#unfortunately i have strong opinions on (my own specific interpretations of) wording

[night-dark-woods]

15, 21, 23, 24!!

THANK U ECHO this got so long oops.

15. that one thing you see in fanart all the time

hmmm not destiny-specific (i dont have any d2 specific gripes i dont think) & i mostly follow cool gay & trans ppl so this is much less of an issue than in the wider fandom (every so often some Main Fandom Art makes its way to me and i do a full double take) but like. i knowww they are almost all the same character model in-game but can we please get some characters who arent super skinny supermodels in here. please.

21. part of canon you think is overhyped

not to sound like an edgelord but. the traveler. if we can acknowledge that the Darkness isnt ontologically Evil, i think we can (PLEASE) acknowledge that the Light isnt inherently good. and im not talking about the superpowers we get, they've (narrative team) made it quite clear that individuals choose to do what they will with based on their own morals. but the traveler is, imo, positioned as a Morally Good Agent Of The Light far more than the witness is Of The Darkness, and i think we need to talk more about the traveler's agenda!!! again, this complexity isnt completely absent from the narrative, but it doesnt feel like those interpretations are... metatextually supported igss? like zavala's frustration with the traveler leaving feels more like a very christian (as someone who was not raised religious) test of faith that zavala (and the canonical YW) have Passed and will be Rewarded.

where's tevis my best friend tevis. we need more characters with that pov. god is real god resurrected you god gave you a second chance at life with no memories of your past and a guardian angel (a "chattering oversoul," to quote toland) to tell you where to go and who deserves to die and raise you every time you fail just to throw you back into the divine crusade. like. lets talk about that a little more!!!

23. ship you've unwillingly come around to

this is hard bc i am in general very willing to "yes-and" ANYTHING with a hint of chemistry or a fun dynamic. it may not compell me but if you can point out a narrative similarity btwn characters i will almost always be down. unless its one i hate ("hate" being a strong word. really its just the strongest possible apathy) bc i contain multiudes :thumbsup:.

i can't think of a pairing i started out disliking and then changed my mind about due to fandom unfortunately. the closest would be igss that i hate crow/amanda as its written in the text BUT my perhaps controversial opinion is i think transitioning could fix crow specifically the version of crow i have in my head who did not get uldren's memories back. SotL was so good for the overarching plot of d2 but so so so bad for the type of awoken-enjoyer i am & imo the like... thesis statement of what a guardian is lol!

so unfortunately i dont have an answer for this one (i dont think "i like the pretend version i made up in my head" counts as coming around on a ship lmfao), bc you can pair any two destiny women and ill be like yeah for sure! and i have curated my online space well enough that i rarely see any other kind of ship, and when i do its gay men (o14, uldren/jolyon, someone i follow is cooking something with saladin/drifter which is inspired. i love whatever is happening there) which is like cheering absently for a sports team idc about but support on principle.

24. topic that brings up the most rancid discourse

mara. its always fucking mara. literally spent an hour and a half last night rehashing d1 mara-course in a server with someone who has not read any lore. which is fine! thats a fine way to engage with the game! its a valuable perspective! but use i-statements and accept that you are coming to the table with 10% of the facts about the character.

honorable mention goes to anything about redemption arcs (and savathun specifically)- most recently that fuuucking saint killing sav repeatedly lore tab. and if you (general) cant be assed to care about evil women (skill issue, but whatever), thats also backsliding YEARS on saints characterization and i dont even care about saint!!!

so really the answer is misogyny lmfao.

[katyspersonal]

I respect your opinions and especially the way you defend your right to express them online, I don’t support people trying to shoo you away from the fandom in such horrible ways, but that one post you made about “me” on anon trying to support the artist that wanted to start making YouTube videos is kinda hurtful. I didn’t have any ill intentions and wasn’t trying to imply that their queerness is the ONLY thing that’s interesting about their takes, it was just that: a few simple words of support meant for specifically this person, that I thought of while typing that anon ask, I knew they won’t interpret it the way you do and didn’t see any problem with it. I’ve been following this artist for years and I really liked them as a person (they even used to be my tumblr crush) and as a creator, and yes, the fact that they take into account less common interpretations (aka lgbt headcanons) is ONE OF THE THINGS I appreciate about them. I feel like you overreacted too much and projected onto“me” things you have been resenting about people who hurt you and claimed they did it for righteous reasons. Just because I share their enjoyment of “queer interpretations” of my hyperfixation doesn’t mean I hate cishet people and think their interpretations are automatically “lesser”. I even distanced myself from certain people in the fandom BECAUSE I saw how hypocritically they treated you and it made me feel unsafe in this space. Sorry for accidentally digging out this post that you made about “me”, not suspecting that the anon that angered you isn’t one of the people who dogpiled you and that maybe they even enjoys some of your content. I don’t want to start drama with you, I just got jumpscared by realizing that you’re talking about ME in one of your opinionated posts and, I admit, felt personally attacked for things I never even meant to imply. I’m just as autistic and chronically online as you and take petty and unimportant things personally. I don’t want to be your enemy is what I’m trying to say. Have a nice day!

It was very surprising to wake up to this, and thank you so much for reaching out about this. I will add the post about my reaction for the context:

This is true that re-reading this post now sounds like I've made some very strong assumptions about you. You told that artist to make their own lore videos because "we need more queer voices in BB/DS/ER analysis videos", and the way I interpreted it? ...yeah the post IS here on how. I don't want to vague, so here for anyone who doesn't know what we're talking about, witness my anger in all its ugliness. /srs "Projecting" my own bad experiences, as well as just a very unlikeable trend I do see in the fandom, is an understatement: I straight up assumed that you were possibly one of the people who at least agreed with slander, and yes, my already pre-existing paranoia has grown x4 times stronger after all the stalking and harassment. I don't think there is a way to heal and go back on always assuming the worst unless I distance from the fandom for a year or so, but unfortunately, engaging in a special interest is a bit too crucial for me as a person. It is like if I have a poor eyesight and special interest is my glasses, and sure as hell 'irl fandom group' is not a thing in my city, or even country, so

All this is the context to specify that I can't promise that "now I've learned my lesson to never assume something about strangers online and will never do it again :333". Because this is just too late. I'd say that "at least I should not post these assumptions publicly", but by coming to me to talk about you've healed a grudge that has been bothering me, whereas if I just kept it in private I'd still feel angry. So, in the end, posting it publicly.... helps? Because it found you, even if odds were small, kinda like tossing bottle in the sea and it actually being picked up by someone.

I am still sorry for hurting you so, it is not a normal situation. THE lesson I should carry from it is, "maybe the person I am assuming things about thought the rest of the context was self-explanatory". You already feel unsafe in the fandom like you said, and I really regret that I've added to this anxiety (even if by different reason and context). I used to love that artist a lot and they were crucial part of my enjoyment in the fandom. Hopefully they did start to make videos, though. We do need more people to do analysis, just that, the identity of the one that does them should never matter. By your message you meant that thanks to that, their analyses would be able to feature readings like transgenderism and gay feelings, when people that do not experience either would simply most likely not read them in the story, and it should have been obvious from the start without an explanation. But you know how it is 🤝 autism, right.

I still value that you found me approachable enough to address the post directly and explain, and I am sorry. It is a no brainer that I no longer have hard feelings. You helped me with this a lot, but I don't have a way to help you back besides declaring my assumptions 100% invalid. I hope this will still work.

[oraclekleo]

Hi kleo, how have you been?

If it's not too much trouble, would you help me interpret a reading? I asked whether M (she/her, either Libra or Scorpio) feels any physical/sexual attraction towards me in a 2x3 spread. I got death, the Magician and the Tower on the top row, Knight of Cups, 7 of Pentacles and the Moon on the bottom row.

I'm aware a lot of people interpret the tower as a very sexual card, and it could be, since I asked specifically about that aspect and it follows the Magician. But it's also a card of change, like death, it worries me that the Magician is in the middle of these two and it's not telling me WHAT is transforming into WHAT. It's just not a good looking combination, I'm not sure what to make of it.

The knight is a great card to get (I'm a water sign, so I think this is me) but he's facing the 7 of Pentacles, a contemplative card... And the 7 of Pentacles has his back to the moon. This last 3 cards tell me she sees me as a possibility, but she's not acnokledging whatever it is that she feels.

Do you think the top row is telling me I need to undergo some change (Death) in order to manifest (Magician) what I want (the Tower, considering it's sexual)? The problem with this is that the bottom row kind of contradicts it, 7 of Pentacles and the Moon are telling me she's dubious. Plus, there should be a better card to represent success than the freaking tower, a tower crumbling is kind of the opposite.

I'm dying to know your thoughts on this 😅 no pressure though!

Hello 👋

First of all, I'm sorry if there's a larger amount of typos in this as I usually log in on my PC to do the longer responses but I'm visiting my sister and typing on my phone now. 😂

So! My first intuitive idea is that you might be standing in front of a choice whether to let something go which might lead to mourning or whether to keep sticking the head into sand but being struck with something inevitable and devastating eventually. You have the ability to do the choice but for some reason you feel like stuck in between those options.

The second row might suggest that you are the one thinking in terms of love and attraction but the other person isn't putting their effort in and only somewhat deceiving you maybe? The moon could mean that there's a hidden danger in the connection, that the person isn't honest with you and you feel like you have to pull each tiny information out of them with a lot of work put in it.

Overall there are many major arcana cards so the vibes are strong here. Unfortunately none of the cards is overly positive in terms of your question. It looks more like you really wish they were attracted to you and maybe put a lot of effort into attracting them but it's changing you in a way that's not sustainable and if you don't reconsider your approach, universe will do it for you.

One more thing coming to my mind is to put the question in different words. Not as yes/no question but rather asking about what you can do about this person to improve your dynamics or something like that to get more clarity. Sometimes when a reading seems a bit confusing it's worth it to reframe it, to ask more active questions.

All of these are just my suggestions and you can completely ignore them. I don't know the situation in detail so you should follow your own instincts. 😊

I hope a second opinion helps.

Wish you all the best of luck

[pride-of-storm]

i was a legal assistant for like two hundred hours and using 'v' for 'versus' will never leave me

[capricores]

FOURTH HOUSE: childhood observations (by mode)

* i focused more on the rougher manifestations of these placements in this post! i will make a positive manifestations version of these placements soon. also note your whole chart will influence this, and especially the individual sign of your fourth house (and planets located in the fourth), i am just grouping by mode for ease. also this is entirely based off my own research, interpretations, experiences, etc.

✨ mutable (pisces, gemini, sagittarius, virgo) fourth houses often experience childhoods in which one or both parents (or guardians) were absent. it may not be physically, it’s also often having emotionally detached and/or distant parents/guardians. mutable fourth houses usually had childhoods in which they had to learn to care for themselves and be independent at young ages; which is why as adults they generally have no problem living on their own, caring for themselves, making their own home & adjusting to change wherever they go (especially true if they also have a mutable moon and/or venus). unfortunately they also often struggle with emotional processing and expression in adulthood due to the emotional or physical unavailability of their family. it often even manifests as an attraction to toxic partners/friends who provide nothing emotionally/only drain them.

they are also likely to experience childhoods that involved a lot of moving around (cities or countries, schools, etc), which is why many mutable fourth house individuals feel as if they don’t truly have a “home”, and feel comfortable moving around freely in adulthood, and don’t have an immense need to stay stagnant in one physical place for too long (this will apply more to sagittarius and pisces). however this can also manifest in a more stressful way, feeling as if they “lost’ their childhood, or have no home nor stable place to go to when they are overwhelmed and in need of comfort. they must spend a lot of time and effort learning where they can find comfort, and how to build their own safe spaces.

the child’s intelligence was likely placed on the forefront during childhood, especially if the individual has gemini/virgo in the fourth. college/university may have been especially pressured for sagittarius fourth house individuals. you may have had a childhood in which you were encouraged to share your thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc freely and were praised for such. but on the other hand, you may have been forced down a certain path (school-wise), and had far too much stress put on you throughout childhood regarding your grades and perceived intelligence.

mutable fourth houses tend to come from “odd” situations; and usually quite unstable home environments. i’ve personally noticed mutable fourth houses are the least likely to want to talk about their past, family, childhood; because they’re sometimes ashamed of the “strangeness” of their past and the uncontrollable things that occurred in their childhood, because of their parents/family/etc.

✨ cardinal (libra, cancer, capricorn, aries) fourth houses tend to have parents/families that were over-involved in their lives; often controlling. i find that they likely had parents that put ridiculous amounts of pressure and responsibility on them from a young age. these placements didn’t get much time to be an actual child, as it’s likely they weren’t shielded from the harshness and rough realities of the world/others like they should have been. due to this, cardinal fourth house individuals tend to know exactly what they want for themselves in the future; specifically in terms of their home life, and future relationships; they usually end up developing unmatchable work ethic and boundaries as adults. however, they have to learn to embrace, accept and express their inner child; otherwise they will drown themselves in stress.

capricorn and aries fourth houses specifically were likely to experience a lot of strictness/control, and an authoritarian, sometimes aggressive, nature in their homes. they may have felt a lot of tension in their home growing up, and as if their parents/guardians were pushing them too hard in everything they did; trying to piece together their lives for them and leaving them with no say. their may have even been a lot of fighting between family members in their homes, or passive aggression, if this placement manifests harshly. this is why they tend to grow up fiercely individual and with a refusal to let anyone ever tell them what to do. they can easily hold their own regardless of the situations they’re placed in as adults.

cancer and libra fourth houses i’ve noticed had perfectionism and high standards placed extremely hard on them from a young age, especially from mother figures. although i find them the most likely of all the fourth house signs to be “babied” throughout childhood, i’ve also noticed this babying being turned into too much focus on this child. to the point where the child has so many expectations, high standards, etc., to meet due to the unrealistic projections and pressures from their parents. cancer and libra fourth houses often experience their parents trying to force certain futures onto them, that they themselves weren’t able to achieve/fulfill. in certain manifestations, this fourth house placement actually makes it so the cancer/libra fourth house individual has to be the parent to their own parents/siblings/etc. they may be overly forgiving, nurturing, and giving to their family (this will be heightened if venus or neptune are in the fourth as well).

cardinal fourth houses likely had a very perfectionist home environment and childhood, as i mentioned, and may have even been heavily pressured about their appearance, and how they come off to the public and represent their family. “image” was of huge importance throughout their past, and may have led to them being insecure adults or adults who are far too hard on themselves. it’s possible their parents had a picture perfect home/seemingly very peaceful home to the public/outsiders, that was actually a disaster/toxic environment behind the scenes. negative cardinal home environments can also leave individuals scared to initiate things and act on their own/without a push, despite this initiation being in their nature; since they were so used to being pushed by family members in various directions.

✨ fixed (leo, scorpio, taurus, aquarius) fourth houses can have their childhoods/pasts summed up in one word: intense. in true fixed fashion, their home environments were likely very strong: whether that strong is a good or bad word, depends on the manifestation of the placement. fixed signs, much like cardinals, likely experienced very controlling and sometimes aggressive (more likely for scorpio/leo) environments in the home. regardless of the sign, the parents/guardians were likely very stubborn, pushy and may have not allowed the child to have their own independent thoughts, goals, desires, ideas, etc. due to this, fourth house in a fixed sign individuals usually grow up to have very unshakable goals and opinions, and are able to hold their own in very serious and tough situations (such as loss, heartbreak, confrontation, etc). these individuals also sometimes must provide financially for themselves (and even their family) at a young age, because their family is unable to do so for them. it’s common for these fourth houses to get jobs at younger ages than most people around them generally would. i’ve also found those with fixed fourth houses (esp taurus/scorpio) had family members who tried to control and manipulate them via money/material items/finances; OR who tried to manipulate money out of them.

scorpio and aquarius fourth house placements specifically go through a lot of change and transformation during their childhood. they tend to experience immensely unstable home environments; due to the influence of uranus and pluto. it’s likely something major and traumatic may have even happened during childhood, that essentially changed their life forever (of course depending on other placements and just, life in general). they may have been the types to move around a lot during childhood, or have a lot of sudden swings in their life. the swings may have been smaller things, such as their parents/guardians being very moody, changing jobs a lot, etc; or larger things, such as famliy members losing jobs/income, sudden death, divorce of parents, etc. scorpio and aquarius fourth house individuals tend to, like mutable placements, end up “raising themselves” and/or feeling very alone and detached as a child; and as an adult (they really have to work on “building their own family” via friendships/etc).

similar to libra and cancer mentioned above, leo and taurus fourth house placements are likely raised with intense ideals and expectations from their parents; and are driven to a constant state of achieving unattainable perfection. this can result in becoming adults with huge insecurities that are far too hard on themselves. their home life throughout childhood is usually quite abundant (this abundance isn’t always good, however), or they have parents/family members with very material/money-focused mindsets. they may have frequently experienced their parents putting their careers, image, belongings, etc., before their own child(ren), leaving them feeling quite abandoned or unloved. this is why these individuals often go on to seek validation/love from others in the future for their self-esteem, especially if they have strong leo personal placements. leo and taurus fourth houses likely had huge pressure from their family to make something significant out of themselves. not necessarily a pressure to just do well in school, but to do something huge; such as become famous/widely-known, obtain scholarships/the highest grades, get a super “distinguished” or high-paying job, etc. 

[eppysboys]

Eppy can you rate the Beatles parents on /10 ? (the parents of the bugs not the bugs themselves as parents)

Hi anon! I don't think I could give a neat number out of 10 on something like parenting (unless you meant /10 based on looks? 😳). My general impressions of them are basically:

Elsie Starkey: An absolute gem! 😊 (who also happened to be very persuasive) She loved her little drummer boy, and he adored her, and I have endless respect for how she cared for him and carved out the best life she could give him out of often unfortunate circumstances.

Harry Graves: Seems like a genuinely lovely man, who importantly taught Ringo 'gentleness' (I'd interpret that as more Harry encouraged Ringo to be gentle, rather than mask up that aspect of his personality).

The Harrisons: #1 Fans and supporters of George and the boys. It's really sweet hearing them talk about George - they just seemed to /know/ him, and wanted him to follow his own path because they understood how important it was to him. They speak more of his character than of his achievements, which is just very sweet to me. Louise in particular is a legend :')

Aunt Mimi: 😐 (I think she would have made a great strong parent to someone with a different personality + free of horrible trauma, but unfortunately - despite mostly good intentions - a lot of choices she made and her approach to raising John really mixed him up. 10/10 would raid her book collection, though.)

Julia Lennon: Manic Pixie Dream Girl irl??? Seriously though, It's a little hard to gauge that much about Julia and who she was/could have been between all the versions of her story told by various people and the fact her life was tragically cut short. There's large chasm between the 'handling' (for a lack of a better word) of John and Julia + Jackie Baird (who vehemently object to how their mother has been written about and portrayed). I think she would have been a lovely entertaining friend for sure, but there seems (to me at least) a mix of immaturity and harmful circumstances inflicted on her that really complicated how she could have parented John. I do trust in Julia Baird's kinder portrait of her, though, during those last few years of her life.

Alfred Lennon: He gives me battery acid vibes.

Mary McCartney: I just sort of follow what Paul and Mike say about her - Strong, intelligent, stern, motivated woman who wanted the best for her family. It would be lovely to know more about her personality outside of 'Mother Mary' 👀 So I dearly treasure how Mike wrote about her, in particular.

Jim McCartney: By all accounts he was a sweet man that clearly loved his boys and wanted the best for them. It's hard to reconcile that image of soft spoken Jim - learning to cook and take care of his two sons, wringing out Paul's sweaty shirts after gigs and preparing him dinners for when Paul came back home - alongside Paul's descriptions of him hitting him well into his teenage years. Looking through forums, there's a mixture of opinions on how common that was (specifically relating to Paul's age) for the time and place, in any case, I do respect him for how hard he tried and how he guided his boys through their upbringing, but it's obviously really upsetting to read how he dealt (or failed to properly deal with) his anger/disappointment in Paul (and Mike) at times.

[ouyangzizhensdad]

what’s the line between a good adaptation and a bad adaptation? I’ve been running circles in my head thinking about where cql stands these past few days. Because i was also thinking about other adaptations like the pjo films and howl’s moving castle, like one of these is hated and the other is very much loved but both of them change so much from the original source material that it cannot be considered the same, movie howl and book howl are completely different characters and the plot for pjo was messed w so much in the films. So I was thinking about how much an adaptation can change before it’s considered a bad adaptation? or if changes really even matter if the adaptation achieves what it set out to achieve regardless of how different it is to source material? For the record I think cql is a bad adaptation but I’m unsure how to word it because the line seems kinda blurry

Hi anon,

As much fun as it would be to be the final arbiter on what constitutes a good or bad adaptation, it is a question to which there are unfortunately no definitive answers. But I am of course happy to share my opinion and thoughts on the topic!

I think a good adaptation needs first to meet a crucial condition, which is that it must be, on its own, a good work of fiction. That means on the one hand that it should not rely on the source material to be thematically or narratively cohesive--if prior knowledge of the source material is necessary to understand fully the adaption, I personally consider it a failure. On the other hand, this also simply means that the work of fiction must be competently-made, coherent, enjoyable, etc. on its own merits. However, some adaptations that are well-made and generally self-contained works of fiction remain bad adaptations. There is obviously more to the process than just producing a strong work of fiction based on elements of another work.

It’s good to keep in mind that changes are not inherently a bad thing since the process of adaptation requires change. Generally an adaptation aims to tell a story through a different medium, which requires changes even when the creative(s) in charge of the adaptation want(s) to remain as faithful as possible to the original. Telling a story through a visual medium vs the written form demands a different approach! And technical limitations might end up having a huge sway in the process: do you have the budget or the technology to execute everything described in a fantasy novel, for instance? how much time or locations do you need to tell the same story? As well, since adaptations are generally spear-headed by different creatives, changes to the source material are part of the creative process, by adding another perspective and by being forced, in a sense, to choose a specific interpretation of the source material. And that’s not even covering how adapting something from a different era or from a different cultural moment will require a form of “translation” to make it both intelligible and relevant to contemporary audiences. 

In addition to these sort of “unavoidable” changes, there are many other factors that may enter into question. With CQL and MDZS, we have a salient example of how censorship might influence the process of adapting a property. The people who have a veto, in some shape or form, over the project may also pursue their own agendas. Matters of marketability and of targeting a specific market will also influence the direction an adaptation takes, especially when an adaption is done in a medium that requires large initial financial investments.

Personally, I believe that the way to make a good adaptation is to go either of these three ways: 1) take a source material that contains obvious weaknesses and improve upon them; 2) figure out exactly what is the appeal of the source material and what makes it original, and make sure that these elements are kept in the adaptation; or 3) reinvent the source material. In the first scenario, it is a case of stronger story-teller being handed a property that has a lot of flaws, and either doing away with them or filling up the gaps in the original narrative--thereby allowing the good in it to finally shine. A good example of that, imo, is The Old Guard movie, a tight narrative that excised a lot of the less savoury elements of the graphic novels and included a lot more emotional depth and pay offs.

In the second scenario, the most important factor is that the creative (or creatives) in charge of the adaptation really understand not only the source material but also why it became loved enough to be picked up for an adaptation--why it appeals to people, what makes it unique, what stands out. What I mean is that creative liberty and changes to the source material are totally fine so long as they do not lose the identity or appeal of the source material and do not present an interpretation that is not actually rooted in the original text. For instance, I personally hate the Anne with an E adaptation of Anne of Green Gables because to me it fundamentally misunderstands the point of the novels and why they became a phenomenon. Making a story that was written to be an uplifting fantasy about an abused orphan who still managed to find beauty in the world and to find love and acceptance in it into a grim “realistic” drama to try to “appeal to modern audiences” is fundamentally stupid and, honestly, offensive. As well, while I enjoy Pride and Prejudice 2005 as a film, I think it is an horrid adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, mainly due to the fact the director Joe Right clearly did not understand the novel. As a result the film is a representation of what he projects unto the narrative (something that is very clear when he talked about the novel in interviews or in the bts), and not what is actually in the text.

In the third scenario, what would be a loose adaptation is a situation where perhaps very little of the source material may remain. It might only be the premise, or some plot points, or some character relationships that are ultimately  kept. These also include for me the “what if X narrative but Y set-up”, which can be awful (the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies movie is so shockingly bad when it could have been a fun, campy romp) but also a way to explore a source material in new ways or underlining certain themes that might have been not given as much light in the source material. In this case, I guess that what really makes it a good “adaptation” is whether it has something new or interesting to add to the source material through this loose adaptation, or whether it is just a gimmick. 

To me, CQL fails as an adaptation both on its own merits (due to plot holes, on-the-nose and clumsy storytelling, inconsistent characterisation, technical failings, etc.) but also as it does not retain, for a number of reasons, what makes MDZS appealing imo (WWX’s characterisation, Wangxian’s journey, its heavy reliance on mystery, intrigue and themes, its willingness to show characters do cruel and violent things, etc.), all the while making the cardinal sin of being a weaker story than the source material (when the source material already provided them with all the material they would have needed to tell a story of at least equal complexity and competency). 

[lady-bluebird-luv]

Digesting Chapter 138

Don't get me wrong, there were moments in chapter 138 that fucked me up (cough Connie and Jean cough), and I love the art. Eren and Armin’s fight and the final panel with Mikasa, which I want to dig into in a bit, are both especially powerful drawings. Overall, though, I feel much calmer after reading this chapter than I thought I would. I’ve been trying to figure out why that is, and one reason is probably that I expected some of it. The rumbling was going to continue, the explosion wouldn’t have killed Eren, and he was probably going to die in either this chapter or the next one. 

But I also think that part of why I feel so normal is because I’m not thrilled about this chapter. Which is rare for me. I won’t say that I’ve never been peeved about a chapter, since I definitely have been and I just can’t remember the specifics, but it’s been a while. 138 is confusing, it’s disgruntling, and it didn’t pack as much of a punch as AoT usually does. I don’t hate it, but I’m also not here for it, and there are a couple specific moments that make me feel that way.

First, the titanization. 

Like I said, Jean and Connie’s last moments cracked my heart, but even though that last panel of them standing together, watching Falco fly away, was beautiful and painful, I’m so confused about how the titanization happened. The chapter heavily implies that the gas which infects the characters comes from the Hallucigenia-worm-neck-thing.

Okay, bet. I can accept that the spine worm primed the Eldians for titanization. What confuses me, though, is that it’s not clear that the worm triggers the titanization. If anything, it looks like Falco did, which I don’t understand. 

As Falco flies away with Mikasa and Levi on his back, leaving the other characters behind to become titans, Falco screams. After he screams, the Eldians turn into titans. It’s not clear what else could trigger the transformation. There’s no panel of, say, Eren screaming, and from past chapters, titanization is trigged by a scream, not because of exposure to gas or spinal fluid alone. 

So, the chapter looks like it implies that... Falco screams? 

Maybe that’s not what’s going on, but that’s what it looks like, so the titanization makes no sense to me. If Falco screamed The Scream, why? Screaming turns the people that he wants to protect and free, e.g. Gabi and his family, into titans devoid of autonomy. If Falco is the trigger, that also means the titanization was preventable, which is incredibly frustrating given that so many important characters were transformed. 

Maybe someone could say this is a highly dramatized scream of anguish, and that the gas was strong enough to turn the Eldians through exposure alone. Maybe the worm is just insanely powerful. But that sounds like a cop-out, so this is a really confusing, frustrating scene. 

The confusion about the Hallucigenia and its role in titanization is part of a bigger problem with this final arc and this chapter: Ymir and the lore.

 The more I see of the Hallucigenia and Ymir, especially after the weird origin story last chapter, the less sense everything makes. I have a lot to say about Eren’s death, and I’ll get into it more some other time, but for now, I want to focus on Ymir’s reaction to it.

Putting aside how morbidly funny I think her presence is, why is she smiling? Ymir has either helped or controlled Eren, I’m still not completely sure which, for a long time at this point. She’s invested in him. His death seems like it would be a massive loss for her own objectives, but when Eren fails, Ymir just... watches. 

Her smile definitely makes me think that there’s much more going on here than she’s letting on, but I also can’t figure out what the hell that “more” is. At this point, watching her react this way, I don’t understand what she wants or her dynamic with Eren. Last chapter’s lore confused me, too, so this chapter’s weirdness exacerbated my frustration with not knowing what’s going on. 

Why this panel from last chapter confuses me is a whole other text post, and I don’t want to go off on a tangent, but basically, if she made the titans/ Hallucigenia to have an undying body, and if she meant to escape to a free world, whether that’s the paths or something else, she didn’t succeed. It’s also not clear to me whether she completely controls the thing in Eren’s neck, or if she only made it. 

Ymir and the founding titan’s powers are massive components of the rumbling and Eren’s behavior. They also don’t make sense. After last chapter’s lore threw me off, I hoped that 138 and 139 might shed some more light on the titans’ origins and Ymir. After reading 138, I’m more confused, and I’m started to give up on trying to wrap my head around any of it. It’s still intriguing, but I’m increasingly frustrated, and it makes the series’ ending feel rushed. 

Beyond Ymir, I’m not into the ending in general. And yeah, it’s because of That Final Panel. 

Like I said at the beginning of this post, I LOVE the imagery. It’s so dramatic and macabre, and I’m excited about what fanart it might inspire. I don’t also love it thematically. 

I’ve seen a lot of really vitriolic reactions to it, especially from people who dislike EreMika. For me, I’m just bummed about it means for Mikasa’s character.

One of, if not her greatest, defining traits for YEARS has been her love for Eren. Especially after Eren’s rampage in Liberio, it became more and more clear that her development would have to mean letting go of that devotion, or at least not let it keep her from stopping his plans. 

Mikasa rejecting the dream and killing Eren fulfills that development, but the kiss undermines it.

The kiss is closure. A goodbye. It is also still a kiss on the lips, which, at least for me and in the culture I grew up in, reads as romantic. Since Eren is dead, it’s also unreciprocated. The scene is both as Mikasa letting go of Eren and perpetuating the same (recently toxic) devotion she’s had for the whole series.

I’m not saying that I don’t think she should have closure. It makes sense that, after such an intense relationship, her goodbye is going to be tender. Nevertheless, I don’t think that the kiss is the form that closure had to take. Even if it took the form of a kiss, I don’t think that it needed to be on the lips. It’s like Yams can’t decide whether he really wants Mikasa to lose her love interest or not. Or, by extension, to not be defined by Eren. 

Over the years, I’ve gotten exasperated with how much Yams writes Mikasa focusing on Eren. This end doesn’t read like she breaks free the way she needs to. Saying “see you later” instead of “goodbye” right before she kills Eren also reflects her attachment, although the dream/vision/??? is a WHOLE different rabbit hole and that line is up for a shit ton of interpretation. 

As you can see from the watermarked panels, I’m not using an official English translation, so maybe the official English pages might clarify some things when they come out. I doubt it, though, since my frustrations don’t hinge on interpreting slight differences in wording. It’s also true that this is a pretty raw reaction, so my opinions might still develop, and I might figure out some of the lore and confusing panels that I’m stumped on. 

Nevertheless, this is how I feel right now, and based on what I’ve seen, I’m not the only one. If you liked the chapter, you do you. This is just my opinion. Everyone values and focuses on different elements of a story. Even though I just slammed the chapter for about 1400 words, I also liked some parts of it. 

In the end, it still doesn’t bode well for the manga’s ending. An author doesn’t have to explain every mystery and ambiguity for me to like a story. Grey areas and space for interpretation actually make a series stronger, in my opinion, but only to a point. Right now, there’s just too much that seems out of reach. I don’t blame Yams for wanting to be done with the manga after, as of about a week and a half from now, 11 years. At the same time, when I read this chapter, it felt like it was written by someone who was ready for it to be over, and not in a good way. I’ll wait and see how everything ends, but so far, I think the ending is... kind of underwhelming, unfortunately. 

[opbackgrounds]

I'm not sure under which catagory this will fit but can you give your opinion on the relationship between Doffy and Roci? More specifically whether or not Doffy really loved Roci; and if he did, did Roci wrong Doffy as a brother? In my mind Cora-san did nothing wrong and it's mainly Doffy's fault that they ended up where they were; but i'm curious Thank you ❤

First things first, no I don’t think Cora did anything wrong, and, no, I don’t believe Cora was right saying that Doffy was inherently evil. 

Secondly, this ask made me reread Law’s flashback for the first time since it was initially released, so while things are fresh in my mind I’m hardly an expert. My friends tell me that frees me to make an unbiased analysis, but I fully admit my stance on this isn’t 100% settled. I might change my mind on somethings later on, and that’s okay. 

With that out of the way, let’s talk about feelings, and how they betray us.

I find Doflamingo difficult to write about because there’s so much about him that remains ambiguous even after the conclusion of his arc. One Piece villains don’t tend to be super complicated by themselves as much as how they interact in a complicated world. 

Take Crocodile. What drives his actions during the Alabasta saga are simple: He wants military might after a failed attempt at the New World. The details of his backstory and the nature of his failure are fuzzy, but the basic motivation is pretty cut and dry.

Not so for Doflamingo. There are some hints that he wants to become the Pirate King, but for a decade he’s carved for himself a comfortable role in the underworld maintaining the status quo among the Four Emperors, gaining wealth and prestige on the slave market dealing black market weapons. Maybe all he wants is to laugh while watching the world burn. Who knows, not me. 

What makes analyzing Doffy and Cora difficult specifically is that Cora is a liar. Seriously, I don’t think there’s a major character in that entire flashback that he’s not dishonest with. So you get moments like this

Mixed with moments like this 

Making it difficult at times to know where exactly Cora stands. I mean, if he truly believed Doflamingo was born a monster, that there wasn’t a scrap of decency in his body, would he really have hesitated to shoot, even knowing he was about to be killed?

There is a lot of ambiguity in the characters of Cora and Doffy. To paraphrase Shrek, they’re like onions, with lots of layers to dig through. At the end of the day I think there are multiple valid interpretations that stay true to the text, and unless Oda decides to go Word of God in an SBS or something it’s going to stay that way. 

For what my two cents are worth, I don’t think even Cora knows how he feels about Doffy. On the one hand, he’s made it his life’s work to limit the destruction Doflamingo can wreck on the rest of the world, but on the other, he’s fighting against his blood brother. Cora I think was right when he said that he and the other executives understood Doflamingo better than anyone else in the world 

Because remember, Cora was there. He saw Doffy kill their father in cold blood. He heard his brother vow revenge even as the rest of the family begged for mercy from the enraged mob who nailed them to a wall. He’s seen the rage Doflamingo is capable of and the lengths he’ll go to in order to get back at those he thinks have wronged him. 

Oda has always struck an interesting balance been Nature and Nurture within the series. I’ll touch on it more when I write on the Celestial Dragons as a whole, but you can’t really look at the environment Doffy grew up in and say that he had any chance and becoming anyone else that he did. 

Cora and his parents were, at best, outliers within the culture of Mariejois. You know that the family had slaves before they decided to live like normal people because as a child Doffy asks if they can buy more. You get the implication that Homing never had the strength of will to correct his son’s misbehavior, nor did he have any idea of what he was getting his family into (his idea of a “comfortable life” is a giant freaking mansion) and after his death Trebol and the rest fed Doffy’s worst traits, molding Doflamingo just as much as an adult Doflamingo molded the children left in his care

So while Doflamingo always had a strong will and a mean streak, neither did he ever have a character like Sengoku to set him on the straight and narrow. You can’t tell me that if during the Void Century the Donquiote family decided to stay and rule Dressrosa and the Nefertiti family abandoned Alabasta for Mariejois that eight hundred years later that’s not at least a chance that Vivi ends up as a super villain with a god complex while Doffy is ruling as a good, wise king. 

So in wrapping this up, I think the relationship between the brothers is messy and complicated. For as much as Doflamingo spouts how much he values his blood brother during the first half of the flashback, he was pretty damn quick to assume that Cora had betrayed them after he ran off with Law (and to be fair, he was right). I think there was always a part of Doflamingo that doubted his brother, because he disappeared for eight years, and because of the supposed “weakness” Cora showed when they were children. I think there’s some truth to the statement that Doffy values the four other executives more than Cora

Putting a very twisted spin on the found family trope that One Piece puts so much emphasis on. I think Doflamingo expected Cora to betray him because he’d been betrayed by his “own kind” so many times before: By his father, and then by the Celestial Dragons as a whole, who I think people tend to forget tried to kill him when they found out he had learned their big secret

(As an aside, I love Oda’s attention to detail—the silhouette of the armor is exactly the same as what we see at Mariejois itself)

At the same time, I think Doffy was genuinely disappointed when his suspicions about Cora were correct. Doflamingo gave his brother everything, including a seat at his right hand, only for Cora to throw it back in his face. Doflamingo had planned for Cora to eat the Op-Op Fruit and give up his life to give him immortality, but Cora refused to be controlled. 

And if there’s anything Doffy hates, it’s not being in control. 

For his part, I think Cora told himself often enough that his brother was a monster that he mostly believed it. Whether or not it’s true or not doesn’t really matter, because Cora believed his brother was beyond saving. The fallen god had become a devil that needed to be put down for the sake of the world. 

And yet he couldn’t pull the trigger. 

It’s unfortunate for him that Doffy didn’t have those second thoughts. 

[yakuzacasual]

wow that last daigo request awakened my love for him.. i wonder if you could write something about daigo's s/o complaining about his hair and asking for him to go back to his emo hair (bc its so fvckng cute). also, i would suggest for you to write a drunk s/o to keep things realistic because no one in their right mind would ask anyone to cut an emo haircut SOBER, only me .. anyways, i really like your writing! i usually only read nsfw but your stuff is always so funny and cute, i love it 💓💗💞

PREFACE

Ay folks. I came just to say that this is a Daigo Dojima elaborate shitposting blog now, I don’t make the rules okay byeeeeee No but seriously, I’m prioritizing these two Daigo ideas I got after my first word vomit because you’ve come up with some gorgeous ideas while I was off making heart eyes at Y7 cast , you beautiful folks. Thank you so so much Non, this was a joy to write but don’t ever again assume that I wouldn’t ask this man that I am simping for to go back emo when I’m sober. I would. But in the hc it’s up to your personal interpretation. Also his hair’s shorter than i rememebr it now that i check lol. Hope you enjoy it and have an awesome day!

DAIGO HAVING THE HAIR TALK

Daigo Dojima, the chairman of one of the biggest yakuza organizations in Japan, is staring needles into a small container of what seems to be hair gel, like it just killed his entire family and spit in his face. When approaching him in that delicate state with wrath rolling off of his broad shoulders in waves, a level of caution is definitely recommended. And also readiness to hear him out because everyone in the family knows the drill by now and they make sure to disappear into thin air whenever the boss gets into that specific state of mind. Unfamiliar with the situation, maybe just a bit buzzed, you didn’t do either. You are a very special case with special privileges, after all. Whether the part of a family or an outsider, it doesn’t matter. There are a variety of doors that open up wide when you can openly proclaim yourself as Daigo’s lover. Such as barging into his office whenever you see fit, apparently.

You barely walk through the doors, when the man himself shoots you an acknowledging, albeit immensely tired look as he stops turning the container around in his hands only to set it down on the tabletop of his wooden desk. He tries his best not to pay it any attention as he beckons you over to one of the fancy guest chairs, but you can’t help and notice how his eyes wander right back to the box. It doesn’t really matter if you ask him outright or give him time to get to the topic himself, your conversation does eventually come down to discussing his biggest current concern. The price of hair gel.

What, did you think his hair gets like that on its own? Oh no no, you sweet summer child. Unlike some people, he doesn’t like styling it with the blood of his enemies. It’s a bit gross and most definitely inconvenient, though he’s got to admit, the look does feel incredibly cool. It’s this reddish shine that does it, in his opinion. Even long years after Nishikiyama’s unfortunate demise Daigo can’t help but try and replicate him like that, with copious amounts of hair gel. However, as he gets older he starts realizing how the seemingly small costs start snowballing into annoying large sums that he can’t properly explain to his finance handlers without having to come up with a strong justification for his poor life choices. And that is where you come in. An outsider’s eye, a fresh perspective for this troubled soul that is your boyfriend. So after what feels like an eternity of him trying to properly explain his problem without sounding like a total dumbass, he turns to you for assistance.

This is a scripted event with butterfly effect written all over it. Your choice will have severe consequences and can only be made once. Also, did I mention it’s timed? Well, better choose wisely and better choose real quick.

Do you: > Tell him to just be upfront with his finance team > Ask him if he can’t use less gel > “No, but hear me out, love. Your emo hair. Go back to it, no gel, no nothing. Just your gorgeous black mane scattered all over your forehead again, barely seeing anything through the pain of existence.”

Well, maybe that’s not exactly how you said it, but that’s most certainly the way he heard it. Also followed by you explaining how much hotter he looked that way and frankly, he’s not sure if it’s just your impressive bravado or the buzz talking. Alas, Daigo is quite taken aback, staring you with mouth gaping like a fish, not sure how to process whatever it was that you just threw at him. For the longest time he just sits there, feeling like he’s under scrutiny as you try to imagine this seasoned, adult him in his old haircut. Surprisingly enough it feels good to have your attention like that, but being the man that he is, he can’t help but react in a bashful manner, telling you to stop staring at him like a creep. Flatter him some more though, it’s actually a great and healthy boost for his ego, even if he acts like you’re being the most annoying person in the world. 

Honestly, from that point onward it’s just a bickering war of him claiming that he looked like an absolute idiot back in the day and now he’s got to be all dignified and shit, while you continue to tell him otherwise. You may even try to launch a full out offensive and try to get his hair down - if that’s even possible with the amounts of gel. Though it may feel a bit gross for your fingers, the effect’s definitely worth the prize because this man looks drop dead gorgeous. And, what you may observe as even better about this situation, he is like this specifically for your eyes to see and no one else’s. He does feel a bit liberated himself when you let his bangs just lay freely like that so at the end of the day you could say it was a battle well fought and maybe, maybe even won.

Because who knows, maybe Daigo will let his hair down like that around you just so that he could get you to look at him lovingly like that again. And maybe touch his hair, too....

[akechicrimes]

so i wanted to talk about why i really like the way royal portrays the interactions between haru, futaba, and akechi.

in royal, insofar as i can see, haru is treats akechi with a sort of kindly polite working relationship. i actually cannot determine whether or not that’s because it’s akechi, or if it’s just because he’s a boy. her relationships with girls tend to be focused on spreading positivity and being kind, while she doesnt seem to be anything less than formal and shy with the boys--except mona, of course, but that’s a little different because he’s a talking cat.

futaba, on the other hand, seems to treat him like a potential traitor for comedic effect, which i can’t imagine she’d be doing if she thought he was going to betray them for real. (we already know what futaba did when she knew akechi was going to betray them, which was put everything on lockdown and bug his phone.) on the other hand, people do tend to make jokes about things that worry them, so akechi’s betrayal does seem to be on her mind either way.

haru is, notably, the first person to advocate for bringing akechi on the team, seconded by futaba. both of them cite the fact that they need the manpower, and both of them seem to be of the opinion that if he betrays them again, they’ll just squash him like they did the first time.

which is a very notable difference from the direction fandom interpreted that relationship. and i like the way that fandom interpreted haru and futaba as potentially never forgiving akechi for what he did, but i do think there’s a lot of merit in royal’s take.

in royal, haru and futaba’s concern seems to be primarily that he’ll backstab them again. specifically, when they’re discussing akechi joining the PT a second time, both of them reference akechi’s betrayal rather than necessarily his murders.

for some reason, the issues with wakaba and okumura aren’t even on the table. even when futaba and haru talk about losing their parents a second time in their third-tier awakenings, they talk generally about losing someone they love, like they’d died of illness, or an accident, or natural causes--like it was something unfortunate for which nobody is really to blame.

to be fair, it seems that they’ve already blamed someone: shido, who’s in jail. the situation has been resolved. they’ve done what they can to hold the people accountable to task. futaba at one point specifically says that shido is the one who killed her mother. i don’t think haru gets as far as saying “shido killed my father,” but considering the way she behaves in royal, i’m going to wager she’s on a similar page. 

the stance here seems to be that although akechi may have really truly and outrageously fucked up, the deaths of wakaba and okumura are still ultimately shido’s fault. shido was the one who ordered those hits, for one. for two, shido’s the person who created and masterminded the entire government conspiracy that eventually led to both wakaba and okumura being silenced for what they know. and, considering that okumura was the one ordering literal assassinations of his business rivals to grow his own business through his connection with shido’s conspiracy, and that okumura was assassinated because shido’s conspiracy cut him loose, we should also be fair and add that okumura’s death was partly his own fault anyway.

so, from what i can see, the attitude isn’t necessarily that haru and futaba have completely forgotten that akechi is technically the person who shot and killed their parents. but they’re also very aware that the situation was more complicated than that, that shido is primarily responsible, that akechi was a victim in his own ways, and, at the end of the day, they kind of do need him to get back to reality. 

the vibe is almost like, sort of like the p5 fandom, the PT don’t really know what to do with akechi. he’s not outright a villain. he’s not one of the PT. they’re sympathetic, although understanding that he’s done terrible things. what’re you supposed to do with that?

i think, in particular, this is reflective of a very interesting dynamic that’s widespread across royal: everyone in royal seems to be much more forgiving of akechi than akechi is.

forgiving might be a too strong of a word, but at the very least, the phantom thieves’ treatment of akechi is almost hilariously understated considering what he’s done. they sometimes rib him in mementos, but not really any more seriously than they rib, say, ryuji. there’s several mementos dialogues where people make small talk with him--nothing super personal, but general platitudes that you’d exchange with someone you don’t know extremely well, like talking about your health and good sleep. they’re notably wary of him as a potential threat on several occasions, but obviously not so wary that ann won’t cheerily talk to him about thrift-shopping. 

as uncomfortable as i imagine those group dynamics must be, from an outside perspective it’s fucking hilarious because akechi is literally just the awkward villain-turned-friend that sometimes they invite out to parties but he just stands there awkwardly in the corner because nobody knows what to fucking do with him, least of all akechi himself. 

but from a more serious perspective, i do think that again, there’s a bigger issue at play. 

saying “akechi is not the one who killed okumura, it was shido” erases the fact that akechi was--apparently--willingly involved in the operation. i think royal makes it clear that he had mixed feelings on it, and wanted to back out of it on several instances (see: his confidant with akira where he hints at bad things to come, and warns akira not to proceed), but in the end, he did still go along with it. he sure did walk into that interrogation room and make the conscious decision to shoot joker in the head. in the end, even if it wasn’t enough to refuse shido’s orders, akechi still did have some measure of agency.

in order to respect that akechi did have agency in the situation, that means he needs to be held accountable for his piece of it, which means that he feels he needs to be held accountable and tried before the law. 

so, any amount of apparent forgiveness from the phantom thieves--particularly from haru and futaba--would seem like they’re ignoring that he was (or at least felt like) a willing participant in shido’s conspiracy. 

(i would go into a further discussion about how in royal, akechi seems to hold agency as a good purely in and of itself. agency should not be given up under any circumstance, even if the rewards for doing so are immense. it doesn’t matter if maruki is solving worldwide problems with his gigantic dreamworld palace, what matters is that it’s removing free will and the ability to make your own decisions for your own life. akechi holds that nothing is worth losing your agency--nothing, not even a perfect happy end. it means a lot to him. enough that he’d insist on it, even if it means that this means insisting that he should be held accountable for all his bad decisions and murders.)

that, in turn, probably explains a lot about akechi’s insistence on returning to reality, his insistence on going to trial and being held accountable in joker’s stead, his stand-off-ish behavior with the rest of the phantom thieves. haru’s and futaba’s and the phantom thieves’ general willingness to shift the blame onto shido goes against akechi’s own insistence on himself as a meaningful actor in his own life. 

...in any event. with that analysis of royal’s character interactions out of the way, i sort of do want to address the fact that some people are unhappy that royal did not address wakaba’s and okumura’s deaths more, or centralize haru and futaba’s losses in royal’s narrative. i’ve seen 1000 takes and 1000 fanfics in which futaba and haru hold akechi accountable for their parents’ deaths and do not forgive him for it. akechi is, quite literally, the person who pulled the trigger on both of their parents, so it’s fair. and i’ve seen a lot of fanfics and fans who’ve built up haru’s and futaba’s entire characterizations on their inability to forgive akechi.

i’ve seen discourse saying that “even if it’s not really akechi’s fault that okumura died, haru’s feelings are still valid.” which is also true, of course. she did grieve over her father, and in some universes, haru would not come to the conclusion that shido is primarily to blame. i think there’s a really compelling story in which haru knows logically that her father died because of his own mistakes, flirted with a government-wide killing ring and got hiimself killed for it, and she knows that it’s shido who killed okumura, but she still cannot find it in herself to really forgive akechi. it’s a very good and cool angle that i personally like a lot.

i like those stories too, is what i’m saying. it’s not the route that royal went with, clearly. but i sort of wanted to throw my hat in the ring about why i think that the interactions between haru, futaba, akechi, and the general PT in royal are also interesting in their own right.

EDIT: literally JUST saw this really good compilation post of haru and akechi’s mementos dialogue!!!

[annebrontesrequiem]

Femininity and Bridgerton

So 27 days ago a lovely anon said that they’d be glad to hear my thoughts on femininity and Bridgerton, and since I’m now finally free from school I decided to stop playing Genshin Impact and binging Disney movies and actually do something.

This is going to probably be very long (spoilers it’s 1,800 words long), so more under the cut.

So, a few things. Firstly I am specifically talking about Bridgerton, as the way that femininity is portrayed in media is a very complex and arduous topic. Secondly this is obviously just my opinion and you can absolutely disagree, even tell me if you do I love listening to different perspectives. Thirdly I’m talking about a show that is very heteronormative (the painter and Benedict aside as I’m focusing mostly on Daphne in this post), and presents a very specific part of straight, cis, upper class femininity. So keep that in mind as well. Also as I’m going to be talking about patriarchy, femininity, and masculinity I know that there might be a few TERFs that crawl out of the woodwork and just… don’t. This isn’t for you and while I’m at it please go read some actual feminist texts. Also I know that this is a period piece but I will be addressing that don’t worry.

Also I am going to be talking about that one scene so trigger warning I’m going to be talking about sexual assault.

Also full Bridgerton season one spoilers.

----

So, all that set up out of the way, let’s talk about femininity in the Bridgerton series.

A good deal of Bridgerton focuses on the ways in which women are often confined by their role as women in society, as well as how they subvert that role for their own gains. This is used well in some cases, such as when the Viscountess uses the network that is forged between servants and women of the upper class to subvert Daphne’s marriage to Nigel Berbrooke. Being a period piece with a (mostly) diverse cast it also allows for women of color, specifically black women, to be portrayed in a very feminine light, where in society at large they are usually not allowed to inhabit such a space. However in attempting to subvert the status that women often occupied in Regency England the show accidentally reinforces views of femininity and its value.

Let’s talk about Eloise and Daphne. Eloise is very outspoken about the difficulties that comes with being a woman in society, wishing to break out of the confines of femininity. Daphne, on the other hand, wishes to stay within the traditional woman’s sphere, get married, have children, run a household. And while in text these two women often debate the meaning of their position as women, each making very valid points about their status and how they’re confined by it, the framing makes it seem that Eloise’s position is ultimately the “better” one.

Full disclosure, Eloise is my favorite Bridgerton character. I love her outspokenness, her determination to make something out of her life, the fact that she attempts to make the oppression of the society around her explicit. However I think the way she is framed as this, for lack of a better term, “girlboss” in the making is often reductive. The show seems to have this idea that Daphne is in some ways inferior in goal to Eloise. That is, Eloise’s value isn’t that she is an ambitious person whose status as a woman hampers said ambition, but rather that she is in some ways morally and intellectually superior to Daphne by rejecting her femininity and repressing qualities that are considered less masculine and thus lesser.s It presents this idea of women’s empowerment wherein one is only empowered if they deliberately step out of traditional femininity, either in appearance or in life path, rather than confronting a society that sees femininity as inferior. Daphne’s wish to continue in the traditional sphere of womanhood is somehow lesser, and she only becomes truly empowered later in the series when she becomes more aggressive (we’ll talk about that later).

That Eloise has her own book where she presumably falls in love and gets married makes this all the more confusing. Does she then lose her intellect and her status as an empowering woman? The messages feel very mixed. In portraying Eloise as enlightened for actively resisting the woman’s sphere and Daphne as needing to learn to be more “assertive” to gain said enlightenment, the show accidentally presents femininity as inherently passive, inferior to the assertion that is more traditionally masculine. This is something that modern period dramas often fall into. Empowered women are only empowered by attempting to transcend their femininity, to become more masculine. The bottom line isn’t to present women and femininity as equal in all ways to men and masculinity, but femininity is something reductive that must be shed to truly become equal.

Since we’re talking about Daphne I want to examine her character arc within this lens as well. Daphne is adamant that she wants a love-match. She is also very aware of the importance of presentation, as well as the importance of reputation. This is a very solid foundation, as is a way where Bridgerton taps into the complexity of the role of women in regency society in a good way. However as the show goes on this complexity seems to fade in favor of making Daphne, again I’m sorry, a “girlboss”. This is made explicit in the scene in which Daphne violates Simon’s consent, as well as the way in which this act is framed.

Now you can tell immediately from the framing of the scene in which Daphne violates Simon’s consent what this is supposed to be interpretated as. From the music to the triumphant looks on Daphne’s face, this is supposed to be a moment in which Daphne has finally gained control of her life. And yet in doing this, and in presenting this whole scene as a result of Simon’s “betrayal” – and thus something his has to take the blame for – the show is making a value judgement. Daphne can only become strong by becoming “assertive” (ie aggressive) to the point of violating someone’s consent.

The topic of rape culture is a very long and arduous one which I will not be diving into, but I do wish to point to the fact that men are supposed to be aggressive, both sexually and otherwise. Men are the ones who always “want it”, who are uncontrollable, and who are willing to be aggressive to get what they want. This toxic idea of sex and masculinity is what I felt Daphne dipped into during this scene, and instead of presenting it as horrifying or a betrayal on Daphne part, it is presented as the climax of her character arc. I believe a showrunner once said that it was imperative to the “education” of Daphne Bridgerton. Thus is Daphne’s strength no longer her determination to be happy within the sphere she has been placed in by patriarchy, but her willingness to take back her life, no matter the cost. And yes this could’ve been a message about how men are also assaulted, but that is not at all what the showrunners wanted you to get out of this scene.

Lastly I want to touch on the men in the Bridgerton universe, because the devaluation of femininity also affects men no less than it does women. All the men in the Bridgerton universe are either bad people or rakes. Name me one (1) man in the Bridgerton universe who is presented as feminine, either in appearance or personality. And no femininity is not the same as being gay, the painter is not feminine. To be a man worthy of screen time or romance in the Bridgerton universe one must be as traditionally masculine as possible, and ready to make that your defining character trait.

Now I know that this is a large romance novel issue, as someone who has read three of the Outlander books I am unfortunately aware of how romance novels fall into this derivative state. But just because something is common that doesn’t mean it is any less worthy of criticism. The argument that it’s simply being “period accurate” is also something I don’t accept. Yes the regency era was incredibly patriarchal, but that does not mean that the women within it were helpless and could only break out of that helplessness by rejecting their own femininity. Jane Austen is a classic example, but I will also point to women such as Elizabeth Gaskell, the Bronte Sisters, and George Eliot in terms of English women who were highly intelligent and worthy of acclaim despite still associating themselves with their status as women in society. For a broader historical view I’d also like to present Catherine the Great and Empress Josephine who, despite being viewed in an often very derivative manner by the men around them, rose to great prominence and power.

In the end this is a larger societal issue and not one that my post will magically fix. But I will say this: we need to stop telling women and girls that the only way to get rid of patriarchy is to reject femininity. In doing so we say that masculinity is indeed the better trait, that by repressing one’s emotions and one’s femininity one can attain equality. We also need to stop telling men that the only way to ensure their own value to be aggressive, to tap into that toxic masculinity which we spoon feed them from birth. This hurts everyone, men, women, non-binary people. It makes the world a worse place and only when we stop trying to wiggle our way out of femininity and actually acknowledge its status as equal to masculinity will we achieve this.

I believe Bridgerton wanted to do that, wanted to present the complexities and anxieties of women living in a patriarchal world and the way in which they can subvert that world to their advantage. However it falls into the same trap it seems to be attempting to get out of, and at the end of the day one is left with a sense of vapidness. Though I may like Bridgerton (so much so that I binge watched the series twice and am even considering reading the books) I think that we need to acknowledge its flaws, because only then will we be able to move forward and make media that is more enjoyable, more nuanced, and ultimately better in terms of expectations and norms.

Like I said this is a very complicated topic, but I hope I got my point across well. Thank you if you read all the way through this and I hope you have a lovely day!

[uthseikoashx-inflamedme]

Boggarts: why we can suppose they evolve through years

(Hi, here again up to no good (basically, theory). I apologize for the mistakes, the poor grammar, the choice of words which may be incorrect, etc.)

This post can be considered as an introduction: I want to talk about several specific Boggarts, first and foremost Albus Dumbledore’s one. Yet, before, I need to justify why I believe Boggarts’ form is not petrified, fixed through time. So let’s do it here.

Several weeks ago, I wondered what Albus Dumbledore’s Boggart was back in 1927. We know his Erised reflect shows an adult Gellert Grindelwald - however, in 2007, JKR declared Albus used to see his family in the Mirror, just like Harry.

It could be a “redcon”, but what if it’s not? Our deepest desire might change through the years. But isn’t it the same about our deepest dread? So could it be the same with Boggarts? And consequently, has Albus different Boggarts depending on his age?

However, we don’t know a lot of things about Boggarts: are they able to change, or are they always mirroring the same fear?

Why Boggarts’ form could evolve

Remus Lupin explained in PoA that Boggarts take the form of the deepest fear of a wizard or witch. The way Remus presents them, the way each character is associated with an unique Boggart’s form in the books, both of those things could mean that a person has one Boggart. Nevertheless, even if we don’t have any canon clue about it - or I think so? -, I believe Boggarts are supposed to evolve.

Ron, Seamus, Parvati… their Boggart are inspired by phobias and traumas. But people are often able to go through those phobias after years. The phobia of a 13-year-old wizard is not necessary the same 45 years later, etc.

We can simply think that fears are strongly connected to our experiences, what we are currently passing through. For example, Hermione’s Boggart at 14, during the exams in PoA, is McGonagall who tells her she failed all the tests. But if she meets a Boggart at 18, during DH, it can not still take this form: Hermione is constantly in danger, because of her blood status and her friendship with Harry - and I didn’t mention the quest of the Horcruxes. How can her deepest fear still be fail her exams?

Depending the context (the war), the age and the experiences, a Boggart may definitely change.

Boggarts are clues to understand a character though

It doesn’t mean that a Boggart is useless when we want to talk about characters’ personality or psychology. In fact, a Boggart is often a good way to discover the true nature of several persons in Harry Potter (and now, Fantastic Beasts).

Remus Lupin’s Boggart is the full moon - but his deepest fear is not the moon itself, it’s how he is doomed to take the form of a werewolf every month. He’s scared of what he could do while he’s not himself anymore, disgusted by his own nature of monster - or more accurately, what he considers to be a monster. In a way, Remus is scared by himself. His Boggart tells a lot about his self-esteem and his opinion about himself: he is not confident, he loathes his own condition - even if he’s not responsible of it. We know that for sure thanks PoA, the end of HBP and DH.

We could also talk about Newt’s Boggart in FBtCoG - a desk. Dumbledore says he’s afraid of working in an office, but we can understand it’s a bit more than that - Newt’s afraid of being stuck far from everything we likes and care about, magical creatures. Only near them he’s useful, free, etc. Again, Boggarts contain informations about a person’s heart, a person’s intimate nature.

Molly Weasley’s Boggart is also extremely interesting. We discovered it at the beginning of OotP: it takes the form of Ron’s corpse, then Fred’s corpse, etc. We can deduce two things: on one hand, a Boggart can actually have multiple forms for the same person; on the other hand, a Boggart often shows an idea, is a symbol of an immaterial dread. Here, Molly is scared of losing her family, evidently not of a corpse.

Boggart’s form can be symbolic: it might show an idea and not a literal fear

It actually proves what Professor Lupin said about Harry’s Boggart: Harry is not afraid of Dementors, he’s afraid of fear itself. Dementors are a symbol. Boggarts have to be interpreted to be understood.

(well, about Harry, we could argue he’s most afraid of losing control and be vulnerable, which is something related to his fear, or he’s scared of Dementors because his first experience with them was quite traumatising, like Ron is afraid of spiders because Fred and George transformed his plush in a spider when he was young)

We can also suppose that Boggarts’ form change a lot when a wizard or which is young and reflects an “immature” fear. I don’t want to say that children’s and teens’ dreads shouldn’t be considered as “serious” dreads; but in the books, the students have more childish fears than adults - in a way, those fears are immature because they are still in development. We could guess that adults’ dreads are more constant, more symbolic. It’s still a theory.

The consequences

(To be fair, we could argue that Harry’s Boggart didn’t change from PoA to DH - although he went through awful experiences, saw dreadful things, his deepest fear stayed constant. Consequently, it would not support the system we developed.

However, I think we can all agree on the fact that Harry is a bit special - I mean, he’s the hero, he has a very strong personality, he is particularly determined, has to carry the consequences of a prophecy at a very young age, must lead a quest and a war against one of the most dangerous wizard… So the fact that he’s already quite mature at 13 seems pretty clear to me - Lupin says it, “there are things in your past others cannot imagine” (give or take). So I don’t think it destroys the theory - it’s an exception more than a rule?)

Having evolving Boggarts means that studying the Boggart of the same wizard through the ages mirrors the evolution of that same wizard. For example, imagine Harry’s Boggart at 40 would require to understand what Harry became. Does his Boggart still take the form of a Dementor? If it does, does it have the same meaning as it had twenty years before? If not, what could it be? etc.

And in my opinion, a perfect character to study and theorise regarding his Boggart is Albus Dumbledore - after all, he lived 115 years and we have glimpses of his evolution through a whole century. And we will talk about Ariana. And Gellert. But unfortunately, not in this post. Sorry. (it sounds like a cliff-hanger - and it is)

Thanks for reading, I will be happy to read your opinion on this! :)

[ziracona]

hoh I'm really sorry friend but you got Talbot's backstory kinda muddled. Some things you stated that he did, he didn't actually do for the reasons you stated. He didn't experiment on killers just for fun -- he ran from them. they hunted him. he experimented on them to find a dosage right for himself. he also didn't experiment on an animal for fun. it was dead. Vigo apparently talked about escaping and it had to do with serum. Its why he injected himself after tests. He wanted a way out.

I’m going to answer this in two parts since it’s stated in two. First, friend, I am going to have to operate on the assumption that you have very very strong feelings about Talbot and assume everything said against him is pretty much the same after a glance or something like it, because I never once said he experiments on the killers for fun. I said the Entity I think lets Talbot experiment on other killers now that he is one too as “punishment for them and fun research times for Talbot,” not that Talbot experiments on them for fun. I think he does enjoy doing his scientific research, but that aside, the above is just a description of the Entity’s reasoning in letting him do that/its POV.  I certainly never said he does it ‘just for fun’. In fact, I explicitly stated his motivation for becoming a killer was to attempt to protect himself. I have to assume you didn’t really read my post at all, or perhaps got it confused with another. I know my shit. I read up. Though it is true I say ‘animals’ when, while he canonically experiments on both rats and crows, only the one rat happened for sure before he moved on to the Trapper. Although, that’s kind of worse... Again though, I never once said he did any of this for fun. I know he injected people to see what the serum would do, in a very reckless and poorly thought attempt to escape the realm. I explicitly mention this. Perhaps you are confused because I describe him as torturing people, and he’s not just doing pain for fun--this is because torture is not limited to only pain inflicted on someone out of cruelty or a desire to manipulate them. The dictionary definition of the verb, to torture, is “To cause intense suffering. To torment”. And he absolutely tortures killers, survivors, and reanimated realm animals alike as a means to his own ends. Also, the Entity has not erased all his memories--I know the archives has some memory deterioration lore added, but much of what he did to others happened well before any of that began, and explicitly some of his own addons mention things he explicitly remembers. The Entity did of course leave him to suffer in the void, with is a form of torture, and used the medical affects of blight itself to help manipulate him. Unfortunately, being hurt yourself doesn’t excuse you from the responsibility of what horrors you inflict on other people.

For part two, I am sure my answer is coming off as a bit abrasive. I appreciate the apology, but yes, it is rather rude. Even without the lack of attention to detail. Let me try to say this more fairly though, because I don’t know you at all, and in all likelihood, you’re a very nice and decent person who doesn’t mean anything by this, and simply has deep feelings about this character. Also, this isn’t all directed just at you, but to some degree at everybody who has sent me one of these in the past, or will in the future, which I am very tired of. I am going to quit answering most of them from here on.

First of all, I understand feeling deeply about a character or topic. I understand being frustrated or even hurt when you see opinions that distress you, or seem unjust compared to what you believe. That’s natural, and even sweet. And I am all for talking about how you feel and think and why, and leaving that in the tags so other people might hear what you have to say. Even for messaging people to see if they want to have a discussion with you. It’s endearing when people love things and want to fight for them. I only describe Talbot as more interesting than many of the others, because I was not asked specifically about my sympathy level, and it doesn’t factor high in importance to me where he is concerned, but you’re not wrong that Talbot is more sympathetic--or, at least, depending on interpretation, much more capable of being written sympathetic while adhering to canon--than many of the other killers. That said, he’s also--completely in line with canon--interpretable as pretty monstrous. I don’t think I necessarily paint him heavily either direction. Simply I personally feel fairly little sympathy for someone who commits the kinds of dehumanizing acts of scientific research torture on war prisoners without a second thought, ignores the consequences of his actions, and so quickly casts his humanity aside when in tribulation. He devolves from someone who could have changed and been good, to a man who is a horrific monster and cares only for him self, with no lines he will not cross (his own words, and pre-killer even). And to some people, that is tragic. To me, I feel little kinship for the man he was before, and am simply disappointed in him for failing so easily and completely. I can see why someone might interpret his character quite differently, but my take is just as valid in line with canon, and it’s mine. 

I don’t mind people telling me their thoughts, and I don’t mind reading takes in the tags. And again, I very much understand the desire to stand up for something you care about if you feel it is wronged. But that’s not really what you’ve done here, messaging me on anonymous. To the best of my knowledge, I have never even interacted with you before. You didn’t open a discussion with me; you talked down to me, and you decided to argue with me about a topic I did not invite anyone into debate with myself. I am not an opinion blog, or a discussion blog. I am a personal blog. But still, you were discontent to not go into my space and try to scold me about my own opinions as a stranger. And you did all of it on anonymous, where there is no tag attaching anything you said even to your online persona, and no way for me to even be assured of you seeing an answer, or entering any dialogue with me. Which means that the goal, subconsciously probably since I know nothing at all about you and have no reason at all to think you’re anything but a decent person who is a bit carried away today with love for Talbot Grimes, but still the goal, was never to have a dialogue with me in the hopes maybe I would see and like your reasoning and we could talk about something we both have an interest in. It was that you felt so entitled to dictate someone you don’t know’s opinion about something they disagree with you on, that you felt compelled to leave a missive instructing me to correct my wrongs in my inbox. 

Which, well, is rude.

This is probably a bit more, uh, ‘icy’? Than is totally necessary. I really am not angry at all; I understand you probably had no real ill will towards me doing this. I just have this happen a lot, and I am tired of it, so I want an easy frame of reference to link back to for why I find this behavior rude and cowardly and an unasked for nuisance--badly intentioned consciously or not. I truly am sorry if this makes you feel bad or distressed to read, especially if you’re a younger fan. I truly am not mad at you--and I do not at all think or mean to imply you are a bad person. Everybody is occasionally thoughtless. It’s not remotely representative of character. But please don’t keep doing this to people who aren’t interested in a debate. And if you believe in something enough you want to take the discussion to someone else, sign your name to it. If you feel enough conviction to make something someone else’s problem, make it your problem for real too. I’m truly not mad though, and wish you the best.

(and my ‘if you are annoyed by this or any of my other personal opinions and desperately want me to read your thoughts on anon about that’ requirements below the cut)

It’s literally not worth my time to read anon hate or people upset I don’t like a serial killer, so if you for some wild incomprehensible reason really feel a need to see me read that and answer to you instead of just delete and/or block without a look, then either leave my $5 on my Kofi, or get used to knowing I didn’t even read it.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have to actually get paid to not file that shit under ‘I’m not paid enough to deal with this’. 

[junkcas]

People like to pretend that it exists in a vacuum.

Artists don’t owe you anything, their art is their’s to create. You don’t have the right to police it. You don’t have the right to demand anything of it.

And that’s true. Art is about expression, and artists should be able to express themselves freely in their art. You don’t have to like it, or buy it, or hang it on your wall or whatever, but you can’t demand the artist change it, either.

But that’s not really what we’re talking about. Freedom of expression isn’t the issue here, the issue is that having an audience is a responsibility.

There are things in the world that are bad and affect a lot of people. Scary things and sad things and painful things. Art doesn’t have to focus on these things. It doesn’t even have to mention them. But when an artist creates something that does, they have a responsibility to handle it with care. Compassion is a responsibility every human has, and artists aren’t exempt. And when you make a space for yourself in the public eye, when you give yourself a platform and make yourself visible, you have a responsibility to handle that with care, too. No one is saying that every artist and every creator has to be a hero or an activist or a saint. But when you have access to large audiences of people, you’re in a unique position of influence and if you’re not willing to use it to try and make things better, you should give it to someone who is.

But it’s not just art that we’re talking about here, either. We’re talking specifically about TV shows.

And TV shows are unique because they build a relationship of expectation between the creator and the consumer. This isn’t a situation where the artist creates something and then offers it the world as-is, take it or leave it. The creator says “this is the story I’m going to tell you” and the consumer says “okay” and then “I’m going to invest not only time but also my emotional self and probably money into this story you’re telling” and the creator says “if you didn’t, I wouldn’t be telling it” because that is how TV works. The creator is dependent on the consumer’s expectations and they have to deliver on those expectations because otherwise, the consumer is going to feel alienated and cheated. This doesn’t mean specific plot points but rather, that a creator has to follow through on the type of story they’re writing. Especially when the creator has decided to write about sensitive subjects. Stories about sensitive subjects will attract audiences that resonate with those sensitive subjects, and the more deeply a consumer is affected by a story, the more trust they’re putting in the creator when they invest themselves in it. Important stories about important things become important to people.

And this is just my opinion, but when you write a story that amasses a deeply devoted fanbase, you should care about those fans.

So, to bring this down to scale, the pilot episode of Supernatural airs and introduces itself as an urban fantasy horror series about two brothers that fight the paranormal. It’s gritty and dark and American and Dean is macho and Sam is sensitive and their dad is on a hunting trip and hasn’t been home in a few days.

And the audience says, okay.

And the story progresses. Dean isn’t as macho as he wants people to think he is, and Sam is sensitive in ways he thinks he shouldn’t be, and both of them are scared shitless and aren’t willing to admit it, and John might not be as much of a hero as his sons are supposed to think he is. And so the first season has established the story: an urban fantasy horror series about two brothers that fight the paranormal. But also dysfunctional families and codependency and power dynamics and responsibilities and obligations and loyalty. And a character that hides his feelings because he doesn’t want to appear weak and he learned from his dad that strength is stoicism and he has to be strong because his dad needs him to be strong and being what his dad needs is the only way he knows how to be worth anything. And a character that’s scared of who he is and tired of being the freak so he pretends to be someone else and when that doesn’t work he tries to embrace his differences but that doesn’t work either because the thing inside him is evil and dirty and he can’t control it.

In other words, characters with self-worth issues and identity issues and guilt complexes and a fundamental inability to accept themselves.

And the audience says, okay. And they keep watching.

And Eric Kripke says, okay. And he keeps telling the story he’s told his audience to expect. He keeps the genre consistent, and the tone consistent, and the themes consistent, and the audience builds trust in him.

Now here’s the crucial part: the audience responds to the story, and the story responds to the audience.

There’s an entire character who acts as an avatar for the fans. Additionally, it was the fans’ response to Cas that made the writers change their minds and keep him beyond his original three-episode arc.

So, a precedent has been set here. The creators have given the consumers a certain amount of control over the story. Does this entitle the consumers to control every aspect of the story? No. What it does give them is the right to express when they feel the story isn’t staying true to itself. It also gives them the right to expect a response.

But what does this mean in regards to on-screen relationships or a character’s sexual orientation? A lot of things.

First, there’s the matter of queer representation as a whole. It’s not good out there, folks. It’s actually pretty bad. Do I think lives could possibly be saved if the situation was different? Maybe a few. Maybe a lot. Do I think it could cure homophobia? Unfortunately, probably not, but it certainly couldn’t hurt. Media influences people. Refer to what I said above about compassion.

But is the need for queer representation enough of a reason to expect a character that’s been established as straight to suddenly turn gay? No, but we’re not talking about a character that’s been established as straight, we’re talking about Dean Winchester. Dean Winchester has been established as a character that hides what he feels and lies about what he feels and denies himself the things he wants because he hates himself and thinks he doesn’t deserve good things and that he isn’t meant to be happy. For starters. He’s also established as a character that’s desperate to please his emotionally absent and neglectful-at-best father at the expense of his own wellbeing and sense of identity, all the while being forced into traditionally feminine roles. It’s all about the story that is being told, and, no matter which way you look at it, Dean Winchester’s story is not being told as a heteronormative one.

But, okay. Dean Winchester’s story could maybe be possibly interpreted as queer. Does that mean that the writers are obligated to bring it into focus? They aren’t obligated to respond to it, no. But they already have. In the 200th special, they mentioned destiel by name. They’ve made jokes about Dean being not-straight, they write scenes where Dean gets flustered by attractive men.

This is getting much longer than I intended, but here’s the score so far: the creators have set a precedent of letting the consumers influence the story. They make it clear that they are aware of the huge portion of the fanbase that interprets Dean as queer, and instead of letting them know definitively that that’s not the direction they’re ever going to go in, they continue to tease Dean’s queerness. Queerness is one of those things I was talking about earlier, the important things that have to be handled with caution because they have the potential to reach very personal places in people. Either way. The audience said “I feel like the story you’re telling is queer and that’s very important to me and very close to my heart” and the creators said “I hear you” and then kept telling the exact same story without changing a thing and then the audience said “I’m expecting the story you’re telling to resolve as a visibly queer one” and the creators said “okay” and they keep telling the exact same story without changing a thing. Are they obligated to change the story? Are they obligated to say it’s not going to happen? When they noticed the wincest ship, they wrote it into the story that sam and dean found it sick and disgusting. When they wrote destiel into the story, they didn’t have dean react to the ship itself, but rather the fact that it was in a high school play. And then get flustered when Sam teases him about it.

And that brings us to the next point: destiel. Because it’s all about the story that is being told, and Dean’s story may have queer subtext, but Dean and Castiel’s story follows a romantic structure. That’s all there is to it. Their story is being told as a romance. The audience has (in large part) recieved it as a romance and made it known that they’re expecting it to be resolved as a romance.

So, do the creators owe the audience a romantic destiel resolution? Yeah, they do. Because they’re telling a romantic story—and it is romantic, right now, as it is. But it isn’t visible. Do the creators owe the audience a visibly queer story? Even if they didn’t, the audience deserves one.

Telling a queer story at this point in history, or even telling a story that becomes important to queer people, comes with a responsibility to do queerness and your queer audience justice.

[violent-optimism]

Why I believe Rey’s ending is perfect (LONG ESSAY)

It sure has been a crazy month for Star Wars fans. As I’m starting to write this I’m realizing that it has been exactly a month since The Rise of Skywalker hit theaters. My experience with this film has been very interesting to say the least. I feel like I’ve gone back and forth several times regarding my opinion. It’s been a bumpy ride, but by this point I’ve realized that there are a few choices in the film that I disagree with. I still enjoy the film; I just wish certain things had been done differently. However, there is one decision that I feel is absolutely perfect for the main protagonist of the trilogy.

I’ve heard a lot of mixed opinions on the final scene of the movie. I’m not here to say that my interpretation of this scene is “right” or the most “correct” one. Not in the slightest. If you feel that Rey was robbed of the ending you believe she deserved, that is how you feel and no one can take that away from you. We all have our own opinions. If anyone feels offended by this essay I want you to know that is not my intention. To be honest, I’m a little scared to post this because I know a lot of people have strong feelings about Star Wars. My hope is that if anyone disagrees with what I am about to say that you can simply move on and find a piece of writing that you do agree with. Please be kind.

With all that being said, allow me to share with you why I believe Rey’s final scene is absolutely perfect for her arc, her character and the story.

So, in my mind, this final scene is all about bringing everything back to where it started.  Obviously, Tattooine was not only the home to Luke, but to Anakin as well, tying all three stories together. When Rey finds Luke’s home, she finds a piece of metal and slides down the hill, much like how she did in The Force Awakens. Except this time, she does it with a smile on her face, symbolizing her growth and acceptance of her scavenger background.

You can also tell how fascinated Rey is upon seeing the first home of this legendary figure. As we know, Rey grew up with stories of the Rebellion and Luke Skywalker. She’s probably dreamt about this moment for years, and so finally getting the chance to see it means a lot to her.

However, it’s not just seeing what could be considered a historical site; Rey has a job to do. She never had the chance to say goodbye to Luke or Leia before they joined with the force, and so Rey wants to honour their legacy and teachings by burying both of their lightsabers in the sand. I like to think this serves two purposes:

One, the sabers will never be used by anyone who is not worthy to have them or would try to use them for malevolent purposes.

Two, this act symbolizes letting go of the past but honoring those who came before, which I think has been one of the main themes of the whole trilogy.

And yes, from a meme point of view, Anakin’s lightsaber being buried in the sand is pretty hilarious and ironic, but I digress…

I view this scene as Rey thanking both Luke and Leia for the use of their lightsabers in her journey, but now she has a new saber that she has built, as is tradition once a Jedi has completed their training.

That’s the other part too; Rey has ‘passed all of the trials’ as it were. Not only has she helped to defeat the Emperor and the First Order, but she has also brought back the balance. This girl from nowhere, having never imagined where her life would lead, is now the sole heir to the Jedi legacy and a protector of the peace.

The colour of her lightsaber is also very telling. I think it’s supposed to symbolize a couple different things. It’s a lightsaber colour that we have never seen in any of the Star Wars saga films. This represents a new direction in the Jedi Order, branching off from tradition and forging a new path. Rey doesn’t want to simply imitate the Jedi of old; she wants to be her own version of who she thinks a Jedi should be. The golden colour is neutral, sitting somewhere between Red and Blue, once again symbolizing balance.

This next part is one that a lot of people seem to take issue with. At first glance, I can totally see why. Rey shouldn’t need a powerful last name to prove that she’s a powerful character. Her worth should come from within, not from a bloodline.

In my eyes, however, I don’t see this part actively taking away from Rey’s character or her inner strength. I believe it fulfills a wish that she has always had.

An old wanderer asks her for her name. Rey replies. The wanderer then asks: “Rey who?”

In case it wasn’t abundantly clear by now, family names are SUPER important in the Star Wars universe; to the point where random strangers will ask for your last name, like this scene and the part on Pasanaa with Rey and the local.

The ending is supposed to directly correlate with the scene on Pasanaa. When 3PO translates that the local is asking for Rey’s family name, you can clearly see the heartbreak on her face as she (yet again) has to confront this part of her past; the fact that she is a “no one” from nowhere with no family name to speak of. In this story, a family name is like wearing a badge of honour, something to be proud of. Who could blame Rey for wanting that?

Later on of course, Rey discovers that the answer she has been seeking for so long contains the most horrible truth that she could ever imagine. Being the granddaughter of Emperor Palpatine, Rey faces immense struggle with accepting that she is a part of that family and what this could mean for her future. By the end of the story, Rey has come to realize that it doesn’t matter that she’s related to the most horrible man in the galaxy, what matters is the choices she makes and who she chooses to be.

If we think back to the previous two films, what is the one thing that Rey has always wanted? Belonging…Family…Meaning…

These are the words that guide Rey’s journey until the very end. Finding out that her parents were “no one” shocked her to the core. Even it was foolish and naïve, she wanted to believe so badly that she was connected to someone greater, someone who made a difference.

In a way, she was partially correct…but not at all how she expected. Of course she chooses to reject the Palpatine name and everything it stands for, as she rightfully should. Despite what she feared as a child, Rey comes to learn that her parents did in fact love her very much and protected her the only way they could. Unfortunately, they have passed on and can no longer serve a role as her family, so where does that leave her?

Having a family name, and more specifically, a family, is what Rey has always wanted since the very beginning. I’m not saying that Rey doesn’t have a purpose beyond that, but if you look at what she’s wanted since The Force Awakens, it is definitely in line with her character and this ending fulfills that wish in all the right ways.

“Rey who?”

The familiar question stumps Rey for a moment. She looks off in thought as she thinks of an answer. If she has rejected the name of Palpatine, what name can she give to this woman?

Feeling a familiar presence, Rey looks off into the distance, seeing the shapes of her Masters smiling at her with proud expressions. Luke and Leia wordlessly give her the answer, the one that not only makes her the happiest, but represents who she is and the path she has chosen.

Rey smiles contently, finally knowing what to say as she looks back towards the wanderer.

“Rey Skywalker.”

And then we come to the final shot of the movie, with Rey and BB-8 standing in front of the twin suns as the “force theme” swells in the background. This is an obvious homage to two other Star Wars endings, but also to the one shot in The Force Awakens with Rey and BB-8 walking into the desert. BB-8 was the first friend that Rey ever made, and so it only makes sense that they would be there with her as her story comes to a close.

Rey is anything but alone in this moment. While it is a bit odd that we never see closure with Finn and Poe’s stories, it can absolutely be assumed that Rey will always take the time to visit them and keep the friendship strong. In the final scene, she has two ‘adoptive parents’ watching over her, along with the droid that started her adventure.

I never thought this scene was trying to suggest that Rey would stay on Tattooine. Her journey there was a pilgrimage, the ‘last stage of her training’ if you will. All she came there to do was to bury the lightsabers and pay respect to her Masters and adoptive parents. I don’t believe Rey is intending to stay, not at all.

It’s so exciting to think about what other adventures Rey could have, and that’s what I love about this ending. It leaves it up to the imagination of the viewer. What will Rey do next? Will she train a new generation of Jedi? Will she explore the galaxy? The possibilities are infinite. One thing is for certain, Rey knows who she is and has found a family she can belong to.

That is all she ever wanted.