than ideal. I’m a strong minded individual and hope the same for my partner.

6. Communicative

We’ve all heard about the importance of communication in relationships but not all communication is healthy.

It's important for your partner to be open to hearing you, a lot of people lack listening skills so it's precious when you find someone who really listens and respects you. Trauma can cause people to close up but there are many different ways to communicate from written to spoken, as long as my partner shows they are communicative I don't care.

7. Generous

I come from a generous family, I’m surrounded by generous people and I myself am always ready to give if someone needs. I could not envision any relationship, friendship or romantic relationship with someone who wasn’t as giving.

Generosity isn’t neglecting yourself for other, it's lifting each other up, know when to say no while being kind to others situations. I don't want a pushover, I want a generous partner.

Sincerely,

𝒩adine.

[junk-story]

Atsushi and Me – Tanaka Junichi, Director - Ongaku to Hito Special Edition

This interview is on pages 68-69 of the magazine. Footnotes can be found at the bottom of the text.

At the time we first met, the areas where he was immature as a vocalist were numerous. However, he had a unique worldview. For so-called rock vocalists, sexy vocalizations and a husky voice is becoming characteristic, but Sakurai-kun’s voice wasn’t those things, and it had popular-music-like elements to it. There were some who said his voice rivaled The Checkers.1

But, when I met him for the first time at a yakiniku shop in Harajuku, Sakurai-kun said that he liked Peter Murphy (of Bauhaus). So I think he wanted to combine the best parts of Japanese music with bands like Bauhaus and The Cure’s English dark wave to make a style of music not seen before in Japan. That was the sort of conversation we had. Maybe at that time, he thought what he wanted to do could take shape.

The realization of that was “TABOO”, but after that, a change came about in Sakurai-kun’s self-expression. The apex of that was “Kurutta Taiyou”. BUCK-TICK began to function as a place where Sakurai-kun could vent the love and hate and regrets he was holding about his home and his mother. After that, the color of Sakurai-kun became stronger, and what came from within him, the lust for life and desire for death, things like that became his themes, and their music was also influenced by that. At the time, they often heard the opinion at Victor that “it would be better to write things that are easier to understand”, and if they had, they might have been a bigger hit, maybe even hitting the million-seller mark, but, I suppose it’s because he wasn’t hindered in expressing himself that they were able to continue until now. In the first place, they weren’t even looking for that. And his songs, which came to have these themes at their core, had refined his expressiveness, and he was able to develop himself.

I worked for about 36 years recording Sakurai-kun’s songs, but he left all of it to me.2 “I’m doomed to my fate3, so I’ll sing a number of takes in my best form, and afterward, please use your favorite”, he’d say. I almost never had any requests about the take I chose. This is really an incredible thing. Most singers give me detailed requests, but he didn’t. I guess he realized that other people saw things differently than he did, and if he thought they did, I think he thought it was best to elevate that different expression atop the stage. Also, I think he was considerate about not making others feel bad.

Yes, he was a considerate and kind person. For example, when he was traveling to a big city studio, he was coming by car and got stuck in traffic, so he was also late. At times like that, although many musicians would have come in unashamed, Sakurai-kun was prostrate. “Everyone, truly, I’m so sorry…”, he’d say, and he’d bow his head to everyone all the way down to the studio’s assistant. He was someone who understood general thinking. And, he wasn’t that conscious of his commercial success. He also had no desire for fame. For that kind of person to continue being in a band, and think they want to make a career of it, that’s an extremely curious thing. Well...more than the music, more than the band, I suppose the important thing was that he was doing it with the other members. That’s why he was slow to start things outside of that, and he’d find it bothersome. (laughs) There were also things like that, and his solo album, “Ai no Wakusei”, was outsourced by me to various people, and Sakurai-kun only did the singing for it. Because when he’d communicate directly, he’d start to think about what to say, get nervous, and end up thinking about various things. (laughs)

Even after the band separated from Victor, behind the scenes, I did the recording for a number of songs. This is presumptuous of me to say, but I think I was the only one they could leave to doing it for them. However, what I think now...he would sing five takes, and he wanted to hear from me which of the takes was really the best one. Although I can’t confirm that now...but I’d like to think...that he knew the take that I thought was the best, was the best take for BUCK-TICK.

However, from the start, there were also times where he wasn’t the kind of person who could do that. (laughs) The time from “darker than darkness – style 93 – ” to “Six/Nine” was quite tumultuous. He wouldn’t show up to do vocal recordings. (laughs) This was an era without cell phones, so all we could do was wait, and after 10 hours passed, he finally came. (laughs) When we finished recording the vocals, I was listening and heard they’d driven to Mount Fuji. (laughs) There was everything with his mother, and I imagine he was pushed to a breaking point mentally. But from that, the “death” part of love and death came to expand significantly.

At that time, he was experiencing the chaos of the adult world, and I wonder if he didn’t come to have a hard time knowing what was real. So he wanted to run away from everything; his work and private life were both a mess. He drank alcohol like a drunk, like he was trying to forget reality. To put It nicely, he was pure. He wasn’t a person who could get along well in this world. However, he’d tasted that life, so the lyrics of that time had that reality in them. It may just be what I imagine, but “darker than darkness – style 93 – ” is all real. It’s not something that was made.4 I want everyone to listen to it again like that. And it’s also because of that experience that his love, hope, and kindness of not wanting to die emerged after that. And he started expressing his feelings more honestly.

Therefore, his love for family was incredible. Especially for the daughters. He had something he needed to protect, so he started to want to live. Sakurai Atsushi didn’t abandon himself to despair. I wanted to listen to more songs like that from him. If he had, then maybe a chapter where we met again would have begun. With a man who aged well.

Other than that, what I remember is nothing but stuff when we were drinking. (laughs) Because it was incredible, in any case. The live would end, and from about 11 PM we’d take off. After that, it was typical to spend time at Roppongi’s BOO!WHO?WOO!, and the shop has a small window that you can see the outside from, so you know when dawn is breaking. Nevertheless, Sakurai-kun was lively. Meanwhile, “Waratte ii tomo!”5 starts on the television. And then it got dark outside again. We were drinking that entire time. How much alcohol can a person go on drinking? I remember wondering.

Also, he was a person who was loved by everyone. By that I mean falling in love. When we were returning from London and at the airport counter checking in, the attendant saw Sakurai-kun, got heart eyes, and gave us a seat upgrade, and we were able to have an elegant return trip home because of it. (laughs)

1 Band from the same era (worth checking out!) 2 He allowed Tanaka to call the shots. 3 This turn of phrase didn’t really work well in any way I translated it...but sort of like, “there’s nothing to be done for it” – here he is, all he can do is his best! Like that. 4 Just in case this isn’t clear – he means this wasn’t constructed or fake in any way – this is truly where Sakurai was mentally at the time. 5 A long running variety TV show that was hosted by Tamori. It started at noon, to give you a reference of the time he’s talking about here.

[pubbamoon]

Sun signs and your core identity

Hey! It's been a time for the Western astrology, right? I've been thinking about it for a couple of days. This next post is going to be about the Sun in signs. The Sun is the most important planet in Western astrology and it represents our zodiac sign. It can also represents our identity, who we are outside, our external world, what makes us seen or shine, how we attract attention, this and that. Hope you'll find it interesting. It's Sunday, the Sun-ruled day, so I think I couldn't choose better day for this post. Take is as it resonates and leave the rest, as you already know. Why am I even talking about it? Anyway, let's just get into the topic!

Sun in Aries: Well, you may attract attention by just being yourself. Aries rules over the 1st house of self, personality and body, so you are someone who has a strong personality and are mostly authentic. The Sun is exalted in this sign, which is a great placement for this planet in general. You might be the type of person who always put yourself first over anyone and are really confident, unless you have some air or water placements in your chart. I'm about to stop it there, 'cause i don't want to tell you what to do. I know you don't like that, hahaha.

Sun in Taurus: I sense that you're calmed individuals and you don't like to rush things. Stubbornness is a characteristic which always reminds me of you, since Taurus is a fixed earth sign, which goes hand in hand. You may also like expansive and luxurious things which are mostly related to drink and food. Taurus is being ruled by Venus which represents pleasure, so you might be hedonistic and seek for pleasurable moments. You might even be lazy sometimes with this placement, but it depends on other natal placements of yours. You just seem to be normal people who like when things are going as they should do.

Sun in Gemini: This placement tells me that you're communicative and like to discuss about everything. Mercury is a planet of communication and intellect, so you might be extremely smart too. Mercury also represents controversy, so you might say things which aren't that comfortable to the average people. Other people like your presence and it's easy for you to make friends with everyone, sine Gemini is the air sign. You're father might be communicative as well. You might also be duplicitous, say one thing and then do another thing, 'cause Gemini is a dual sign represented by the twins. Or you're just versatile in general. It really depends.

Sun in Cancer: You might be naturally sensitive and emotional is what I'm getting. You're someone who is inclined into family, nostalgia and you might share love to your own home and land. The 4th house is associated with the home and childhood after all. You may be a kind of person who rules over your own family or simply a provider for your partner or any other person, since Cancer is the water and the cardinal sign at the same time. You might not be into a career that much or you might be worried about your career path. I feel like you may be a great parent because of your caring nature, but it depends on your Moon's placement too.

Sun in Leo: The Sun is in domicile and in its own sign in Leo, making a Leo sign the best placement for the Sun possible. Whatever you do, you may attract attention easily. Leo rules over the 5th house of creativity, stage, fun and children, so you might be seen by using your creative abilities, being into a spotlight, having fun or even act childish. There's also a potential for you to be a highly spiritual person, 'cause 5th house also represents spirituality. Creativity and spirituality usually goes together pretty well. This is an individuality placement at its finest, I would tell, and this is the moment where I see similarities between the Aries Sun and the Leo Sun.

Sun in Virgo: I don't know exactly why, but whenever I hear about this placement, it reminds me on anxiety at some point. Maybe you feel this way often. This sign is being ruled by Mercury, but here comes the analytical version of the Mercury. You might have a great sense of working and reading the people as they're open books. I sense that you may struggle with confidence because of your overthinking tendencies or you may be seen as nervous and anxious individual. You may encourage people to work and to not be loose all the time. I know one person I met online with this placement and this person is very judgmental and has a natural critical thinking, so you might behave like this person too. You may also have a great eye for details. Your father could be a doctor or work at any other health industry.

Sun in Libra: I find people with this placement really beautiful, which is kinda obvious, 'cause Libra is being ruled by Venus, the planet of beauty and love. You may be doing well while interacting with the other people, since Libra rules over the 7th house of other people and even the long-term relationships. The Sun is in fall in the sign of Libra, which is not a good placement for this planet, 'cause the Sun represents individuality, while Libra represents collectivity. But the positive side of this placement could be that you may have a good relationships with almost everyone and that you might be likeable a lot. Great placement for any artistic endeavors. It can also tell that your father might be a lawyer, but it doesn't have to the case with all of you.

Sun in Scorpio: You may naturally give off dark and mysterious vibes or you just present yourself this way. I feel that you could have deep emotions within you that need to be expressed. You may get successful after you do something what you're passionate about and maybe that's what makes you shine and seen. You might also be interested in criminalistics, criminology, forensic science or your father may work in these fields. This sign goes after Libra, so you may also hang out with others easily and you likely interact well with them. You attract attention while you stand up with your own power or when you embrace your mysteriousness. You may also be very intuitive, interested in occultic or have some kind of a hard life, 'cause the 8th house represents challenges, occultic and spirituality.

Sun in Sagittarius: This is such a fun placement to have. Whenever I was with these natives, I had such a good time. Having fun and partying is the best with these natives, for sure. Sagittarius is ruled by Jupiter, which is the planet of luck, so you might be naturally lucky and express joy with this placement. You are naturally adventurous and you may find happiness in foreign lands, since the 9th house is related to travel and abroad places. Sagittarius and Jupiter both represent wisdom, so you might love having meaningful conversations about the meaning of life or about any other philosophies. There can also be a talent to teach other people. We can learn almost everything from you.

Sun in Capricorn: You guys could be very ambitious and career-oriented. This may be a great placement for entrepreneurship or for anything related to leadership. Whatever you do could be successful, but it will take time, 'cause Saturn represents hard work and time. Your life might become better when you get older, especially in your 30s, but we need to look for your Saturn's placements to clarify that. your teeth, bones and nose might look beautiful or may be prominent in your body, 'cause these body parts are ruled by Saturn, but I think people with Capricorn Rising may resonate more to this statement.

Sun in Aquarius: This may be one of the weirdest placement to describe it. Well, you may be one of the most unique people out there or you can be the most average people out there. You stand out from the crowd by you being different from the rest, no doubt about it. The Sun is in detriment position in Aquarius, which is not a great placement for this planet. Aquarius rules over the 11th house of friendships, masses of people, finances etc., so you get along with people well and you care about how much money you make. Let's be real, Aquarius people can be materialistic, 'cause they're also ruled by Saturn. Your father might be a founder of some kind of organization or he might have a lot of friends.

Sun in Pisces: You might be very creative, sensitive and intuitive with this placement. There's a natural inclination to spirituality and foreign countries, since Pisces is ruled by Jupiter and it rules over the 12th house of spirituality, foreign lands an even isolation. You could isolate yourself from people around you and you don't mind to be alone. I sense some kind of introvert and old soul energy here. You can adapt yourself into any situation or to any people, since Pisces is a mutable sign, which makes sense. You might be naturally wise from your age and you can share your knowledge to others. I also feel that you are altruistic and you love to help other people and give yourself to people unselfishly.

Well, that could be very everything for today. I really hope you enjoyed it and that you could resonate with these messages. You can ask me which topic you would like me to discuss on if you want to. You can also book a reading with me. The link is in the 'Masterlist' post. I'm sending lots of love to all of you. Keep rising and shining!

Best regards, Paky McGee

[skylinesnsunshines]

jude bellingham reading: as a boyfriend

hi everyone! i got a request to do a reading on jude as a boyfriend so here I am delivering it! I'll try my best to be consistent when it comes to posting so please be patient cause my life is quite hectic ty <3

personal readings

DISCLAIMER: this is all speculative and for entertainment purposes only, so take it with a grain of salt :)

(italicised is the card on the bottom of the tarot deck which is meant to represent the subconscious/blind spot of the situation + rx means reversed)

6 of pentacles, 7 of pentacles rx, 4 of wands, the empress | victim | gemini: curiosity, intellect and networking | turtle

jude is someone very generous when he is in a relationship, wether that'd be with time, affection, but mainly materially. i see jude as a provider, as he seems to have an innate want to take on the provider role in the relationship. his gemini venus tells me that he is happy having his s.o pursue their dreams, however, he'll be a safety net for them to retreat, as he loves to provide. the 7 of pentacles rx could indicate that he could be never satisfied with his material wealth, could have a scarce mindset and feels a burden to always provide. i think he has this need to feel wanted and has a mindset where he always needs to chase. there's this feeling of feeling stimulated by always working towards a goal. 7 of pentacles rx tells me jude could be someone who struggles to leave even if the relationship isn't working out. he's someone who could struggle with codependency, as when he's invested in something/someone, he will give his all sometimes to his own detriment. jude is a private lover, and prefers to not have his romantic life in the limelight. he could be very protective, and pursue those who he can build a home/family with. someone who gets along with his family could be very important to him as well. i feel that jude also prioritises people who he can create a safe home environment with. he looks for people who feel "home" to him however that may be. jude observes what his person is like when they're with his friends/family, as their opinion could influence his perception of his s.o. i see him as a social butterfly in a relationship, constantly wanting to do dates that involve others or do domestic activities such as cooking or baking. he loves celebrating and enjoying life, and ultimately loves creating memories and experiences with the people he cherishes most. jude can be someone who takes on a nurturing role in the relationship, i think this characteristic is innate within him due to him being the eldest in his family. he's got a softness within him and is willing to put others before himself.

with the victim card, this tells me jude's a bit of a pessimist and this tells me that whenever there's conflict in the relationship he could resort to a victim mentality. this isn't necessarily negative though, as this tells me his energy in love is still inexperienced (makes sense cause he's only 20). his energy can seem a bit hot and cold in a relationship due to his gemini venus, but this isn't malicious, he just enjoys having activities and independence outside the relationship. jude seeks intellectual stimulation from his partner and looks for someone he can have a playful relationship with. as a partner, he could really enjoy banter, he could want someone that could be his verbal sparring partner and enjoys a relationship that starts from a friendship. jude could also enjoy networking with his partner's friends as well. he has a lot of curiosity when he's with his partner, and loves getting to know them to their core. the turtle is an interesting figure, as it describes an ancient soul who is grounded, trusting and is at home with themselves. this describes that jude is an individual who seeks adventure and is peaceful and adventurous, there's also a duality to him as he is still figuring out himself yet has a lot of wisdom from within. he can take on a mentor or caretaker role in a relationship as those traits seem natural to him.

so that's it for the reading! let me know if you have any feedback, questions or requests! my askbox is always open for a chat as well <3 sending you love and light always :) hope you enjoyed!

[fromtheseventhhell]

I'm not sure how to get it into people's heads that Arya is a female character. She's not a boy, not nonbinary, trans, agender, or genderless. I don't intend this in a way to be negative or wanky, but her girlhood is imbedded within her character. The problem isn't that Arya stans are missing the point by overemphasizing her femininity and wanting her to be a barefoot tradwife baby making machine, but that we're stating it exists when the majority of fandom and the show itself have gone out of the way to minimize the relevancy of her gender. I'm fully convinced there are a lot of people who think Arya would be the exact same character had GRRM created her as a male character named Arry instead, perhaps they'd do a better job at acknowledging her importance.

What's most ironic to me is how these same fans will gush and coo over the sisters being more alike than we think, but only if it involves giving Arya's characteristics to Sansa. Well acktually, Sansa likes to ride horses just as much as Arya does! They're so alike uwu! But dare acknowledge that Arya has traits and aspects commonly associated to Sansa then not only does that get accusations of wanting Arya to become Sansa, but that it's solely about showing Sansa up and wanting her to grovel in Arya's shadow and superiority 🙄 Hypocrisy and projection showing itself.

Somewhat of an aside, but I recently saw a post on reddit complaining about the fact that all four of Daemon's children survived the Dance specifically focused on the fact that both Rhaena and Baela lived. According to the OP, one of them should've died and their post-war roles in the story should've been given to only one of them. Which at its core is really the main conflict between Sansa and Arya stans, no matter how much the Stansas want to cover their ears and play dumb. It's not about Arya stans projecting their sibling squabbles onto the two of them but simply the fact that it's not possible for two characters to fulfill the same role in the story, specifically when it involves two female characters. The existence of two Stark sisters is an inconvenience for the people who want the story to revolve around Sansa.

I have to believe there's some bubbles that they don't want to admit will burst if TWOW will ever be released and that's why they cling to the idea that Arya stans are the delusional ones. They have to believe that the parts of Sansa's seasons 5-8 storyline they like came from GRRM instead of D&D or else their Jonsa and QITN fantasies will fall apart. I have no idea how someone can watch the scene where Sansa tells Arya she couldn't survive what she had while Arya can only sputter out that she was training and believe 1) it makes sense for their book characters and 2) D&D didn't blatantly favor Sansa and Sophie over Arya and Maisie.

This ask came literally seconds after I drafted a post talking about this exact topic and it's so wild to me that we were both up thinking about Arya + her girlhood and wanting to discuss it 🥹

As for this ask, you really hit the nail on the head. Arya's gender is an essential aspect of her journey but fandom ignores that because they've decided that there's only one "right" way to exist as a female character. Arya's self-esteem issues stem from her being a non-conforming Lady in a misogynistic society, she has to disguise herself as a boy in part because of the threat of sexual violence, in Harrenhal she is assigned gender-specific tasks/labor, political matches are made without her knowledge/consent, she is threatened with sexual violence multiple times, and even her role within the FM is influenced by her gender. Her being non-conforming doesn't mean she's the complete antithesis of everything feminine. The obsession with propping up Sansa has ruined people's ability to perceive complex female characters, ironically including Sansa herself. They genuinely would've respected Arya more if she had died passively rather than fight for her life and you can't tell me that isn't misogyny.

That Reddit post is a great example of how people genuinely can't (or refuse to) comprehend the idea of two female characters occupying the same space. Cause you're right, that is the root of the issue. I think the only reason they bother with the fake "Stark sisters uwu" crap is because they've backed themselves into a faux-feminist corner and they don't want to look hypocritical for disliking Arya. So instead, they pretend to care all while rewriting her to serve as Sansa's prop. This is also why so many Queen!Sansa truthers are also anti-Dany + think that Sansa becoming Queen depends on Dany's downfall. They desperately cling to the show as canon, when D&D have openly admitted they changed the story because they favored Sansa/Sophie. They're fine with how show!Arya is written because to them, that's exactly how she should be; a subservient lapdog for Sansa. TWOW is definitely going to ruin that illusion, and one of the reasons I'm optimistic about it being released is getting to see fandom's reaction.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Identification in the Wizarding World

I don't remember how I got to thinking about it, but wizards in Harry Potter don't seem to really have IDs... like no license cards or social security numbers, and that kind of begs the question of how you prove you are who you are. So I went to the books to see if it was ever answered, and to my surprise — it was.

Wands are their IDs

I'm gonna explain where in the books it's written and how it seems to work since I just didn't really see anyone mention it, and I found it curious. I'm not sure if it was just me who was a bit dumb and didn't notice it or what, but I do want to write about it.

“Madam Lestrange!” said the goblin, evidently startled. “Dear me! How- how may I help you today?” “I wish to enter my vault,” said Hermione. The old goblin seemed to recoil a little. Harry glanced around. Not only was Travers hanging back, watching, but several other goblins had looked up from their work to stare at Hermione. “You have . . . identification?” asked the goblin. “Identification? I-I have never been asked for identification before!” said Hermione. “They know!” whispered Griphook in Harry’s ear, “They must have been warned there might be an imposter!” “Your wand will do, madam,” said the goblin. He held out a slightly trembling hand, and in a dreadful blast of realization Harry knew that the goblins of Gringotts were aware that Bellatrix’s wand had been stolen.

(Deathly Hollows, page 452)

So, I'll start with this scene in Deathly Hollows, in which a Gringott's Goblin outright says a wand can be used for identification. The Golden Trio here shows the disadvantage of such an identification method, as wands can be stolen. And besides, how would a wand even work for identification? Like, how does it prove you are who you say you are?

Well, I think I know how wands are supposed to function as identification, and it's not as bad and easily fakable as it may seem. I'm not saying it's perfect, but if implemented correctly it isn't the worst they could come up with.

After all, everyone has a wand (at least in the Western Wizarding World) and everyone carries their wand with them everywhere and at all times. Not only that, but wands are unique enough to work as an ID. Wand description is broken into 6 components of its making: wood, core, flexibility, length, the wandmaker, and how long it's been in use, making each wand unique to the specific individual wielding it. Therefore a wand is something reasonable to use to identify individuals.

So, how is it supposed to work?

“Wand weighing?” Harry repeated nervously. “We have to check that your wands are fully functional, no problems, you know, as they’re your most important tools in the tasks ahead,”

(Goblet of Fire, page 303)

Wand weighing.

In GOF, the wand weighing is shown to tell the characteristics of each wand, and if we jump ahead to Arthur Weasley's and Harry's arrival in the ministry for Harry's trial in OOTP:

“Visitor to the Ministry, you are required to submit to a search and present your wand for registration at the security desk, which is located at the far end of the Atrium.”

(Order of the Phoenix, page 126)

“Wand,” grunted the security wizard at Harry, putting down the golden instrument and holding out his hand. Harry produced his wand. The wizard dropped it onto a strange brass instrument, which looked something like a set of scales with only one dish. It began to vibrate. A narrow strip of parchment came speeding out of a slit in the base. The wizard tore this off and read the writing upon it. “Eleven inches, phoenix-feather core, been in use four years. That correct?” “Yes,” said Harry nervously. “I keep this,” said the wizard, impaling the slip of parchment on a small brass spike. “You get this back,” he added, thrusting the wand at Harry.

(Order of the Phoenix, page 128)

We see exactly how wand weighing (the brass scale Harry describes) is meant to identify. This device prints out the makings of the wand when it was sold, and probably more information than Eric at the security desk reads out. He then asks Harry if it's correct because wands don't have their making and when they were bought written on them. This means only the wand's owner would supposedly remember all the details of the wandmaker, make, and when it was bought, then by asking about it, it can be revealed if the wand was stolen or not.

It's not a great method, but it's something.

It's not any dramatic revelation about the Wizarding World, I just didn't really see wands being used as IDs in the fandom and I found it interesting. I just really am interested in the Wizarding World as a culture and how it works. IDs are just part of it.

[archer3-13]

oh wow a fire emblem post after a lot of not posting about fire emblem. its been slow and i dont care too much about heroes, sue me.

i've come to the conclusion that people get too hung up on the idea of whether felix was right or wrong about dimitri when it comes to discussions on their character dynamics [it all tends to be very felix focused anyways]. I would say that at the end of the day, the story needs felix to be wrong in order to work as it does and theres no getting around that.

as a result however, dimitris side of that dynamic often gets overlooked i think and its a shame, cause i would say its the most important factor in how that dynamic works. cause well felix hurls all manner of verbal abuse at him, dimitri never disabuses felix of those notions even when he's trying his hardest to pretend everything is fine. he just takes the abuse, and i would argue thats far more important to the dynamic and speaks a lot more to dimitris core characteristics.

what dimitri is, is sad, traumatized, and possessed of an intense self loathing that blends together into a self destructive cocktail. its not just that the dead are haunting him, its that the dead are haunting him by calling him a pussy ass bitch in the most violent way possible, all the while everything falls apart around him. and his response to this is to try and repress that sorrow and trauma as deep as he possibly can, because he has too much to do, not enough time, and everyones counting on him.

what dimitri isn't, is possessed of a hidden darkness that can only be expressed in violent rage and general monsterousness/assholery. certainly he can express those things, but they're always symptoms of whats happening around him and in the story. the inevitable reaction of all that misery hes so deeply repressed exploding in violent reaction to the cruelty of the world around him. And it is importantly cruelty and injustice that he's reacting to, remire village, the holy tomb, the entire god damn war phase etc. its why dimitris story is always importantly intertwined with the idea of having others to support you and your burdens.

anyways, guess what end of the stick felix latches onto during the academy phase!!

its grimly funny in a way, but what felix is essentially playing with dimitri is purity politics. people often overlook that canonically he was a very sweet and gentle child before the tragedy, and that his aloof prickly i studied the blade demenour is just a crude imitation of glenns personality [but yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that hes dealing with glenns death better then rodrigue]. and he practically grew up alongside dimitri, who he only ever knew as a kind and gentle boy as well. then the tragedy happens and uproots everything in his life, so he tries to find that stability again by going with dimitri in their first battle.

and that's where he sees that violent reaction dimitri sorrow can elect. and like a true gamer, felix rejects the idea that his [pure, sweet, gentle] dimitri could ever do or be like that. it must be a monster in a humans skin, a boar prince.

and like the tsundere idiot he is, felix takes it as his own duty [consciously or not] to act as the jailkeeper for that wild animal that's taken his friends place. possibly its executioner even. because felix is too caught up in his own grief to see beyond that rage, a rage he rejects the "true" dimitri of being capable of.

and, wadda ya know. dimitri being caught in a violent spiral of self hatred and anger at the injustices of the world, does nothing to disabuse felix of these notions. because he feels like he deserves to be abused by felix, and also because its easier to brush things off that way and pretend everything is normal.

and i find that a lot more interesting to view the relation between the two in and how it develops over the games story.

[pimpedoutgreenears]

Binary Boyfriends Season 6 predictions/things I think would be neat/what I’d like to see

-At some point Demetri voices that he feels like Eli just wants to leave him and they fight about it. In the end Eli doesn’t know what he can say to convince Demetri that’s not the case. So Demetri is facing away from him near tears and then you just hear Eli singing, “Demetri and Eli, binary brothers…”

And Demetri turns around and Eli is giving him that look, with his head tilted and his eyes wide. And then Demetri sings the next line, and then they’re both singing. And yeah, they have more to solve but they’re working on it.

-Alternatively these two don’t have their fight until the 5 vs. 2 fight (which I’m just assuming is happening because the fandom told me so). Demetri had refused to talk to Eli any more, but Eli literally will not lose the one chance he has where Demetri can’t just leave him. So they’re fighting the other team while also arguing with each other. It’s super dramatic, and everyone (especially Daniel and Johnny) are losing their minds telling them to focus. But they end up working through everything while kicking the other team’s asses.

Things they bring up (in no particular order):

Eli reminds Demetri that he didn’t support him when he first started taking karate. He didn’t support any of the changes he made, even his hair. Eli points out how he’s always done what Demetri wanted and the one time he wanted it to go the other way, Demetri refused. (Demetri refused because Eli was changing so many things that were core characteristics and was in a literal cult. He does relent that he wasn’t supportive, but he was just scared of losing Eli)

Eli questions if Demetri likes him or just likes having someone around to agree and nod. (Of course Demetri likes him! He started talking for Eli because he was always too nervous to do it himself. He loves that Eli talks more now. He loves that he’s more confident in his opinions. He never didn’t want to hear them).

Demetri tells Eli he only forgave him for everything he did because he thought he was sorry and realized them being binary brothers was more important than anything. If Eli can just ditch him again, then forgiveness revoked. (Eli isn’t trying to ditch him. A different school POSSIBLY doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be calling and visiting all the time. Also, Eli needs a more solid foundation of who he is. He’s terrified of hurting Demetri again. He’s also scared that if he’s not secure in who he is, he’ll fall into the yes man role and then resent Demetri even though it’ll be his own fault)

Eli points out Demetri never needed him and that Eli was the problem. The second Eli was gone, Demetri made friends and grew as a person. Without Demetri Eli flounders and he wants to learn how to exist without Demetri. (It was just the timing. Eli isn’t unlovable, and he’s certainly not less lovable than Demetri. Demetri wants to help Eli figure out who he is. Why can’t they figure it out together?)

Demetri doesn’t see a point in existing without Eli. (Ouch. Eli can’t say much to that)

Eli doesn’t understand why he’s being held to a higher standard than everyone else. Demetri isn’t mad that Yas isn’t going to college with him. (Yas isn’t his ride or die. Demetri expects Yas to break up with him eventually. Eli is supposed to be his forever, and Demetri refuses to have a casual friendship with him. They’re either brothers for life or nothing because Demetri can’t stand the thought of being less)

Demetri doesn’t understand why he’s never enough for Eli when Eli has always been enough for him (Demetri IS enough for him, Eli’s just not enough for himself. Eli hated himself and sometimes still does. But he’s trying to find a way to stop. He wants to love himself. He wants to love himself enough to be able to give Demetri what he deserves)

-Or, right before the start of their tournament event Eli and Demetri start arguing and Eli confesses that he needs time away from Demetri to figure out who he is without him. Demetri doesn’t understand and just wants to help him figure it out. It all collimates with Eli kissing Demetri, implying that one of the things he’s struggling with is his feelings for Demetri. They get interrupted and told they need to join the rest of the team.

Demetri ends up disappearing and Eli thinks he ruined everything. But Demetri shows up just in time to join him on the mat for the 5 vs. 2 fight.

Eli tries to apologize for kissing him but Demetri tells him he broke up with Yasmin. Then the fight starts and they’re basically confessing their love while they fight off the other team. They are also just confessing every thought they’ve kept from each other ever.

At the end of the fight, which they win, Eli lifts Demetri in the air and screams, “That’s my boyfriend!”

-Another option, they argue outside of the tournament. Eli basically brings up that Demetri is always being controlling and making things about himself. He wants them to go to MIT but he hasn’t even asked Eli what he wants.

The argument ends with Demetri pulling up his entrance essay which is pretty much all about Eli and how he learned perseverance from him. Idk whether he reads it out loud to Eli or throws his computer at him to let him read it, but it’s very dramatic.

And Demetri yells something like, “You act like I’m the selfish one, but being with you is literally the only thing I ever think about! You’re all I think about, asshole!”

Eli then writes an essay of his own and tells Demetri he’s applying to MIT. His essay is all about Demetri. Then they kiss and start talking about how they’re gonna decorate their dorm room.

-After the tournament, Hawk and Demetri decide to take up new hobbies (although Hawk isn’t going to fully give up karate). Eli takes up drumming and Demetri crochet. His goal is to make Eli a winter hat by Christmas that has holes for his Mohawk. When he tells the gang this, he holds up the saddest, worst little line of stitches that anyone’s ever seen, then says, “it’s a work in progress.”

Eli grins and says he can’t wait to wear it.

-Different route, they both get dumped at prom by Yas and Moon. They’re blind sighted, but the girls point out that neither of them are concerned with what the girls are doing next year, only with each other. The boys act like they don’t know what that even means, but they kind of do. They decide to leave prom to go do something they actually like, but Demetri stops them before they get all the way out and points out that Eli’s never gotten to dance with someone at prom. So he asks Eli to dance with him. Eli says no at first but ends up convinced and they slow dance alone together.

-Or after they argue they become boyfriends. And Eli is like, “you don’t need to worry about losing me anymore. We’ll always be binary brothers.” And then they both cringe because brothers. “Maybe we edit to binary boyfriends.”

And Demetri’s like, “I like it, same great idea without the incestuous overtones.”

-Eli gets a tattoo to represent Demetri. Probably binary code of some kind.

-Demetri gets a tattoo for Eli. Bonus points if it’s a mini version of Hawk’s back tattoo

-Whether or not Eli decides to go to MIT, their last scene together is them driving away in a car to go on a summer road trip together with just them to help Eli figure out who he is. They’re going to do whatever Eli wants and Demetri is going to keep his complaining to a reasonable amount.

[ardentpoop]

What do you think when people insist Dean is the only one with feminine characteristics or woman-coded, but that sam isn't?

I think you can guess my answer lmfao.

when ppl talk abt dean like that I find it incredibly irritating as it is based on superficial and demeaning ideas of “femininity.” bc truly what the fuck does dean as a character have to do with social expectations of womanhood. his role in the story is Head Of Household which he inherited from john. in terms of samndean’s relationship dean is the partner who calls the shots and who determines when sam should be considered trustworthy/“good” by the audience and by other characters like bobby and cas. he’s the domineering husband (to sam, for most of this story) and the abusive father (very true for jack, also kind of true for ben if you’re paying attention) and he started metamorphosing into his Own father from the very beginning. he makes himself big and rough and mean because that’s what he thinks he’s supposed to do to protect His Family (mostly just sam). he makes decisions abt sam’s body for him bc sam’s body tacitly belongs to dean, no matter how much sam initially fights this reality. he views women as either sex objects (his neverending conquests) or helpless lambs who need protecting (see how he talks abt jo or claire, for example, or even just the female victims he takes a shine to throughout the early seasons). as soon as a female antagonist displeases him she’s a Bitch and a Skank and a Whore whom he’s desperate to stick his knife in.

fyi dean being super misogynistic is delicious to me and very important to the narrative but most people straight-up edit it out which is. wild. you’re pretending THIS MAN isn’t a woman-hater? THIS MAN???

anyway yeah a male character isn’t Mommy-Coded for preparing a meal or tending to his sick partner lmfao. he isn’t One Of The Girls bc he occasionally deigns to pierce the suffocating shell of his toxic masculinity to indulge in shit that he’d call Gay if another man did it around him. you’re being sexist and ignorant when you talk like that lol. people who use that language for sam are more often than not doing so bc his narrative is deeply and painfully relatable to women bc at its core it is abt his lack of agency over his own body and his own life. people who use that language for dean are just being fucking. silly. and I would guess they don’t have strong opinions abt the show’s actual female characters and how it treats them.

[emeryhiro]

Hello!

I am new here and is feeling very overwhelmed right now with that is happening in the caryl fandom. I appreciate your insight into these characters. I am someone who has not seen Daryl Dixon season 1 and is seriously considering if I should even watch it with all that is being said about s2.

Reading all the early reviews that has dropped - I get a lot of mixed reactions to Isabelle's character. Some ppl say she was the best part about season 1 while others don't even mention here in their reviews. The caryl fandom is largely, understandably, biased against her.

I do not know anything about Isabelle and was wondering what your thoughts about her are - how she holds up as a character?

Hi Anon!!

Thank you for your question. I'm really glad you asked this question, and thank you for the kind words🥰 I'm going to do my best to properly answer and share my thoughts on all the points you've mentioned.

Firstly, welcome to the fandom!! 💖 I'm sorry you've joined at a time of so much uncertainty, but I promise that at its core, this community is a beautiful place to be. But like all communities, there is always positivity and negativity, and it's important to be careful with what's surrounding you, ensuring it's a healthy balance that works for you.

I've divided my response into several sections, as I find that to be the best way to convey my thoughts. I also wanted to be as clear as possible since this is a sensitive topic for some, and I want to try to alleviate at least some of the worries.

A mild spoiler warning for a mention of something that happens in episode 1 of season 2.

Reviews on Season 2:

I wasn't planning on reading any of the reviews for season 2, but since you asked for my thoughts, I read all the articles that I could find so that I could give you an informed response. And one thing I advise is to always take reviews with a grain of salt (this includes my thoughts as well) because, ultimately, they're all based on the writers' opinions.

What I've found with all previous seasons of TWD, especially season 1 of Daryl Dixon, was that no single review I read aligned perfectly with what I thought of the show once I watched it myself. And I know I'll say the same about season 2.

Regarding what I read in the season 2 reviews, I don't think I've actually read a single concerning line in any of the ones I've come across, and I'm pretty sure I've read every single one that has been released. There are, however, a lot of people who, out of fear or concern, focus on single lines from a review that may sound negative or worrisome when taken out of context, and ignore everything else in the review that's purely positive.

I can see many people have shared their specific thoughts on different segments of several reviews, but I won't go into my thoughts here for the sake of keeping this response reasonable short. If you're interested in a detailed post about my thoughts on the reviews in general or any in particular, let me know, and I'll share it as soon as I get a chance.

My thoughts on Isabelle:

I found Isabelle to be a fascinating character with many layers. She is unquestionably flawed and has a great mix of both positive and negative characteristics, which I think is what gives her character so much potential. She's intelligent, driven, brave, headstrong, and very protective, but she's also undeniably manipulative, which makes sense when you think of it as a self-defence mechanism that she developed during her rocky life before the apocalypse. I'm also a fan of Clémence as an actress, and I think she's a great fit for this character.

This next bit might sound a bit contrevoursial but bare with me. I've seen Isabelle get a lot of hate for being manipulative towards Daryl, even I personally hated seeing Daryl be treated that way, but it's important to remember that we've also seen Carol behave manipulatively when she's had to in the past in order to protect the people that she loves. This is something you'll see Carol do once again in episode 1 of TBOC, and when I watched it, it made me uncomfortable, but ultimetly, I could see that it made Carol uncomfortable as well; she doesn't feel any satisfaction out of what she does and is willing to carry the weight of that lie and guilt to achieve her ultimate goal of saving Daryl, the person she loves.

Even though, on the surface, it's not an admirable thing to do, we appreciate Carol so much more because of the lengths she's willing to go to for the ones she loves, and we've also seen her journey to this point, which naturally makes us love her and empathise with her.

So my point here is that I can't judge Isabelle for the same behaviour I admire in my favourite character. Just like Carol may act that way to protect Daryl (her loved one), Isabelle was doing it because she believed (to the best of her knowledge) that it was what was best for Laurent (her loved one).

However, what doesn't sit right with me about Isabelle's character is that what the showrunners and writers have been saying about her doesn't align with what I've seen on screen (this is a great example of why I try to avoid looking at unnecessary publicity). I want to love her character for who she is, flaws and all, but the inconsistency in her publicity makes me feel like there's some discrepancy behind the scenes, and that has stopped me from investing in her character and gives me slight concern for the trajectory of her arc, which has so much potential that would be incredibly tragic if wasted.

The only other thing that I would disagree with (IF the show ends up going down that path) is the negative messaging that would be given out about nuns if every surviving nun on the show is portrayed as willing to forget her vows the minute there's a man in front of them that they find interesting. I'm not catholic, but I think that it would be incredibly disrespectful towards actual nuns and the sacrifices that they make for their faith. But please don't take this as fact because I don't think this will actually ever happen. I honestly don't believe that AMC or anyone involved with the show would knowingly do something like that. I'd be happy to explain this a little further, but I don't think it's relevant if you haven't seen the first seasons.

Watching TWD: Daryl Dixon S1 & 2

My question to you would be, what draws you to TWD/TBOC? Is it Caryl itself and potential canon? And if so, do you feel that you'd be left disappointed and/or unsatisfied with the potential lack of romance between the characters in season 2? Or, do you enjoy the show for a combination of things, like the character development, world-building, cinematography, etc.?

I want to emphasise that there is no wrong answer to the above. Everyone is unique, and it's 1000% understandable and fair for each person to have unique reasons for being drawn to and loving, hating, or even being indifferent about a show.

I personally fall in the latter category; I love TWD for its rich story, action sequences, cinematography, multitude of interesting characters, and the mind-blowing ways in which they have developed over the years (the whole package of the show is exactly my cup of tea), and of course, it's no secret if anyone looks at my blog that my favourite character (BY FAR) are Carol and Daryl. I absolutely adore them for everything they are, both as individuals and what they bring out in each other and mean to each other. And if Caryl is ever canon (which I expect would happen in season 3), then that would be the cherry on top of a show I already love.

My very short review of season 1 would be that I really enjoyed it and would rank it at the top between all the other spinoff seasons we've gotten so far. However, in all honesty, I still felt and noticed the hole that was left behind in the story with the absence of Carol, but knowing that she will be returning in season 2 kind of made up for that lack in season 1. All up, I really enjoyed season 1 and have watched it several times in the last year. I'm actually currently in the middle of watching it again in preparation for season 2.

My recommendations:

If you personally fall into the former category and, as mentioned above, feel that you'd be left disappointed and/or unsatisfied with the potential lack of romance between the characters in season 2, then perhaps it's better to wait till all the episodes are released to then decide if it's something that you'd like to watch.

If you're willing to accept and are okay with the potential lack of romance between Caryl in season 2 but are concerned about and would rather not watch any potential romantic relationship develop between Daryl and Isabelle, then I'd say that you should watch the season as it releases because I honestly don't believe that something like that is a real possibility. At most, there may be hints towards one-sided feelings from Isabelle's side and maybe some confusion from Daryl's side, but untimely, it would not mean or go anywhere. I'm personally not even bothered with this worst-case scenario because it doesn't matter how many people have feelings for Daryl or how confused Daryl is because I know that once he's reunited with Carol, there won't be any more uncertainty about where his heart and loyalties truly lie. There's honestly not a single ounce of me that's concerned about this.

If you're more like me and enjoy the show as a whole, even though you may be slightly disappointed with a few accepts, then I'd highly recommend that you watch season 1 before the release of season 2 (if you have the time), because it genuinely was a good season and will give you a lot of backstory and context that would make season 2 feel so much more enjoyable and immersive.

~~~~

Thanks again for your questions!! I hope this all makes sense and that it answers your questions. As I mentioned earlier, if you'd like me to expand on my thoughts on anything in particular, please let me know, and I'd be happy to do so.

My last bit of advice is this: I know it's easier said than done, but I urge you, especially as someone who's new to the fandom, to not allow a lot of different voices and opinions to shape how you naturally feel or invalidate what you take away from watching the show (not that I think that's what you're doing but this is the general advice I wanted to give just in case🩵). It's really easy for anyone to be influenced by negativity and positivity when they find that that's all they can see from the people around them.

I personally try to focus on what I see on screen and what I hear directly from Norman and Melissa because, at the end of the day, showrunners and writers come and go, but Norman and Melissa have embodied these characters from day one and understand them more than anyone else ever could.

♡♡♡

[that-ari-blogger]

Reflections? (Yesterday's Lie)

The term “holding up a mirror” usually applies to confronting someone with their own actions and pointing out their flaws. Stories like to do this through foils that share enough characteristics to annoy each other, or villains and heroes that are either the best or worst version of each other. It’s a really neat piece of storytelling.

Yesterday’s Lie is this idea in its most blatant form. Luz literally looks into a mirror and argues with her reflection. Its straightforward and simple.

Except this is The Owl House, it’s not capable of playing anything straight.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD: (The Owl House, Dead Poet Society, Billy Elliot, Gravity Falls)

One of The Owl House’s core thematic is individuality and the joy of complexity. It is a story about taking life as it is and not putting unfair constraints on it.

This is why the show is so tropey and so averse to tropes at the same time. It makes a beeline for the closest stock structure and then thoroughly dissects and subverts it. It’s a satire, a hunter of cliches.

As a way of hammering that home, everything in the series is introduced twice. Whenever any plot beat or location is revealed, you get a first pass and a shallow look at that thing, and you get an obvious trope that this first appearance fits into, then you spend time with the thing, and you start to understand just how much that first impression was deceiving. This happens to everything, even the show itself.

The series opens with the famous “eat this sucka!” line and a fantasy witch story, priming you to expect generic fantasy, but you are then met with The Owl House, which is anything but.

Hey look, a conspicuously hidden character from a family photo. This is foreshadowing for a later episode. But if you think about it, this filmmaking technique is weird, right? Telling you something is important by now showing you it at all. I don't have anywhere I'm going with this, it's just something quirky about cinematography.

This also happens to the characters, and I go into more detail about it in my post about the first episode, so take a look at that if it interests you. But there was one notable exception to the rule. Camila Noceda.

When we first see Camila, she is the distant parent, the stock character in a million coming of age stories. She doesn’t really get her child and is sending them off to a place to make them more “normal”. It's going to be a difficult relationship, and the parent won’t get more depth beyond this.

She fits in with Niel’s parents in Dead Poet Society and Jackie from Billy Elliot. Stern, and antagonistic as a result of the theming. Like I said, the story is about how people can’t be defined, and here is a character who wants to box in the protagonist.

Notably, Dead Poet Society ends with the death of Niel as a direct result of the parental strictness, which isn’t a good sign for how this might turn out.

Then Luz runs away, and we don’t get to see anything beyond the stereotype for a season and a half. We instead get Luz feeling guilty and confronting her fears of betraying her mother through a monster that pretends to be that fear. We still don’t meet Camila.

Until we do, and things are immediately different.

The Camila Noceda from season one was refined and busy. She had a uniform on, and her hair up in a tight bun. It’s a refined image that looks down on you with distain. Now, however, she has let her hair down and wears more casual clothes over that uniform, she’s practical but laid back. She’s had things added to her instead of taken away.

It's also notable that the first thing she does in this episode is help a wounded creature. Camila’s second introduction is one of fundamental kindness.

Meanwhile, Vee is Luz’s reflection, except no she isn’t at all. She is the polar opposite of Luz. She wants mundanity rather than adventure, she wants a new life rather than both lives at once, she actively disguises herself rather than seeking to be understood. Vee is only Luz in appearance. Case and point:

Luz - "Cool, talking rats. Maybe they know something." Vee - "(Screams and runs away)"

Camila is aware that something is up, but she’s not used to the magical world that we are, so she assumes that Luz has changed, and she is concerned that the summer camp thing has worked too well.

Vee also gets the multiple introductions. A few episodes ago, she was shown as a shadowy figure who had replaced Luz like a changeling and the filmmaking heavily implied a Machiavellian air to the character. The musical sting, the shot composition and build up, this was a villain.

Then we meet her and she’s a wus. She’s cowardly, and meek, and I love her so much. Except once again, not exactly.

But that leads into the plot of this episode, because this isn’t about Luz, it's about the world she left behind. Luz is secondary in this story, filling the role of a mentour until the very end. It’s another mention of how Luz operates as a character, inspiring people as a light for them to follow, (Light, do not faulter) but it's also not the point.

Vee needs to learn to be herself and that she has found people who will love her not just in spite of it, but because of it, and Camila needs… well she needs to show off her compassion, but she also needs to confront the fact that she directly caused this entire adventure.

“You and I are not the same. You had a mom who loved you, a home, a life, you had it good! And you still wanted to run away, I didn't have a choice. My real name is Number Five. I'm a Basilisk, and technically, I shouldn't exist.”

Something that blew my mind more than it probably should have here is that Vee’s name comes from the Roman numeral for five, that being V. This might be obvious or obscure, but it is something my brain fixated on, and y’all must know.

This is worldbuilding for Belos as well, and we’re really dropping the subtlety with this episode. Belos is a man who desires to eradicate an entire people because they are not like him, a man who experiments on people because they have something he doesn’t and it doesn’t occur to him that their lives have value, a man who assigns numbers instead of names to people whom he plans to exterminate.

Compare Belos to Bill Cypher. Bill was otherworldly and eldritch, an unknowable evil. Belos is the type of villain whom real world history has known, and people who are still alive today will recognise.

Belos is his own person, sure, but he’s also fascistic eugenicist who thinks he’s G-d because of something he was born with and decided entitled him to everything. Belos is Evil.

The fact that Belos is experimenting on the Basilisks with the hope of learning to drain magic seems like an throw away detail. It doesn't come up again in this episode, but if you've seen the series in full, you know why this is important.

But he’s also mundane, and pointedly so. The thing that caused Belos to get this bad was such a simple thing, wilful ignorance. I’ll get into it more specifically when I cover Elsewhere and Elsewhen and Hollow Mind, but suffice to say this:

Belos ignored so many obvious things in his life because he didn’t want to contradict a worldview that put him on top, and he kept doing it and kept going and going and going until he doesn’t have to try. People aren’t people to Belos.

Which leads me back to what I was saying about character introductions, funnily enough. This is a story about teaching Luz and the audience to look past tropes and preconceptions to see people as complex. Belos cannot do this, and that is directly what causes his villainy.

Belos ain’t even directly in this episode and he’s got me livid.

Still think Warden Wrath is just a quirky little goober? Also, the Basilisks were brought back from extinction. Like in Jurassic Park. Belos is playing G-d.

This does kind of reframe Michaela Dietz’s performance as Vee though, doesn’t it. She goes from jumpy to traumatized. She’s a survivor and a child at the same time. Of course she’s like this, who wouldn’t be?

This is a character whose voice acting and line writing come across as dissonantly weighty. Like this character has seen more shit than she should have at her age, because she has.

I seriously cannot praise Michaela Dietz enough here.

Also, the point at Luz is a point well made. Luz ran away without thinking things through and without the consequences occurring to her. She took what she had for granted, and Vee rightfully calls her out for it.

Jacob is Belos wanna be. He’s a conspiracy theorist but in a really interesting way.

He gets introduced twice, but in reverse order. His traps and cameras are shown first, then he is introduced and he’s just a normal guy, then it is revealed who he really is. Like I said, this happens to everyone in the series.

However, there are a few ways you can run a conspiracy theorist in a story. Maybe he’s wrong and the magical world doesn’t exist and he’s just seeing patterns where there are none. But this is The Owl House, that doesn’t apply here.

Alternatively, Jacob could be right about everything and find his way into the Boiling Isles. Needless to say, this doesn’t happen.

This shot bounces between Vee's and Jacob's perspective, but always with the cage in front of them. As if they are both trapped by their own minds.

Instead, Jacob is actually wilfully ignorant. He’s the “we have Belos at home” of this story and is just what Vee needs to confront. He’s got something in his mind that he believes beyond all evidence, and when something is shown that would challenge his worldview, instead of adapting, incorporates it on a surface level without taking the time to understand what it actually is.

Jacob believes in aliens from Mars, and he is so fixated on his discovery that he doesn’t stop to ask if it actually proves him correct. Instead, he assumes mal intent because the creature isn’t like him, and therefore the creature must surrender all privileges. Most notably freedom.

Jacob is small, and petty, and definitely not as megalomaniacal as Belos. But I ask you this, if he got into the Demon Realm, what would he do?

Enter Camila, who is a direct contrast to Jacob specifically. She is shown information that rocks her worldview, and what does she do? She changes her worldview. Mostly.

There is magic. Ok. This is not Luz. Ok. This creature must die. Hold up.

Camila actually keeps most of her ethics identical. She will not witness injustice and she will never be unkind. She’s a vet, she treats everything with compassion no matter what species.

She gets two lines in short succession to really exemplify this.

“Hello, this is all so confusing, but who knew I had such a strong girl living under my roof this whole time”

It’s affirming and reassuring. Compassion first and foremost.

“I’m the good guy here!” “Yeah. A lot of bad guys say that.”

Essentially, screw your god complex, I will not be told what to think. I have learned, and I reject the wilful ignorance you stand for. It’s also just a killer one liner and it sounds cool.

Even the lighting knows what's up. Camilla is lit from above, like an avenging angel looking down on Jacob's small minded ignorance.

On the other hand, I said “most” in reference to Camila’s changing ethics, and I meant it. Camila starts the story trying to box Luz in, because she thinks it will make her life easier and safer. But she gets shown here that she was wrong in at least half of that. Luz cannot stop being herself, nobody can, so Camila needs to stop expecting people to fit with society’s preconceptions.

Camila gets more background later on in the series, and I will talk about it when I get there, but she learns, and she is willing to change. That’s the important thing.

Speaking of which, I drew comparison to Jackie from Billy Elliot and I know at least one person will get really upset by that. And let's explain why.

Jackie isn't the trope I mentioned either. One main theme of Billy Elliot is the price of freedom, and Jackie spends the first part of the film seeking personal freedom because he thinks that will trickle down to his son. But he doesn't realise that doing that is directly causing his child to be miserable.

I studied this film in high school and I have it drilled into my brain that the sartorial design of this scene reflects Jackie's sacrifice. Usually, he contrasts with his environment. But now, as he breaks down and returns to the mine, he is one with it in colour scheme resigned to be nothing more than a cog in the machine.

So, in the best scene in the movie, Jackie breaks down and sacrifices his own freedom to pay for his son's dream. Its heart wrenching, and its similar to Camila. Both of them start off disapproving and boxing their children in and learn to be better.

These people are similar, that's why the series introduced Camila using the trope, but they both split from it, and they are both their own person. Everyone is an individual.

That final scene is painfully well written. You know exactly why Camila and Luz would say what they say, why they would miscommunicate, and what is holding them back. Who is right here? I would argue both of them.

Camila looks at a place called “the demon realm” and, as a mother, assumes the worst. She wants nothing but the safety of her children, and she hasn’t been shown anything that dissuades that. Instead, you get Luz saying this:

“Staying here was the best decision I ever made.”

Of course Camila would take this the wrong way, of course this would go so badly for Luz. But it also goes badly for Camila, who now has to reconcile the fact that, despite everything else, Luz made the decision to stay in a more dangerous place because it understood her better than her home. That’s a difficult thing to hear for a mother, but it's something to reflect on.

Meanwhile, Luz now has tried her best to be understood by the person she wants to connect with the most, and she has failed due to her own inability to communicate. The series is creating a conflict and creating a duality, Luz must choose at the end whether to stay in the Demon Realm or go to the Human World. Its an impossible decision planted really well, and in my opinion, it will pay off incredibly.

I think there's some symbolism here, but I just can't quite figure it out.

Final Thoughts

I feel the need to remind y’all that this was on Disney, apparently aimed at kids seven years and older. Don’t get me wrong, kids are more intelligent than people give them credit for and can understand complex themes really well, even if they don’t have the skills to articulate that. But there are some things in this episode alone that feel aimed at an older audience.

Maybe that’s why Tumblr likes this series so much. It’s the type of story that appeals to people of any age, but can be understood by someone very young, and can act as role models for kids growing up.

The reason I say this, is that when I looked up the age rating of The Owl House, I did find a review that made me laugh:

One star, 18+ “There’s kissing which is ew”

Next week, I’ll be covering Follies at the Coven Day Parade, which explores the theme of duality, but also gives Kikimora complexity, something I was not prepared for at all. So, stick around if that interests you.

Previous - Next

[trekmupf]

Evil Cube from outer space

Pro

Spock being a good leader & Sassy boy

Shatner getting his sweaty sporty chest out again. I mean the entire workout scene, McCoy ignoring the red alert and kirk video calling Spock shirtless and sweaty

and Kirk literally walking around the entire ship without a shirt and shoes???

“What am I a doctor or a moon shuttle conductor?”

the way bones sits on the bridge railing

our crew sitting in the conference room for hours, slamming back coffee

Bailey is a great and important part of the episode: we see his decline (along with McCoy), it's realistic and well contrasted to the senior staff on the bridge, and his arc comes full circle in the end

I love it when McCoy is literally standing behind Kirk in the captains chair

the fact the dummy alien makes you think this is the worst alien design so far and then it DOES turn out to be a dummy is great

Not only in theory but generally shows important mechanics on the ship: How the characters / crew work together and who does what

especially the way kirk relies on both Spock and McCoy to advise him, challenge him and back him up in their very own way; also the way they clash but come around again after, it's all so rounded

also shows who kirk is as a captain: calm, level headed, rational but empathetic, thinks deeply about major decisions and is conscious of his role and responsibility; and also so smart with how he handles the crisis and outplays his opponent; the way he leads his crew, the way he refuses to give up; but his anger and emotion also keep him very human

the fact that he decides to save the former enemy is so Kirk, I love him for it (knowing how he continues to value life and what it will cost him later on)

special effects (I really implore you guys to check out the original special effects if you've only seen the Netflix / DVD versions, it's on youtube)

The sounds on the bridge, little beeps and boops, are such a great atmosphere

“ a cube is blocking the ships way for half an episode” shouldn't work and yet the characters, music and editing really hold the tension up during the first half

the second half is even more tense and puts the characters under such stress until the plot twist in the end that relieves that tension in a great and satisfying way

good scoring and dramatic music

Con

Was filmed earlier than most others, so the inconsistencies are back (clothes, roles, characters, camerawork)

Bashing Yeoman Rand doing her job served no purpose and was unnecessary sexist; didn't like McCoy's comment either

Counter

shirtless kirk

brains over brawls (technically there was no brawls option)

superior alien race studying humanity

Quote:

"You know the greatest danger facing us is... ourselves, and irrational fear of the unknown. There's no such thing as 'the unknown,' only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood" - Kirk

"Has it occurred to you that there is a certain... inefficiency in constantly questioning me on things you've already made up your mind about?" - Spock "It gives me emotional security" - Kirk (the way they look at each other drives me insane)

Moment: Kirk pulling the entire Corbomite story from thin air

Summary: A tense episode about a terrifying and hopeless situation putting pressure onto our characters and revealing their core characteristics and strengths as well as highlighting their relationships with each other, with a great plot twist to round out the episode. It also openly and directly tells us what Star Trek is about and its philosophical and ethical core messages – the best episode so far and one of the best in general.

Previous Episode - Next Episode - All TOS Reviews

[familyabolisher]

Sorry to ask something somewhat related to the recent discourse, but do you have any advice to someone trying to teach themselves lit analysis or lit theory? Seems like most online advice ends at "get an English degree lol"

first of all sorry for leaving this for so long, between work and various other Demands in my life i didn’t really have the time/energy to sit down and write up a proper answer for a while. anyway: imo, what’s more important than working your way through a long list of critical theory is honing an ability to respond to a text yourself; being able to take notice of your emotional responses, being able to ask questions about what the text does and what it responds to and whether you think it succeeds or fails. questions like ‘what is the text about?’ are often too vague, and assume that critical practice is a task limited to investigating the ‘correct’ metaphysical properties of a text that we have to uncover, as well as presenting literature as wholly utilitarian (under this framework, a text becomes a vehicle for a ‘theme,’ and nothing more.) in the list below, i’ve tried to be a little more precise about the kinds of questions that can help you become a more confident + critical reader.

[disclaimer: i am not any kind of expert, i have studied english lit at degree level and i do read a lot / make a habit of talking about what i read, but i would not consider myself especially ‘qualified’ and nor should you. i’m explaining a process that works for me, not providing a one-size-fits-all solution to the question of analytical methodology.]

the essence of literary practice is that a text has a terrain where it has to be met with, and where it will be accountable to forces that are often beyond its control or beyond its immediate borders, and a terrain where it asks to be met with, and towards which it will attempt to navigate the reader; the reader’s job is to meet with it on both terrains, synthesise them, and respond to them. so, some of the questions you should be asking about a text include:

what is its context? this can mean a lot of things: when and where was it written, and how might the conditions contemporary to its creation be informing the inner working of the text? is it considered part of a particular literary movement; how does it interact with the core characteristics of that movement? does it invoke other works; if so, how does it respond to them? what biographical information about the author might be relevant to the piece? some books will come with an introduction which, if written well, would cover at least the outstanding details on this list; you can also have a look on wikipedia or other such websites to get a feel for the conditions under which the text was created.

how does it respond to this context? rather than assuming a text to be a passive body onto which its external conditions are exerting their unilateral force, we should always understand a text as being in active dialogue with the context that shaped it. what are the questions typically posed within the movement or genre to which it belongs; how does it answer these questions? does it build on its predecessors in any way? if it’s a responsive text (ie. consistently invoking an earlier text), what does it have to say about the text to which it responds; how does it develop or contravene the template from which it was building? how might it be responding to the questions of its time; which paradigms are challenged? which are endorsed, actively or tacitly? what goes unmentioned? i emphasise critical engagement with context so heavily because it’s often where the meat of the text can be found. 

what are the conditions which made this text possible? this is a little different to questions about context, which have a far broader scope; this is a question which seeks to treat a text not as a thing that came into existence of its own accord, but as a thing that emerged as a result of a process of material production that depends upon particular conditions. is it a mainstream publishing house, or an indie press, or self-published? how does this affect its authority, or the standard to which we hold it? how does this affect its relationship to narratives of cultural hegemony? what can that tell us about what hegemony can and cannot absorb? this is me being a big marxist about it but i think this question is woefully neglected in literary studies lol

why did the author make the choices that they made? one of the most important things to remember when it comes to literary analysis is that every choice made in a text is deliberate; every choice about what happens, what a character says and does, what a character looks like, how particular characters interact, how scenes and objects and settings are described, what prose style is employed, what word is used in a sentence, etc., is a deliberate choice being made by an external agent (ie. the author, sometimes/arguably also the editor, also the translator if a text is in translation), and those choices are accountable both to the deliberations of the author and the external cultural narratives with which they necessarily enter into a dialogue. ‘why does a character behave in a particular way’ is not a question that invites you to treat the story like a riddle for which you can find an ‘answer,’ but a question that engenders the following: what does their behaviour reveal about the character, and how might this be situated within the discourse of the wider text? does this behaviour reveal any biases on the part of the author? what sort of expectations does this behaviour establish, and are those expectations met or neglected or subverted? the same process can be applied to themes, settings, plot beats - anything, really. why is this particular adjective used - does it have other connotations that the author might want to draw attention to in relation to the object being described? why does this chapter end here and not here? nobody in a novel has agency that extends beyond the boundaries of the novel itself; part of the practice of analysis means discerning which choices were made and why, and whether those choices were good or bad. 

what is your response? analysis is a misleading term for this practice; it’s less about dispassionately picking at a text in search of an ‘answer’ and more about evaluation - assessing the text’s successes and failures and cultivating your personal response to it, which means paying attention to your responses as you go along. some people would argue that ‘did you like/dislike this’ is a juvenile question, but i would disagree - knowing whether you liked or disliked something and being able to describe why it evoked that reaction in you is crucial to an evaluative practice. a text can be conceptually excellent, but falter if its prose is clunky or uninspired or unimaginative; being able to notice when a text isn’t engaging you and asking why that is is an important part of this evaluative process. similarly, what do you make of the themes and developments present in the text; does it dissect its themes with precision, or does it make broad gestures towards concepts without ever articulating them fully? is it original? does it have sufficient depth to it? do you agree with it? are you compelled by it? if you were asked the questions that the novel tries to respond to, what would you say; do you think that the novel misses anything out? has it challenged your own perspective? what are its limitations?

literary analysis is a learned skill, but by its nature of being a skill it gets a lot easier over time, and some of these questions will become intuitive. a good way to hone the skill and develop a greater intimacy with a text is through close reading; this refers to the practice of selecting a passage (or even just a sentence) and picking it apart line by line (word by word, even) to describe in intimate detail exactly how the sentence(s) came to be formed in the way that it/they did. i’ll use the first few sentences of daphne du maurier’s rebecca as an example.

Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again. It seemed to me I stood by the iron gate leading to the drive, and for a while I could not enter, for the way was barred to me. There was a padlock and chain upon the gate. I called in my dream to the lodge-keeper, and had no answer, and peering closer through the rusted spokes of the gate I saw that the lodge was uninhabited.

so a close reading of these sentences might identify:

‘last night i dreamt i went to manderley again’ is in iambic hexameter; this rhythmically satisfying invocation makes for a smooth opening sentence, and contrasts with the longer, more complex sentences that follow on. the change in rhythm through such a contrast helps to maintain momentum throughout the paragraph.

the first sentence also introduces a few key pieces of information - that this story is being told from the first person, that we are opening with a dream (and that the narrative places stock in the significance of dreams), and that the speaker is going to manderley ‘again’ - ie. that this is opening after an event in which manderley was significant. that the speaker going to manderley ‘again’ in a dream holds importance implies an exile from manderley in the ‘real’ world; this already gives us hints at the broader shape of the narrative. 

the speaker’s intimacy with manderley and disregard for ‘telling’ the reader what it is (we do not get, like, ‘manderley is a house’ or something - the passage continues as though we know what manderley is already) helps to develop our sense of immersion in the dreamscape. it also sets manderley up as a place of immense significance.

both ‘it seemed to me’ and the later ‘i called’ have a matter-of-factness to them, a certain dry reporting of the events of the dream which, rather than situating the reader within the texture of the dream itself, refortify us as outside of it, listening to it be explained after the fact.

‘for a while i could not enter, for the way was barred to me’ continues the theme of implied exile that the first sentence gestured towards. the iambic trimeter on ‘the way was barred to me’ creates a lilting cadence which, along with the use of the passive voice, detaches the speaker from an emotive response to this being ‘barred’; it is a reported dream that will not consciously acknowledge the speaker’s feelings about being exiled from manderley at this time. (we instead infer these feelings through how the chapter develops.)

‘there was a padlock and chain upon the gate,’ as a short sentence, falls into the same matter-of-fact register as that which i alluded to above, partly through the use of the passive voice, and - as i explained earlier - varies the length of sentences such that the paragraph retains a particular buoyancy. 

the development from the speaker calling to the lodge-keeper to not getting an answer to seeing that the lodge is uninhabited tells a story wherein the speaker at first has authority such that a lodge-keeper would respond to her and let her in; this authority is negated by the lack of response; the lodge-keeper is found to be absent in a development that took place whilst she was herself away, presumably in the state of exile that we have inferred her to be in. ‘uninhabited’ is the kind of word you would expect to be used for an area of land, often with a colonial connotation; this introduces a theme that this chapter (& the book as a whole) goes on to develop, of manderley being a site of colonial decay; as reinforced by the ‘rusted spokes.’

in my experience, close reading is a technique best practiced on poetry, but it’s a very helpful skill to develop in general, and implementing it with prose can elucidate the nuances of a text far more clearly than you might initially realise. in a well-written novel, language is very deliberate and precise!

i think the best thing you can do to develop your skills as a critical reader is to read carefully, and to keep track of your responses to a text as best as possible. keeping a note of what you think a text achieves and how you respond to it each time you read one can be a good way of sorting your thoughts into something coherent and developing your ability to articulate a response. anyway, hopefully this has provided something resembling a guide for how to develop the thought processes that go behind critical practice!