#we might just need to rethink the words we use to describe 1 / 2 / 3

[wyvspike]

Revisiting 123 TMAGP (CAT#) Theory

Spoilers for up to episode 16 of TMAGP.

It's been a couple of weeks since I first put together this theory for myself and I wanted to add on some thoughts. Spoilers below the cut!

Here is my updated spreadsheet:

I still feel like 1 / 2 / 3 definitely act as a categorical grouping which are not mutually exclusive, with the general theme of who / where / what respectively. But there is a bit of an inconsistency in which statements receive what categorical assignment.

To clarify categories as I interpret them:

"Who" in my mind defines an avatar, or a person who somehow has super natural abilities that are innate (and not a result of a "where" or a "what").

"Where" defines a location that either causes paranormal events, or attributes supernatural qualities to the people inhabiting that space (Pennine Tower, the garden in Infection). Looking back, this one is the one I'm a bit skeptical of now. Namely because there are two statements that I feel like still don't quite make much sense based on my personal interpretation of what a "where" is. I'll get into that in a moment.

"What" is a thing (physical, or something that you can interact with) that has supernatural traits. Saw somebody say that tattoos are hardly a thing and I disagree. It's on your skin. You can touch it, interact with it, right? Same thing with apps. I digress.

Now to talk about the inconsistencies.

Ink5oul: Episodes I'm referencing are 2, 11, and 16.

For a while, I had a theory that Ink was not an avatar and instead had a tattoo machine that was supernatural (maybe Oscar Jarrett, referenced by Ink in episode 11, has a tattoo machine that they now use or something). This would explain why they could be referenced in (and sometimes the direct cause of the events in the episode) without being considered a paranormal being. We also need to consider how their tattoos include alchemical symbols, which are clearly important in this universe. This aligns with the classifications we saw in relevant episodes.

Then we got episode 16, and now I'm a bit confused to be honest lol, because it's classified as a 1. Based on my theory that the tattoos were supernatural and were therefore classified as "3s," I'm a bit mystified by this one. So here are some explanations I have thought of (though I am sure there are other reasons):

Ink only "triggered" the classification because they were physically present. When comparing it to episode 2, they were not physically present when Daria started to change her appearance, and in episode 11, they played no (supernatural) role in the events that occurred.

Ink has become an actual avatar since the events that transpired in episode 2. There is enough of a time frame where this could have happened, and the timeline kind of makes sense? Episode 11, they obsess over the ocean tattoo and maybe they discover something about it — with alchemical symbols, a tool, I don't know — that causes them to begin their practice. Episode 2 they give a tattoo to Daria, and they're still not quite an avatar, but the tattoos sure as hell are supernatural (because of the alchemical symbols? an evil magic tattoo machine? i dunno). At this point, they would still be new at it, and this makes sense because Daria says, "They’re pretty popular these days," which implies that it's a recent thing. And now, by episode 16, they themself are an avatar.

Regardless, assuming ink is an avatar (and they don't carry a supernatural item such as the bone dice and viol-ence), I would still expect this episode to be classified as a 13 based on previous statements to account for the tattoo.

Inconsistent 2s: Episodes I'm referencing are 7 and 11 (again lol)

There are two statements that are classified with CAT#2 that I am uncertain about. I'll start with episode 7 — Hilltop Center.

I'll be honest, I definitely saw the name Hilltop and immediately made connections with TMA, and thought "it must be relevant." And when I first started to see the commonalities between statements and the three classifications, it technically fit right in – it's a place, isn't it, and a canonically significant one at that. But I feel like I may have gotten ahead of myself with the excitement from the reference. This is a different reality from TMA. The Institute is in Manchester now, why would the same qualities exist in Hilltop in this universe?

Now, while it is possible that Hilltop caused the events that occurred in episode 7, when you think about the content of the episode itself, it has more to do with "who" rather than "where." It starts with one person who is strange and uncanny who ends up bringing more and more of their "friends" who want to "help." This "person" seemed to have originated outside of this place. And the statement giver (aside from being, yknow, traumatised probably), is not affected / changed by any "supernatural" quality of the Center. So why is this episode classified as CAT#2??? I don't know.

For episode 11, I'm a little uncertain to how place is immediately relevant. 3 makes total sense — it's a weird creepy tattoo. But I feel like 2 is not immediately clear as to why it is important in this episode, but wait, okay now that I'm writing this sentence, episode 15 is started to give us a bit more to work with actually–

Okay NEVERMIND. New theory. Episode 11 being classified as CAT#23 makes total sense. The cemetery is located in Padstow, and is a place where lots of sailors were buried. In episode 15, Luke orders a beer called "Doom Bar," also from Padstow, named after the Doom Bar sandbank. On their site they wrote: "The sandbank is revered as a formidable nautical challenge that should be approached with respect and navigated with skill." So I guess, what I'm trying to say, is maybe this sandbank, this part of the coast, is supernatural in nature. But it's just not immediately clear why it's classified in that way and why it's included in this episode's classification number — we just always need more information.

Snakes: Episode I'm referencing is 14

Is the guy that vomits the snakes everywhere an avatar? Like, I'm not really sure. And the statement giver too, says she feels her throat get all weird. I guess maybe it's an infection? But does that count as a who or a what? I'm not sure.

Theories:

Finally, this brings me to the issue of how the hell these statements are categorized in the first place. Because we have inconsistencies. How can Transformation (full) -/- dysmorphic result in a CAT#3 and Transformation (snakes) -/- horde result in a CAT#1? "Dysmorphic" and "horde" are the cross reference so I feel like we can rule those out. "Full" and "snakes" are the subsections of transformation. So how do those two words result in different CAT#s?

So my current theory which is definitely a cop-out, hand wavey one because I have NO IDEA is that I feel like the tables and binder and cross reference stuff must, in some way, be supernatural because there's no way somebody created a system this...well, flexible? It would need to be constantly updating to accommodate new language (such as "influencer" since that is of the Internet Instagram Era), and seeing as FR3-D1 is an old ass system and the two seem closely related, I feel like the classification system can't be Normal.

Conclusion: I think the 1 / 2 / 3 - who / where / what (or any variation of it) has a lot of merit, I just think that, like all things in Protocol, there is more nuance than we can see at the moment. We just need to know more.

123 TMAGP (CAT#) Theory

So I haven't seen my theory about how the CAT# works on here so I'm not sure if anybody else has noticed this but I figured I should share! I'm pretty sure that whether a statement is labelled 1-2-3 defines what kind of content is paranormal in the episode.

EDIT: Spoilers below the cut

Here's my spreadsheet ordered by CAT# ("code" in the last column):

I noticed that when I put the statements in order of "code", the main focus of each episode had something in common. Looking at statements coded "1" I noticed that they all had to do with a person. Episode 6 -- Needles, Episode 10 and 12 -- Bonzo, and episode 1 "reanimation" was the zombie guy. Okay, so statements labelled with a 1 seem to have something to do with people.

Next set, the 2s. Episode 5 -- the cinema. Episode 7 -- Hilltop Centre. Episode 8 -- Pennine Tower. These episodes all have to do with place that are paranormal by nature.

Finally, the 3s: episode 2 -- a tattoo. Episode 4 -- the slaughter violin. Episode 9 -- bone dice. Episode 13 -- the app. These episodes all have an "artefact" of some kind, whether that be a physical object or something literally tattooed into someone's body, that doesn't seem to matter. It's some kind of thing or object.

Of course, as we've noticed, CAT#s have appeared as 1 / 2 / 3, but also as groups of numbers, such as 23 in episodes 1 and 11, and on the Klaus spreadsheet as 12 and 13. This indicates that statements with multiple types of paranormal presences can have multiple IDs. In the case of episode 1 "transformation," the Magnus Institute is the paranormal place, and the box might be the object. In episode 11, the graveyard and the tattoo are the two major appearances.

Here's my spreadsheet with who / where / what

I just thought it was cool! And the episodes seem to align with my theory the majority of the time (the only one i'm mildy uncertain about is episode 3, because that implies that the reason the guy turned into a tree was because of the place but it's been a while since i listened to that episode so maybe it makes sense lol).

[saras-devotionals]

Quiet Time 9/3

What am I feeling today?

So grateful!! A year ago today I made Jesus Lord of my life and was baptized for the forgiveness of my sins! I can’t believe I’ve gotten to spend a whole year with God already and I’m just in awe of how much He has absolutely transformed my life!

Bible Plan: Rethinking Love and Romance

Let’s take a look at the first loving relationship in Scripture.

In Genesis 1, God speaks creation into existence. We are then transported to a garden filled with trees, rivers, and animals (Gen. 2). Over and over, the authors show God declaring his creation “good” (Hebrew: tov), that is, until he sees the human (Hebrew: adam) alone. Now the authors introduce a problem—an intentional literary design move—as they show God saying it is “not good” for the human to be alone (Gen. 2:18). But why?

God solves the problem by first dividing Adam in half (Gen. 2:21). We often talk about this as though God took a rib from Adam and created Eve with it, but the Hebrew word tsela (often translated as “rib”) is never used as an anatomical term in any other passage in Scripture. Outside of Genesis 2, the word is mainly used to describe the architecture of the tabernacle or temple (e.g., Exod. 25-38; 1 Kgs. 6-7; Ezek. 41). The biblical authors use tsela to refer to the two halves of the ark of the covenant, the two halves of the temple, and the two halves of the new Jerusalem. So God’s creation of Eve is a process of dividing Adam in half and then building Eve from one side of him. We get a portrait of two humans, each one half of a united whole, deeply dependent on the other. Adam's goodness and life depends on Eve, and hers depends on his.

Then God calls this woman an ‘ezer kenegdo. The Hebrew word ‘ezer might be translated as “help,” but it does not mean what we might assume. An ‘ezer is not a lesser “assistant” or “helper” as much as it is someone who plays the mutual role of an “indispensable other,” a strong and wise guide, without whom the intended good cannot happen. The only other character in the Bible given this title (‘ezer) is God himself. Not your average helper, right?

For the second Hebrew word, kenegdo, we might use a metaphor of mirroring to get to the core idea. A helpful paraphrase of Genesis 2:18 might be: “It is not good for the human to be solitary. I will make one who can deliver him from his inability to fulfill the divine commission alone, one who mirrors him.”

The biblical authors are presenting this bonded, united relationship between two people as God’s good design for humanity. The “one flesh” of Genesis 2:24 transcends the union of the sexual act (though that is one way the one flesh unity may be experienced). So how is this idea different from the “you complete me” sentiment?

Adam and Eve "complete" one another—not by satisfying each other’s personal desires but by becoming unbreakable partners who seek the other's well-being. Today’s popular understanding of romance rarely gets past the "satisfy my desires" sense of love. But the authors of Genesis describe this “unbreakable partners” sense of love as a foundation for human flourishing and tov—the goodness and right-functioning of creation itself.

In the final verse of Genesis 2, we discover that the man and woman were naked and unashamed—an image of pure trust, openness, vulnerability, and safety. When one is genuinely unified with another, there is no need for self-protection or projection of a false self. In their most vulnerable state, the man and woman were at rest. They had nothing to hide, no secrets or lies between them, no power grabs, hierarchies, or abuse. Instead, they had a portrait of love at peace.

In today’s video, explore God's plan for Adam and Eve (and all humanity) to serve as royal priests over all creation.

This is such an incredible explanation of our purposes as man and woman and how we are meant to equally help each other grow. Though men may be head of the household, as women we are not inferior to them or simply meant to fulfill their desires. The true purpose of their love and connection is to guide one another in the relationship with God.♥️

Genesis 1:26-28 NIV

“Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.””

I always think about this in terms of “let us make mankind in our image” but then right after it says God created mankind in His own image. It’s just a little interesting nugget but regardless of what it means, we must see and acknowledge that God knew exactly what He was doing when He made us, He was very purposeful with it and He blessed us.

Genesis 2 NIV

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭7‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

Just a fun little reminder that God literally breathed life into us!!!

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

It’s interesting to me that God first formed Adam and then placed him in the garden of Eden. Also that there were two trees by name in the middle of the garden!

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭15‬-‭17‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.””

So important! But He never said anything about the tree of life and I have always been intrigued by that. What would have happened if they ate from that instead?

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭18‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.””

From the previous context we know that helper means so much more than an assistant but a true partner and God is so intentional with the fact that we’re not meant to be alone!

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭19‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”

This is actually so sweet to me. That God brought all the animals to Adam and just allowed him to name them whatever he wanted and that was that. It truly reminds me of something a father would do for their child and I find it so endearing🥹

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭22‬-‭24‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

There is a purity to love and romance in the way that God intended! Our world and Satan has corrupted it so much since the beginning but we must be reminded that we are meant to be with each other and love each other (in terms of romance, please remember to keep things within the confines of a marriage!)

[monday-headache]

Hey Simon! Thank you for the amazing ask <3 Right back at you:

I love that you're writing/arting about characters that have never met in canon (Gaige and Sasha, Fiona and Scarlett). What drew you to writing these characters together? And are there any more that you'd love to explore one day? :D

Hey Sarah, glad it made you smile. I want to have more interaction with the fandom so I’ll try to make this a regular, so please be free to send me questions whenever. I’d love to read your thoughts ;)

And Omg, that’s a fantastic question as well but, be aware, this is gonna be an essay as well.

Mhh where to start, where to start.

So first things first, My headcanon of why I think Gaige and Sasha would be best friends started a pretty long while ago, way before I even got gently pushed towards the Idea of really starting to write about it in the first place. Because you must know, even though Strays is my first longshot, it is also my very first fanfc I’ve ever written in like ever. So no matter how shitty, great or whatever it will turn out to be or how well others will be, Strays has and will always have a special place in my heart. And I’m not gonna rush things either, even when the fandom will die out, my Ideas for it will flow ;)

But yeah how it started. To put it simply Gaige was my first character In Borderlands ever that I played myself. I knew about the Lore of 1 and I’ve played 1 with a friend by the time it came out, but I played 1 myself AFTER I finished 2 So that may be a big reason, why I have such an open spot for Gaige. But also because she is fun, quirky extreme, punky, loves robots and tech... to put it simple a lot of traits I really love about a character. Her backstory with the science fair was so fresh and funny, and it may be one of my favorite spoken dialogue interactions heard over echo cassette’s

Then after Bl2 my love for Borderlands continued, played 1, played TPS and then... There was Tales, and by god do I loved Tales, and I hella still do. You probably know the feeling yourself. And with the love for the game, came a huge love for it’s cast. Like seriously I think besides Tector there isn’t really a character where I was going like, “ugh this one is trash” on the contrary. And besides my obvious love for the main 2 characters, there was a big love for the Deutagonist’s of this masterpiece. Namely Sasha and Loaderbot.

Loaderbot may have officially taken the spot for me as most favorite Robot in video game history ever (and Gortys for the most precious character ever). Like his whole segment of kidnapping them, forcing them to tell the truth, only to show how much he had grieved, how betrayed he felt and that he did all of tha  for his loved ones. Man say what you will about him, but damn he was written perfectly. I was blown away.

Secondly is of course, as you might have guessed it Sasha. I could go lengths for her too, how much I love and admire her character, how real she felt as a sister, a pandoran and last but not least as a human. Sasha felt to me like the most well rounded out character of the 6 (pls don’t hate me for it guys) From the punk rebellious attitude, to learning that she had an anti Hyperion pirate radio, that she used to broadcast bad things that happens in her neighbourhood, to her adapting her morals and learn that even in the most corrupt organisations there are still normal people struggling with their own life, and then progressing from it. And lastly after everything was at loss, the money the plan, she was willing to sacrifice her whole life for a dear friend/s, even on her dying breath putting both Rhys and her Sister at ease and in her last moments. Amazing.

Oooh boy and that was just the prelude to it all XD

After that I noticed a lot of similarities, between characters. Sasha and Loaderbot for instance are both pragmatic, put the lives of their loved ones over their own, love tech, are socially open people while holding back on information and emotion. Not to mention the scenes in 2 and 3 and also 4 and 5 where it is slightly hinted how well Sasha and Loaderbot work together, without sharing much words. So naturally the Idea was born that Sash and LB became quite close.

And the same goes for Sasha and Gaige. I was actually surprised that nobody (not entirely true, I saw one fanart of it) seemed to made that connection before as it was so obvious to me. So basically Sasha is a softer version of Gaige, in many terms. They both have a big heart for tech and especially guns. They both hosted a small radio broadcast that blew up in their region over night. Both are anarchist’s who spread the word for awareness, how fucked up the company war actually is. Both are not really good at their aim. Both call robots as their closes’t friends. Both share a deep hatred for Handsome Jack and his doings. Both fought a giant ass Vault Monster and nearly died in the process of doing so. Both got screwed up big time and now have a huge bounty on their head... So you see the list goes on, and honestly the more I write them, the more similarities I notice, both hc wise and canon wise. So there more I thought about it, and noticed similarites the more I fell in love with the Idea of them becoming close. And from there the Idea was born, that they probably met on a job ( the most likely scenario in the Borderlands universe). It had to be before BL3 of course, and to be after Tales naturally so that only put one timeline in the focus, Commander Lillith.

To be honest, I didn’t expect everything turning out so big. Like seriously I orifinally planed like 8k words or so. Now I’m dangling on the Idea of having 13 chapters and a big ass finally, a neat wrap up of everything and even a possible epilogue XD Yeah, that wasn’t what I expected either but damn do I love doing it.

Like seriously my headcanons only just gotten bigger and bigger. From a whole nebula system in the galaxy, to regions I created in my own mind for it, to even complex backstorys. Like why Sasha wears a headband, why she loves guns so much, what happened to her and Fi’s parents, why she was raised by her aunt, what does Felix have to do with it, Why Gaige has this kicks of both sudden depression and manical behavior. Why she’s so close to her dad, but her mom wasn’t even mentioned once (but teased), why she wanted to become a wedding planer, and why she is so obsessed with robots and margarita mix. I think one day, this thing will turn into a tabletop game or something XD

So estimated 20k words on my answer later and now we are going for my own created ship Scarleona. Don’t worry, as much as I like to gosh about that too, it wont take as long I prommy.

Scarleona was created in a sudden urge while thinking about what happpend to Fiona while Strays happened. And similar to Gaige and Sasha, Scarleona was born from a dynamic. Especially of those from two Ladybosses with Silvertongue and speech 100XD Fiona and Scarlett may have become my favorite Fiona ship (no offense everybody) because of how well they play off each other. Fiona is a con artist, her whole life she was used to swindle, to play it cool and by ear, go with the flow, and expect the unexpected. So here core idea is that she is manupulating people by LYING to them.

Scarlett on the other hand is similar while also the complete opposite to it. She is backstabby, plays with her charm and most importantly she is dead honest while tricking people. In fact even so honest that people don’t even realised that they got tricked even though she told it several times before. And this dynamic is so fascinating to me. You see, Fiona has almost an answer an action for everything prepared, but the idea that her winning honesty, is mind puzzling to Fiona is so perfect. @michellespenscratchz wrote me a drabble several months ago and I think that line describes it just perfect

“So, let me see if I got this straight,” Fiona tilted her head inquisitively at Captain Scarlett. “You needed these Vault Hunters’ help to find this treasure for you. So you…just asked them?”

“That’s right.” Scarlett nodded, inspecting her hook nonchalantly.

“Even though they knew you wanted it for yourself?” Fiona asked.

“Indeed,” Scarlett replied.

“And they…” Fiona blinked, “…knew you planned on fighting them for it once they had it.”

“Of course they did,” Scarlett shrugged. “I told them as much.”

“You told them?”

“Yes.”

“And they helped you anyway?”

“Precisely.” Scarlett turned her hat against the blistering wind. “I fear I don’t quite grasp what about this is so difficult to grasp, Fiona dear.”

“Huh.” Fiona cast her gaze out across the expanse of Pandoran horizon. “I guess I just gotta–I dunno–rethink my whole life right now.”

So yeah, that was basically it. I kinda diagressed and didn’t want to hurt your eyes more looking at the long ass text, but please if you have some more questions to it, pls hit me. I love to gosh about it <3

And thank you so much <3 This was hella fun

[bemused-writer]

VNC Chapter 39 Analysis

This chapter immediately got off to a good start. With the return of Roland to the series the tone immediately takes a more energetic, urgent vibe. We also see that Noé has a pretty good understanding of Vanitas’s feelings both about Roland and hugs:

In other words, Vanitas can’t stand either and Noé is willing to be the body shield for the occasion. Probably doesn’t hurt that Noé likes both Roland and hugs, so it’s not like he’s making a huge sacrifice here....

Regardless, his efforts are for naught! Roland shields them both from the chasseur ships and we get an interesting tidbit as well:

They were heading to Saugues? I’ll admit I have no first-hand knowledge of France, so if anyone knows better please let me know, but looking at a modern map indicates Saugues is quite a bit further away than Gévaudan! From Paris to Saugues is 533 km while Paris to Gévaudan is 575 km. All this time, I was assuming they were heading for Gévaudan but Roland is making it sound like they ended up at Gévaudan purely by accident.

Chapter 24 never outright said where they were going, just that they were going somewhere. Gano was supposed to meet up with Astolfo, but so far we haven’t seen this Gano whatsoever.

So, Roland might be lying and I wouldn’t put it past him. Maybe they were heading for Gévaudan but he doesn’t want Noé or Vanitas to know that just yet. But he might also be telling the truth, which raises three interesting questions: Where is Gano? Why were they heading to Saugues? What was the incident in Carcassonne? Also, if you’re wondering (like I was), Carcassonne isn’t exactly close to Gévaudan either; it’s 301 km away. 8D Regardless of whatever else we learn in this chapter, we know the chasseurs are used to long-distance assignments all over France. I suppose this makes sense; they seem to have a limited amount of paladins and they’re keeping tabs on the whole country.

Getting back to Roland, he has immediately made himself Noé and Vanitas’s co-conspirator and I love it.

Noé looks slightly enchanted, which fits in with his general attitude twoard Roland at all times and Vanitas looks like his soul might depart from his body at any moment, which is also consistent to his reactions toward Roland. XD

What’s really great is the reason Roland gives them for why he’s helping them in the first place:

This is... technically not a lie, but Roland is omitting a lot of the truth here as well. Roland does like Noé, there’s no doubt about that, but a big part of why he’s helping them is because he no longer fully trusts the Church. He suspects they’re hiding something and he’s entirely correct. He’s been researching the Beast of Gévaudan since volume 5, chapter 22.

Even then he wasn’t seeking out banned books. He’s toeing the line remarkably well. Furthermore, the fact he isn’t telling this to Noé or Vanitas shows he still has enough loyalty to the Church that he isn’t about to voice his criticisms to outsiders; he wants to learn the truth of it for himself.

All of this is in interesting contrast to his namesake. The Roland from “The Song of Roland” never questioned the Church, his Christian morals, or whether their foe was someone they should defeat. He was a stalwart warrior who was loyal to an extreme. This Roland is loyal but he has no problem asking questions or adjusting his belief system.

Noé doesn’t suspect he’s not being given the whole truth, however, and confesses he likes Roland as well. I double checked the Japanese for this and they’re both using “suki” to describe their affection. With the reactions on display I had almost wondered if they were using “daisuki.” XD If they had, it would have been essentially a love confession and the ship would have been sailing freely, but as it is it’s a little toned down. This has done nothing to appease Vanitas, however:

Vanitas’s anger could be for two separate things (or both!): 

1) He can’t stand Roland, so the insinuation that Noé’s little declaration somehow counts for him as well is disgusting.

2) Noé is getting along with Roland exceedingly well. Arguably better than he gets along with Vanitas and he’s focusing all his attention on him, forgetting why they’re there in the first place. In other words, he’s a little jealous. He can’t exactly go around saying that--it would hardly fit his character--so he just gives Roland something to do. An important something, there’s no question that it needs to be done, but it’s also something that will keep Roland away from both him and Noé for a while.

Noé’s strong reaction to Roland’s declaration as well as the one back in the catacombs where Roland announced they were friends indicates to me that Noé is kind of lonely. That isn’t surprising; he only ever really had two friends and one of them died a few years back. Teacher only visited sporadically from what we’ve seen and Dominique is restrained in her affection in the present, which is understandable. She can’t let Noé how she feels, so she can hardly go around announcing something like this in the way Roland can. Of course, Vanitas can’t really be described as affectionate at all. 

Noé is pretty open with how he feels about people, so Roland is probably a nice change of pace and probably the only person being as open and forthright as Noé wishes everyone would be. Granted, as I just pointed out, a lot of Roland’s openness is a facade, but Noé doesn’t know that....

We also get to see Roland and Olivier in action at last!

Furthermore, we got to see Olivier’s weapon, which seems unnecessarily violent in my opinion. XD A sword and a chainsaw? Sounds excruciating... And apparently he’s quite vicious with it. I laughed pretty hard at how the villagers were initially cheering him on without abandon, but the more he fought the wolves the more their cheers started to die down as they realized this guy might be a little unhinged. 

That one guy became physically ill...

It’s also confirmed that Olivier’s weapon shares the same name, Hauteclaire, as his namesake in “The Song of Roland,” too. According to the edition I have on hand, Hauteclaire means “Highbright” while Durandal (Roland’s weapon) might mean “Enduring.”

As for the mysterious Gano, I haven’t yet seen a name that looks like his in the poem. Maybe it’s a nickname? If so, I wonder if he might be Ganelon. In that case, his weapon would be Murgleys, which the translation thinks may mean “Death brand.” If he does ever show up, I think we may find him the most fearsome paladin yet.

Olivier and Roland are each leading their own teams (team 6 for Roland, team 3 for Olivier) and we finally get to see how these two interact during battle and it’s exactly what I hoped for: Olivier is barely tolerating his nonsense, and Roland is getting his way through sheer force of will alone. In this regard, they’re definitely like their counterparts but the main difference is that they’re both leaders here as opposed to Olivier working for Roland. Granted, he seems to give in to what Roland wants regardless, so...

But Olivier is no fool. He sorts out why Roland is making such bizarre requests.

He knows that the only people to get Roland to change the way he does everything, to make him rethink his belief system, is Noé (and kind of Vanitas). He kind of looks worried; he knows Roland is pushing things with the Church, but there’s nothing he can do to stop him.

For all of Olivier’s worries though, Roland will do his job. He will wipe out all the vampires if he has to.

It’s all too easy to forget how dangerous Roland actually is but let’s not forget that while Astolfo called him a “buffoon of a man” this was the image he had of Roland when he thought of him:

He’s looking down on him with a face of stern judgment. That’s not a man to be messed with. Makes me wonder how Astolfo and Roland actually get along...

As it is, Noé only has the barest inkling of Roland’s true nature himself. But this scene makes one thing very clear: Roland is restraining himself. He has no doubt he could kill Chloé and quite likely Jean-Jacques if he needed to. It would be fascinating to see him and Jeanne fight each other. They’re each absurdly powerful but they each restrain themselves for personal reasons. If they ever did have a confrontation where neither was hindered, I honestly don’t know who would win. On the flipside, imagine if they teamed up? My goodness...

This monster kind of reminds me of Prédateur in the catacombs arc. It’s misshapen and grotesque. I suppose it must be a result of Chloé losing control of her power? I’m looking forward to seeing how he and Olivier sort it out.

This chapter we also finally got some insight on Jeanne as well. Honestly, I really thought this arc would be focusing a lot more on Jeanne than it actually did, so I’m glad we’re finally getting back to her.

Jeanne was knocked out along with nearly everyone else who was too close to Chloé, including Astolfo, Dante, and Marco (Astolfo’s assistant). She’s lost in a memory, and it’s a memory that is very interesting:

She’s surrounded by water and she’s being approached by a man with a candle, telling her she’s a doll who must obey without question.

To me, it looks very much like she’s in a tank, much like whoever this individual is:

Both Jeanne and the girl (?) in the tank have something to do with Ruthven as well. Furthermore, both of them react to Charlatan, which I’ll get back to in just a second.

There’s a theory that’s gone around that the Jeanne we know might be a clone and I’m really starting to wonder if that might be the case. Look at this flashback of her parents, for example:

The way this is set up is confusing. At first I thought the two individuals in the first panel were her parents but they kind of look like chasseurs, don’t they? Furthermore, they ask her if she’s alone and if she’s all right. After that we cut immediately to the second panel, which we know for a fact is a conversation between her parents and Ruthven, and it’s shown they’re not her biological parents.

If the two in the first panel are chasseurs, I think it’s safe to say she was probably in one of those tanks in the catacombs at some point and that she’s some kind of experiment, possibly of Dr. Moreau’s or simply of the Church/Ruthven more generally. Either way, not a good thing.

When her parents betray the vampires, she’s the one who’s punished, which is just absurd and heartbreaking.

This goes a long way toward explaining why Jeanne is so hesitant on occasion. She knows the price of doing things according to her own will: someone else will die in her place.

I think for the first time we’re actually seeing what she and Vanitas have in common. Neither of them were allowed much agency in their youth, both were treated as subhuman/vampire, and both are try to rectify the mistakes of their past. They differ in how they want to accomplish that, however. For Jeanne, she’s decided that the only way to sort through the horrors of her past is to obey and cut off any sense of individuality she might have. Vanitas is inflicting his opinions on the world at large and is trying to separate himself from other individuals by denying them any agency.

But this chapter we see them both go the opposite direction. Jeanne was reiterating to herself that she cannot be a person--she must be a tool. There’s no point trying to save Chloé--she’s beyond that point and Vanitas and Noé can’t hope to get there in time. But then:

 Vanitas extends a helping hand to Jeanne. A real helping hand, for once, free of any demand or manipulation. He tells her it isn’t too late to help Chloé; something can still be done.

What follows is something I find fascinating:

They’re having a genuine, honest discussion of how Jeanne sees things and we see how low Jeanne’s self-esteem is. She can’t even allow herself to hope for something, to wish for a different path in life. And for once, Vanitas actually seems understanding. I think he’s been here before; he knows what it’s like to have no hope for a better future, to accept a fate of darkness.

And when he was at his lowest, ready to give up utterly, someone helped him see another way of doing things. It almost doesn’t need to be pointed out, this chapter already does, but that person was Noé.

Vanitas is offering hope in the only way he knows how and is it any surprise that when he’s at his most genuine, his most caring, he’s imitating Noé? That doesn’t mean he’s being false here, quite the opposite, but it indicates Noé is the only example he has to go off of, the only person who has ever given him this kind care, and now he’s offering it to Jeanne in turn.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this is the first time Vanitas and Jeanne have felt genuine or romantic and it’s fascinating to witness. A lot of people would argue that the scene in the cabin was romantic; it was framed to look like a kiss after all! But to me that was more about Jeanne asserting herself; it didn’t further their relationship in a romantic sense. But this? A genuine exchange of feelings and a real offer to help her for once? That speaks greater volumes of how they’re both changing their perspectives of each other far more than what came before.

Even though Vanitas is offering to help Jeanne, she still can only bear to ask him to help Chloé out loud. She asks him to help her inwardly, but they’re still not at the point where she feels she can ask him to help her specifically.

Will they ever have a real, proper romance? I don’t know. When Jeanne reveals she does, in fact, care about whether Vanitas lives or dies, he returns to his usual playful, carefree demeanor. In other words, the act he always puts on when he’s around Jeanne. After all, he has no interest in Jeanne actually loving him. He still doesn’t want that. It raises the question of what it is he does want from her, especially as their relationship continues to change the further into the series we get.

Hmm, will Vanitas or Jeanne die first? That’s the big question, isn’t it? Vanitas is trying to fulfill a broken promise to Misha through Jeanne but we don’t know what that promise was exactly. We can guess it was similar to the promise he made Jeanne, though.

If the salvation Misha needed was death, if the salvation Jeanne needs is the same, than it would really be in Vanitas’s own best interest not to grow too attached to her. We already know Vanitas is actually pretty bad at not getting attached to people though (just look at Noé and then also consider how similar Noé and Jeanne are personality-wise), so he may be in more trouble than he realizes.

If Vanitas dies before her he would, in essence, be breaking his promise once more, something he refuses to do. And we can tell this is something that’s definitely on his mind, because this is what he says to Noé shortly after.

Honestly, this is Noé’s fault. It’s only because of Noé that Vanitas keeps growing attached to people, keeps caring strongly enough to risk everything to help them. Noé is the one that keeps forcing him to change his views and to do things he’d never do normally.

Now he’s made a promise he knows he might not be able to keep, and that’s helping Chloé but if she hurts anyone in Gévaudan, there’s nothing he can do. They can’t take out all the chasseurs and Roland made it clear that he would do what he must. They have a very limited time frame to work with now and Vanitas has promised Jeanne he would save Chloé, all because he’d been in Jeanne’s position once before and when he had been, Noé helped. Now he’s essentially trying to be Noé but he doesn’t have the boundless confidence that things will work out the way Noé does. He knows this is foolhardy and has a very strong possibility for failure.

Despite being in the same room, Noé appears not to have heard any of Vanitas’s exchange with Jeanne. It looks like he was checking on other people in the room, but honestly... How does he keep missing all of this?

I really can’t wait for the next chapter; I’m curious to see how things are resolved and who takes part in what. There are a lot of ways this could go now and I hesitate to speculate. I will say that if Vanitas accomplishes what he promised Jeanne then I think they will grow closer whether he wants it or not. If he fails... I don’t know what that will do to their relationship. They won’t be completely divided; they have a deal of sorts. But their relationship would be a great deal more frayed than it was before.

Last but not least, I mentioned that both Jeanne and the girl in the tank react to Charlatan. It’s a small thing, but when Naenia’s name was mentioned, the girl’s hand twitched with recognition. Furthermore, Jeanne was actually approached by Charlatan:

Charlatan is replaced by Ruthven. To me, it seems very likely that Ruthven and Charlatan are not only working for one another but very closely linked. There was some proof beforehand that Ruthven might be a curse bearer but maybe it’s more than that. Maybe he’s spreading the curse himself in Charlatan’s stead. Furthermore, Ruthven is linked both to Jeanne, that girl in the tank, and Naenia. It’s looking immensely suspicious, but I feel like it’s relatively safe to say Jeanne is a curse bearer. Of course, if that’s the case, it means Noé is also a curse bearer and that’s going to cause some trouble later on.

Also, Jeanne used to be a bourreau for the whole senate. She was only permitted to continue because of Ruthven’s interventions. Despite how his treatment of her has been iffy at best, it’s no wonder she is loyal to him.

[waymorecake4me]

Won’t you take it back? Part 2 (Roger Taylor x Reader)

(a/n: Okay guys it’s finally here. I didn’t realize how hard writing a part 2 to something would be lmao. I wanna thank @fluffyunicornofdanger, as always for helping me edit and being an amazing person, and I wanna thank all of you guys for all the positive feedback, it really is what keeps me going. I hope you enjoy it!)

(If you haven’t already, you can read part 1 here)

Warnings: Fluff, angst, drinking.

Word count: 4.1k

It had been a week. A whole week since Y/n disappeared. Well to be exact, a week, two days and 3 hours, but who was counting?

Roger Taylor was counting. He had called her flat about five million times, and it had rang through every single time, no response. She hadn’t shown up for recording sessions, hell, he hadn’t even seen her around town.

The man sat by his phone, heavy bags under his eyes from the lack of sleep and his face was starting to thin out from the lack of proper sustenance. He had not shaved, so stubble began to appear along his chin, and although it was blond like the hair on his head, it was still very noticeable.

Three quick knocks on his flat door pulled him out of his thoughts and the anxiety fueled fetal position of rocking back and forth and he nearly tripped on his coffee table as he rushed to the door, swinging it open, in hopes that his best friend would be on the other end.

“Jesus, you look like absolute shit, Roger.”

The drummer’s face fell when he noticed it was his bandmate, Brian, on the other side, “What do you want?”

“You haven’t left your house, what is going on with you?” Brian let himself into the absolute trainwreck of a living room.

Roger groaned at what seemed like mockery from the guitarist, “Look, if you came here to make fun of me, you might as well just leave.”

“No, Rog, we’re worried about you. All of us. And it’s a good thing, too, you need a shower and some food. Go. Now,” Brian pointed towards the bathroom.

“If the phone rings-”

“If the phone rings while you’re gone, I will answer it, yes. Go take care of yourself. I’ll make you some tea and a sandwich, just go. You smell like you haven’t showered in days.” Brian gave Roger a stern look, absolutely not having any of his shit, but what else was new? Roger was stubborn and the whole band knew that. Well… everyone on this planet knew that.

The plan had been for all the band to show up at Roger’s flat but Brian was strictly against the idea. Someone who has just had their heart broken doesn’t need to be bombarded by 3 men who would honestly just stir up more emotions, so Brian decided to take things into his own hands.

Honestly, none of the boys had heard from or seen Y/n either, which wasn’t like her at all. They thought she would at least talk to them, but much like Roger, Y/n had disappeared too.  Brian wanted to fix things, seeing as Roger was the drummer and you can’t record rock songs without your drummer, and Y/n was a vital part to the team as well, even if she didn’t believe so, herself. Mainly she helped keep Roger in line but she helped out with lyrics and was extremely good at calming everyone down when things started to get riled up.

Roger had sulked off to the bathroom, actually listening to Brian for once, so he knew that this was serious. Brian sighed in relief and started up the kettle and made a simple sandwich, setting it on the counter for when Roger had returned from washing away all the grime that had built up on his body.

The guitarist pinched the bridge of his nose in frustration, trying to figure out something, anything that could get the two to talk to each other, but nothing came to mind. He wanted everyone else to stay out of it but apparently Freddie didn’t get the memo.

---

“Y/n, darling?” Freddie rang the doorbell to the girl’s house, trying to look through any of her windows, “I know you’re home, talk to me.”

“Fred, I’m not in the mood,” A quiet voice sounded from the other side of the door.

“I simply just want to talk. Hang out, even. Maybe have a drink?” Freddie held up a bottle to the peephole on the door.

Her weakness.

Multiple locks could be heard being undone and Freddie smiled to himself, finally gaining entrance to what seemed like Y/n had turned into a fortress of solitude.

“What did you bring?” She whispered through the cracked door.

Freddie gave her a heart warming smile, “Only the best and most bubbly champagne, love. It would be barbaric to offer you anything else.” He pushed his way through the door, holding the bottle out to her, along with two champagne flutes, “And real crystal glasses, I wasn’t sure if you owned any, and I couldn’t let you drink this out of a solo cup, I simply won’t allow it.”

This made her chuckle as she set the glasses and the bottle of champagne down on her kitchen counter, “Please lock up the door, would you, Freddie?”

He obliged, and proceeded to follow behind her footsteps into the kitchen. Freddie being Freddie, he couldn’t help but snoop around a little bit with his eyes. He noticed all the phones were off the hooks, some of them looking like they had been smashed in with a hammer or blown up by a damn grenade, but he chose not to question that.

“So… bringing me fancy champagne,” Y/n popped the cork off, sending it flying, making the both of them laugh a bit, “Is this a bribe of some sort?”

“A bribe?” Freddie put his hand over his heart, “Can’t I just treat my friend to a nice drink without being questioned? It’s a lovely day! And you’re cooped up in here all alone.” He gave her a look. A look that couldn’t be described as anything other than a ‘I know what’s going on’ look. “Although I do have to ask-”

“I don’t want to talk about Roger.”

“Who said anything about Roger, dear?” He pointed to the three phones in the house, “I was going to simply ask about those. Did someone break in? Do you need money?”

Y/n laughed, as if she would ever accept money from her friends, “Nobody broke in, Freddie,” She poured herself and her friend full glasses of the expensive champagne, taking a sip, “They just kept ringing and it annoyed me. That’s all. Probably telemarketers.”

Her and Freddie both knew it wasn’t telemarketers but the singer decided to go along with the facade.

“Oh, those rotting pests,” Freddie took a sip of his drink as well, “Although you could have just unplugged them, not set them on fire.” He chuckled and sent her a smile.

“Yeah well, they were starting to make me feel…” She downed the whole glass of champagne, pouring herself another, “Uncomfortable.”

The cat was out of the bag. She was sending Freddie signals and he was sure of it. If she wanted to play games, Freddie was down to play too.

“Well, maybe they were trying to sell you something really nice,” He shrugged, “Something that could possibly be of interest to you.”

She was catching on. “Fred.”

“All I’m gonna say is that we all miss you dearly at the studio. It’s not the same without you around.” He wasn’t lying, not one bit. Things had been hectic. Chaotic, even. Freddie placed his hand on top of her hand that was resting on the marble counter to show his sincerity.

Y/n said nothing, but quiet contemplation was obvious from her furrowed brows.

“You know, in fact we are having a session in about an hour, and it would mean the world to me if you came,” He lifted her chin up so her eyes met his, “Plus, we’re down a drummer. We could really use some help.”

Her mind was spinning. Had Roger quit the band? All because of her? Nothing about that situation was fair. It was the least she could do. She could never say no to Freddie’s pleading eyes. He nearly looked like a child in a candy store.

“Oh alright, fine. But I’m only doing this for you.” She downed the rest of her second glass of champagne. Or was it her third? She wasn’t too sure, “But I’m gonna need all the liquid courage I can get,” She said, reaching for the bottle to pour another glass, but decided against it and lifted the whole bottle itself to her lips and began to chug the fizzy alcohol.

“That’s my girl!” Freddie patted both her shoulders and hugged her tightly after she let the bottle down, “I’ve got to get ready, so I will see you in an hour.” He made his way to the door and undid the many locks, “You should really rethink your security situation here, it’s quite tedious,” He took one step out the door before returning, “Oh! And remind me to purchase a new phone for your home. I would hate to not be able to ring you up. Ta-ta for now, my love. See you soon!” And he waltzed right out of the door.

Y/n laughed at his demeanor. If she didn’t know better, she would think he was from the bloody 1800s. She couldn’t complain, and nobody else seemed to either. When Freddie talked or entered a room it was like a breath of fresh air, away from all the smog and horrible weather in London.  

---

“Any calls? Any at all?” Roger emerged from the steaming bathroom with just a pair of sweatpants on.

“No, Rog. No calls,” Brian sighed, flipping through a newspaper he had found on Roger’s coffee table while he was waiting. The dark haired man could feel the skeptical look Roger was giving him as he looked up, “Why would I have reason to lie about something like that? Eat up, now. You look like an elderly dog.”

It took all the fight in Roger to not pick something up and chuck it at his friend. “Since when do you care about my appearance?”

“Since you’re coming to the recording studio with me in a half an hour.”

An annoyed sigh escaped the man’s lips, “Brian, I’m not-” Roger started, but was stopped by Brian raising one singular thin finger in the air.

“We have everything recorded for a song, except for the percussion. You’re going. So put a shirt on, eat your sandwich, and get your shit together,” Brian rolled his eyes, “I think some fresh air could do you some good, anyways.”

At this point, Roger had been so broken down, he had no energy left in him to argue with his friend. “Whatever. But don’t ask me to hang around afterwards.”

---

Nothing had been planned out. Freddie and Brian hadn’t conspired against the two, in fact they tried to do the exact opposite but it was starting to seem as if fate was trying it’s damndest to bring the drummer and his best friend back together. Y/n wasn’t mad at Roger, she wasn’t trying to upset him, she just hated change. But change seemed like the only option that fate was giving her.

Y/n stood outside the recording studio door, about to walk in, but she stopped in her tracks. Had she just heard an epic drum solo? A bit tipsy from the champagne, she cracked the door open the slightest bit, speaking in the smallest whisper she could manage, “Psssst! Freddie! What the fuck?”

“Y/n! There you are!” His voice boomed, and it’s a damn good thing that Roger was in the sound booth.

“Shhh! Hush, Fred. Is… is he in there?”

“Is who in here? We’re all here! Come on, I need your help with a lyric,” Freddie grabbed her arm and yanked her inside the studio room.

“Guys what’s going on? Need me to do it again?” Roger’s voice could be heard through the speaker and Y/n ducked down onto the ground so he couldn’t see her through the glass window.

Brian, realizing what was happening, tried to keep his cool, “Yeah, Rog if you could do it just once more, that would be lovely,” He turned the mic off and turned in his swivel chair, “What the bloody hell is happening right now?” Looking back and forth, between Freddie and Y/n.

“Mr. Mercury over here boozed me up and told me to come to the session, knowing full well I didn’t want to see Roger,” She lightly punched at Freddie’s arm.

“No need for hitting, love, I didn’t know Roger would be here either until it was too late!” He rubbed his arm where he had been punched, “But maybe the world is trying to tell you something, darling. You can’t avoid him forever.”

“No, no, nope, not happening.” Y/n crawled over to the wall and used it to help herself get up off the floor, tripping in the process, falling onto the couch that she had spent many hours on in the past, “Fuck. Me.” Maybe she had a bit too much liquid courage.

“Guys, if you want me to do it again, you’ve gotta at least tell me what you want me to change-” Roger halted like a frightened horse after walking through the sound booth door.

Everyone tried to “act natural,” which always makes everyone look way more suspicious. Eyes darting all around the room, everyone looking at each other, not sure what to say.

“Y/n?” Roger’s voice hitched in his throat. After not seeing her for over a week, the first glimpse he got was of her, clearly intoxicated, rubbing her leg while laying on the couch.

“No. Not me.”

“Okay, I don’t know who did what, but- ugh. What is she on?” Roger rushed to her side, while still looking at the boy’s as if they had killed a puppy or something.

“Relax, Rog, just champagne. She just needs some water and time, she’ll be fine,” Freddie chimed in, not seeing the harm in the situation.

“Come with me. C’mon, Y/n,” Roger tried to get her up off the couch but she resisted, “I’m trying to help you, just come with me.”

The alcohol had hit her. Hard. She probably should have checked the alcohol content before downing the rest of the bottle. She squirmed as much as she could but Roger was quite a bit stronger than her, especially when she was plastered.

When Roger finally managed to get her onto her feet, and had her arm wrapped around his shoulders for support, he started to make his way out the door with her leaned against him, he used his other arm to gesture crudely at his friends, ”You’re all in for it, we’ll talk about this later.”

Y/n couldn’t remember much of the journey to Roger’s car, but once she was seated in the passenger side and Roger was reaching over her to help her fasten her seat belt, she took a shaky, drunken hand and grabbed one of his, “Did you mean it?”

“Mean what?” Roger clicked the seat belt into place and stood up a bit, looking down at her.

“I’ve thought about you a lot.” Not an answer to his question, but she was knackered, so nothing would make sense.

Roger looked deeply into her half hooded y/e/c eyes, “Me too… but we can talk about this later. Let’s just get you home.” He ran to the other side of the car and started it up, heading back to his flat.

Things had happened so fast that he hadn’t been able to fully process anything. All he knew was that best friends take care of each other, especially when they’re drunk, so that’s what he was going to do. The tension that was between them didn’t matter when it came to safety. Her safety. Roger had his eyes trained heavily on the road, his mind wandering to many places. Why had she shown up drunk and alone? And on the one day that he decided to go in? Things didn’t add up.

Roger pulled up to his flat and helped her inside. Y/n nearly tripping with every step, but once she was inside his flat, she took off on her own and plopped herself down onto his couch, stretching her limbs out to take up the whole three-seater.

This hadn’t been the first time he had taken care of a drunken Y/n, but it felt a little overwhelming because of last week’s situation. He grabbed a glass from the cupboard above his sink and filled it with water, bringing it back to her, “Gotcha somethin’ to drink, if you feel like it. It’s right here.” Roger set the glass down on the side table.

Y/n hummed lowly and mumbled a response, “Thanks, Rog. Love you.”

It slipped out of her mouth as if she had been saying it for years. Of course, drunk, she hadn’t realized the impact those two words had but Roger’s eyes went wide, “You do, do ya?” He laughed at his friend. Water wasn’t exactly something to love someone over.

“Mhm,” Y/n’s eyes were closed but she nodded her head, “I don’t want to,” She stirred a bit and opened her eyes, looking at all the blurry details on Roger’s face, “But I do.”

“You’re just drunk.”

Y/n grabbed at Roger’s hand and yanked it towards her body, cuddling with his arm the way a kid would hold a teddy bear. “But honest.”

She promptly fell asleep, and Roger didn’t dare move his arm. He stayed put on the floor, eyes following each tiny movement of her body, every breath she took, every time her eyes moved around under her eyelids. He wondered what she was dreaming about. He also wondered if she meant what she said. She was right, she had always been more honest when drunk. Time went by slowly, but it felt very fast to Roger. He could look at her all day.

The sun had gone down by the time Y/n’s eyes flickered open, the first thing she saw, was of course Roger. He was leaned against the side of the couch, his eyes now closed in a light slumber, yet Y/n still had a tight grip on his arm. However, when she gently let go of his arm, his eyes opened with no hesitation.  

There was a moment of sweet, yet awkward silence before Roger broke it with a low voice, “Hi.”

“Hi,” Y/n sheepishly smiled. “I-I’m sorry.”

“For getting drunk? If I had to apologize for every time I got drunk, I wouldn’t have a voice left.” The two friends laughed together. It felt like their normal vibe was shifting back into place. They way they could joke together and laugh together.

“Yes and no,” Y/n had no problem with looking at him in the eyes, this situation had gone on long enough, “For lying. For leaving. For cutting off my phone, I just…”

Roger rolled his eyes, “You act like I don’t know you by now.”

Both of their voices were quiet. This was a side to Roger that only Y/n had experienced, and these moments were very few and far in between. He was a softy when it came to her, and there was no doubt about it.

The drummer fiddled with his fingers, “Before you fell asleep, you said-”

“I know what I said, Roger,” Y/n sat up, grasping hold of both his hands, “And I meant it. I just don’t want things to change. I wish we could just… lie. Ignore it.” She sighed heavily, “But it’s out there now.”

“What do you say we do about it, then? Little miss ‘drunk off of champagne?’ Huh?” Roger prodded at her chest with a finger, playfully.

She both loved and hated that he was able to take the most serious conversations and turn them into jokes.

“Listen here, Freddie didn’t tell me how strong it was, you arse,” Laughter breaking up her words as she pushed him to the ground.

But oh no. Roger wasn’t going down without taking her with him.

They both tumbled onto the floor, laughing uncontrollably at the situation. Once they were settled on the floor, she had landed on top of him, neither even noticing the suggestive position they were in. Her straddling him with his hands resting on her waist, tickling her nearly to death. The laughter fit kept going until they were both out of breath.

“Shit. Fuck. Shit.” Y/n stood up on legs that made her feel like a newborn deer, sitting back down on the couch. “Roger I don’t know what to do. I really don’t.”

The blond on the floor, brushed his hair back, not like it would make any difference, it was messy either way.

“What does your heart tell you?”

That was an obvious answer. Obviously her heart was set on him, but her heart and mind didn’t sync up and she couldn’t understand why. In that whole week that she spent by herself, she kept going from ‘I’m gonna tell him. We can make it work,’ to ‘Holy fuck this could be a shitshow.’ What if they did get together and he hurt her? Or what if their friendship faded away?

“My heart doesn’t know how we would make it work, Rog.” She gave him a sad look and he returned the look with a frown.

Roger picked himself up off the floor and sat next to her on the couch, placing a hand on her thigh which gave her a little shiver up her spine, “We could… try it?” He suggested, looking at her with eyes that she wished she could resist.

“Once we’ve gone there, there’s no going back, that’s what I’ve been saying all along,” Y/n argued, tears building up in her eyes, and seeing her cry, always hurt Roger down to the core, sparking some waterworks from him as well.

He pulled her in close. The two crying in frustration at the world and at their feelings towards each other. Locked in a hug, the two contemplated everything.

An idea hit Roger like a ton of bricks. An idea that could be the start of something or the end of it all. “Do you trust me, Y/n?” He pulled back from the hug, but still held her close.

“You know I do, Roger.” She tilted her head, “What is that pretty head of yours thinking?”

“Just… trust me, okay?”

The dim lighting from the moon outside the front window of Roger’s flat gave Y/n’s skin a beautiful glow. Angelic, even. Roger physically couldn’t hold back any longer. He placed his hand on Y/n’s cheek and she smiled at him. That smile got him every time.

Roger leaned in close, making the girl’s heart beat increase to a point it had never been before. Nobody had ever made her feel this way. The man moved slow, as to not overstep any boundaries, making it okay for her to pull away at any moment. But she didn’t. Suddenly her heart was telling her that it was okay. Things felt right. And before she knew it, Roger’s lips met with her’s in the slowest, sweetest kiss. He could taste the fruity champagne, still on her lips, and it felt as if he was getting drunk off of it, but it wasn’t the alcohol, it was just her.

Y/n tilted her head into the kiss and wrapped her arms around Roger’s neck. Something that before, seemed so wrong, now felt so right. She couldn’t escape the feelings any longer.

Roger was the first to pull away, leaning his forehead against hers, “So?”

Y/n chuckled, “Well, seeing as the world hasn’t exploded, I’m starting to think I should trust you more often.”

“I’m intrigued at how you thought I could blow up the bloody planet by kissing you, but that’s not what I meant.” The two had another sweet moment of looking at each other for god knows how long, ended by Roger, once again, always ruining good things, “Can you say it for me?”

Y/n smirked at him and played dumb, looking around the room innocently.

Roger’s eyes got serious, and he made sure she was looking at him before he whispered, “I love you, Y/n.”

There was no use in fighting it anymore. Enough tears had been shed over this silly game of denying feelings. The lying had to be over. The sparks from that kiss was proof enough for her. They would find a way to make it work.

“I love you too, Rog.”

Tag list: @chocolatealmondmilkshake @toomuchtellyneck @rtyler19 @jennyggggrrr

(I’m still new to the whole tag list thing so I’m so sorry if I forgot anyone, please forgive me.)

[shubhralive-blog]

TURN YOUR TOMORROW WITH THESE 8 GOLDEN RULES OF GOALSETTING

Before we understand the facets of goal setting at the outset we need to understand the true meaning of a goal.

A goal is your desire or wishes in an intangible state aspired to be made tangible in due course.

To cover this distance from the intangible state to tangible it requires a cumulative approach comprised of inspiration, belief, action, dedication, optimism, fearless self, and confidence.

Having a goal is good, accomplishing it is great. Sometimes the word goal is so extensively used that its meaning becomes gibberish. When you have a goal you have something to look forward to. You are not gazing at space you are looking at something concrete. Now that you got a hang of what a goal is let me tell you the essence of goal setting. Here are the eight primary prerequisites to goal-setting when you have clarity about what is that one goal you want to chase through and see it getting accomplished.

1. Setting a goal requires self-introspection of your capabilities and core competencies. This helps you set a goal that is realistic and achievable. Your job looks more doable. Somebody knocks your mind’s door and says boss you got it right. That somebody is your instinct which eventually helps you discover the hidden paths leading to your goal. You don’t have to look around. This is absolutely internal. Listen to it and pay attention.

2. Write your goal. Research says people who vividly describe their goal are 1.2-1.4 times more likely to successfully accomplish their goals. Neuropsychology has identified something called “generation effect” which basically says individuals demonstrate better memory for the material they have generated themselves than for material they have merely read. When you write down your goal, you get to access the “generation effect” twice: first, when you generate the goal (create a picture of it in your mind), and second when you write it down because you are essentially reprocessing or regenerating that image. You have to rethink your mental picture, put it on the paper, place objects, scale them, think about their spatial relations, etc. There’s a lot of cognitive processing going on right there.

3. Don’t look at other goals as a benchmark. You are a completely different individual with a completely different constitution. When you set a goal looking at others you end up losing it even before you have attempted to accomplish it. After the inceptive period, you would lose interest because it was never a part of you or your plan. You simply jumped in because you saw somebody else is having a whale of a time. That’s truly unintellectual. Never adopt a goal. Period.

4. Nurture a goal, not a delusion. When goals are influenced by fantasy they will never live to see the light of the day. Set goals that are real. Goals are just images without any action. It’s time you blink out of a reverie and start acting. Set goals that are actionable and achievable.

5. Be consistent. In your endeavour, you might encounter failure and not once but several times. Don’t let yourself fall apart. Don’t give up. This is where self-doubt raises its vicious hood. Don’t let it demotivate you. Be consistent. Fail to fail better. Each failure prepares you for the upcoming win. Persistence is the key.

6. Before setting a goal have a blueprint ready. Try to find the paths leading to it. In nutshell, plan for it. It has to be comprehensive. It should answer the How, When, Where, Who. This makes your goal measurable which helps you later when you go all out. It’s a myth that planning should follow goal setting. It can go hand in hand too. Let’s do things differently and get this correct.

7. Break your goals into years, months, days, hours, minutes. This smaller goals not only makes your accomplishments appraisable but motivates you to move further closer towards your final goal. Go one small goal at a time before the big show. It’s like a round of ramp rehearsals. Go slow and stay focused & don’t forget to celebrate those small wins.

8. Never postpone your goal. This pulls down your confidence and as time passes that tomorrow never comes. Our mind starts playing tricks. It makes us lazy. It makes us doubtful. Eventually, you will let go of it and start finding a new one which you will postpone again trapped in a vicious cycle. Well, I guess there are times it really pays off to be impulsive.

[disabilitythinking]

Modest Goals

“Disability Awareness.” For some it’s a blanket term covering all the aspirations disabled people have for social acceptance and having our needs accommodated. For others, it’s hopelessly vague, and in practice, meaningless. For a long time, I haven’t had much use for disability “awareness” myself, until just recently.

As disability activists have struggled to pass key legislation and defend the imperfect supports disabled people already have … and as disability culture strives for full representation and a wholesale redefinition of disability ... I’ve started to feel like it might be useful to rethink the basics. We have pretty good ideas of where we want people and institutions to be regarding disability in society, but achieving those goals seems like a tall order, a long-term project. Is there a more basic set of goals we can achieve? Should we aim a bit lower in the short term, and with people … non-disabled and disabled people too … who aren’t quite equipped yet to deal with the ideal world we are working towards? If expecting people to get it all perfectly right with us is correct but unrealistic right now, what can we reasonably expect?

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that any actual goals we have for “disability awareness” need to be modest, at least for the foreseeable future. That seems logical, if a little bit uninspired.

So what, exactly, are some modest, realistic goals? What can and should we hold people to, (even perfect strangers and disability newbies), with confidence and assertiveness, and without having to put them through a ten-part disability seminar?

1. Understand and accept that some forms of praise and sentimentality make us uncomfortable. Of course you mean it in the kindest, most positive way. Most of us like specific praise for the work we have done, or our objective accomplishments and efforts. But random praise from strangers and casual acquaintances, simply for living and functioning, usually make us feel awkward. It's a little like being gushed over by the teacher in front of the whole class. And almost none of us likes it when people talk to us with that sweet, saccharine voice normally reserved for infants and adorable pets.

2. Know that disabled people, to varying degrees, have to deal with discrimination that can be personally annoying, but also sometimes life-altering and life-threatening. We call it “ableism,” and though the word may be new to you … and maybe sounds a little contrived … it describes a real thing with real-life consequences. We don’t all experience it in the same way, or to the same degree, but all of us do experience it.

3. Recognize that disabled people are under a lot of social pressure to be cheerful and uncomplaining ... brave soldiers and inspirational examples to others. That means that reacting to disabled person’s personality and tone is more complicated than simply liking and praising disabled people who are sweet, and disliking or disapproving of disabled people who seem grouchy and dissatisfied. If we are hard to live with sometimes, we often have reason to be. And when we are unending rays of sunshine, that can sometimes hide how things really are for us.

4. Unless you are in a specific official position that explicitly requires you to determine somebody’s disability, you should just believe what people say about their disabilities. Anyone can be a liar or self-deluded, but it's particularly obnoxious for disabled people to be constantly doubted and questioned by random people for no good reason.

5. No, we haven’t fully decided what to call ourselves. At the moment, there seems to be a tie between “person with a disability,” and “disabled person.” The best thing for non-disabled people to do in most situations is accept what each of us chooses for our preferred terminology, and leave it at that.

6. If you’re non-disabled, don’t try to “educate” a disabled person about disability. It may be well-meaning, and you my well be right, but it’s presumptuous in a very personal and fundamental way to try to explain our disabilities to us. In fact, even if you are disabled yourself, be very careful and humble about “correcting” another disabled person's views about disability.

None of this is beyond an ordinary person’s ability to understand, or at least practice in everyday interactions. It doesn’t require a background in sociology. You don’t have to be politically progressive. And you don’t have to have a disability, or have a disabled person in your family. At the bottom of each of these goals is a simple thing that requires effort, but little in the way of knowledge or education: Treat disabled people as people with agency, unique stories, and human perspectives of their own. And then act accordingly.

It's not too much to ask.

[johnboothus]

Lance Winters Nuclear Engineer-Turned-Distiller Is Experimenting With American Agave

Lance Winters serves as the master distiller and president of St. George Spirits, a craft distillery in Alameda, Calif., that prides itself on rethinking traditional flavors and ingredients. In his free time, Winters is one of the few distillers in the country roasting and working with California agave.

St. George Spirits began as an eau-de-vie distillery, which informed Winters’ process of sourcing and building spirits from the ingredients up. Today, he’s motivated by experiences, not labels, and is equally inspired by sudden smells as he is by lasting memories.

The distillery offers spirits and liqueurs that range from a green chile vodka to a California shochu. The company made waves in 2007 when it released the first legal absinthe, and with Winters at its helm, it prides itself on crafting careful, nuanced spirits that recreate a category’s landscape rather than copy its leaders.

Nearly a decade ago, Winters released a rum made from 100 percent California sugarcane that he describes as the “natural wine” in an otherwise “Bordeaux-like” rum world. To create it, a complicated experimental process led him to trace his ingredients straight to the source and learn a distilling process that prepared him to eventually take on the agave plant. Currently, he’s been tapped to work on agave passion projects with Mark Crotalo of Crotalo Tequila and the soil scientist Joe Muller, who asked Winters to help harvest and roast nearly 7,000 pounds of California-grown agave.

Still, Winters shares his struggles with harvesting, roasting, and distilling agave spirits here in the United States through a refreshingly honest, informed worldview. He recognizes the labor that Mexican distillers undergo to produce agave spirits, and is hesitant to release any of his agave spirits to the public for retail. He also insists that working through agave’s unique challenges makes his team stronger, and details a rare insider’s look into the production of his agave spirits below.

[Editor’s note: This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.]

1. Can you talk about your early background in brewing, and with the U.S. Navy — and how that led to your work with St. George?

Yeah, so my time in the Navy was time spent operating nuclear power plants. I trained as a nuclear engineer and was stationed on board the USS Enterprise. With eight reactors, there’s a lot of chemistry, a lot of understanding of physics, and not a lot of great parties.

While I was in the Navy, I started brewing beer at home. When I got out, I got a job brewing beer. A friend gave me a bottle of Lagavulin Single Malt Whisky, and it was the first spirit I tasted that I thought was so remarkable — something that transcended just an ethanol experience. It was a story in a glass, and I was completely enthralled by it. I started learning more about whiskey, and I realized that in making whiskey you start by making beer. So that’s what led me to St. George.

The way that nuclear engineering influences [my distilling is] when you’re working on a still, you have to understand the nexus of the physics and the chemistry that takes place inside that still, so as you’re changing operating parameters for the still, you know how it’s going to influence the product that comes out. It’s sort of like learning to play a musical instrument and understanding how you’re going to affect the music that’s coming out in the end.

2. How do you approach the idea of distilling creatively? Are you generally looking for a white space or navigating these previous memories that you have, and trying to recreate those experiences in spirits?

At the risk of utilizing an overused phrase, it’s a pretty organic process at the distillery. It’s the sort of thing that can be as simple as, I’m out at dinner and I see a flavor combination that gets me going; or, I smell something out in the woods and I’m like, “Oh, my God, I want to capture this.” I think it’s really all about external inspiration.

And, there are times where it’s like, “OK, what would this category be like if it was reimagined from the very beginning? How would somebody approach making this product if there weren’t already hundreds of years of tradition behind it? How would we start a brand-new tradition?” We try to stay away from the influences of the past. The only reason we look at what’s been done already is to avoid doing it.

3. Can you talk a little about the St. George California Agricole Rum? Where did you source the sugarcane from, and what was the inspiration and research for that spirit?

Initially, I wanted to make rum because I didn’t really enjoy most of the rums that I had had. So I stepped back and thought as an eau-de-vie producer, how would you go about making a rum?

When you’re making an eau-de-vie from pears or raspberries, you don’t make it from an extract [or] from a concentrate. You have to get the fresh fruit. In the case of the rum, the “fresh fruit” is sugarcane, it’s grass — we started looking for sugarcane growers in California. The first place that we found was down near Fresno. There was a group of Hmong farmers who were growing it to celebrate the New Year — it was an “eating sugarcane.” We purchased that and started running it through a cane mill. Then, we ended up tracking down a gentleman who was growing cane [near the Salton Sea] with a smaller diameter which [produces] a lot more chlorophyll. So you end up with a really bright, intensely green cane juice and that really bright, intensely green cane juice contributes this incredible funk to the whole thing.

Our Agricole rum is to regular rums what natural wines are to Bordeaux. It’s grassy, it’s got a lot of [notes of] black truffle, a lot of dirt, a lot of olives. It’s really, really interesting and I think that funk helps to balance out and anchor tropical cocktails that are made with it.

4. Tell me about working on your first agave project, Agua Azul, with [St. George Spirits distiller and founder] Jörg Rupf. What was it like sourcing and working with the agave?

I [worked] with Jörg Rupf 14 years ago. We didn’t know of any sources of agave in the United States so we looked around and we found a distillery that was willing to sell us agave [from Mexico].

We had it cooked, then put into a refrigerated truck to make the trip up to the Bay Area; then proceeded to go absolutely crazy trying to figure out how we would process it. They call [agave hearts] “piñas” but it’s not quite a pineapple. It’s much bigger, and they look more like tortoise shells. They’re heavy, sticky, and full of incredibly long, tough fibers. We broke a lot of equipment trying to process these and ended up getting to the point where we were able to bludgeon them just enough to get some fermentation going. And then we distilled, and it was good, but it wasn’t great. It was probably a little too clean.

It was sort of like what we were experiencing on the first goes with the rum: It was bland, kind of boring. It was nothing to be ashamed of, but it was nothing to scream about, either. And it was nothing about the source of the agave. What it turned out to be was about steam cooking versus pit roasting. Think about when you sear something on a grill or when you smoke it; you end up with so much more depth and flavor than if you boil it or steam it.

5. Since then, you’ve worked on a few American agave projects. Can you walk me through the harvesting and roasting of the blue agave used in your project with Mark Crotalo?

Jörg reached out and got in contact with Mark Crotalo [of Crotalo Tequila]. On his property down in Temecula, [Mark had] amended the soil and planted a bunch of agave. We had that harvested, then brought up to a farm up in Winters, Calif., where [his team] had dug a pit for us, lined it with stones, and then filled it with a mix of oak and eucalyptus.

It was about a three-day pit roast, and then all that agave was delivered to the [St. George] distillery. We were still trying to figure out exactly how we were going to process it, but my thought was that we should use our sugarcane mill. It’s a roller mill. We could press off all the juices from the agave, and then ferment it. And that’s what we did. We ended up with a relatively small amount of really, really beautiful, lovely, smoky agave spirit. And it had so much more depth and so much more complexity than the stuff that had been steam cooked.

6. Do you have any plans for Agave American spirits that might hit the market soon?

I’m really torn. It’s a very difficult spirit to distill, so working on that helps us at St. George hone our skills as distillers. We’re always looking for opportunities for personal and professional growth, and agave provides that in spades. As far as actually releasing it, I know that we’re going to release some for a benefit for the group YIIN, Yolo Interfaith Immigration Network. What’s kind of problematic for me, while I love making this stuff, is I feel like selling it becomes a form of cultural appropriation. And the United States is a tremendous act of cultural appropriation –– a cultural melting pot is another word for that, a much nicer way of saying it. And we would be nothing if it weren’t for the assimilation of all these different cultural things. But the people in Mexico who make agave spirits bust their asses to do so, and the last thing that needs to happen is for a bunch of gringos north of the border to come in and start trying to take that business. So, we’ll continue to make it, we’ll continue to have fun with it. But I think if anything, we’ll serve it by the glass at the distillery.

7. What are your favorite Mexican agave [spirit] brands, whether that be for tequila or mezcal? Are there any brands you think our readers should look out for?

One that rises to the top of the pack for me is this small distillery in Oaxaca called Gracias a Dios. And they’re not only great people, they make great products, and they’re also doing things differently. They’re replanting a lot of agave as they harvest, [because] they’re concerned with sustainability. They are also artistic about things: They have a beautiful gin that they’ve produced with agave as a base and it’s got 33 different botanicals representing the different states of Mexico. It’s a really layered, beautiful mezcal-based gin.

I love it when somebody is honoring tradition, but they’re also striking out on their own. To me, that’s what being a new distiller is all about. Being somebody who’s popping onto the scene now, you’re not duty bound to follow traditions.

The article Lance Winters, Nuclear Engineer-Turned-Distiller, Is Experimenting With American Agave appeared first on VinePair.

Via https://vinepair.com/articles/american-agave-spirits-lance-winters/

source https://vinology1.weebly.com/blog/lance-winters-nuclear-engineer-turned-distiller-is-experimenting-with-american-agave

[theatremarketinginsights]

What I Discovered About “Rethinking” Theatre Marketing in a Pandemic

By Roger Gonzalez  

This past week, I spoke at the TRU (Theatre Resources Unlimited) annual Marketing panel. This is the second annual panel I’ve participated in, and I love that it forces me to rethink what new, hot marketing topics theatre marketers should be thinking about. But a year is a long time, and this year was remarkably life-changing. I don’t need to tell you about the pandemic, the recession, the quarantine, the stay at home, the racial unrest, the political upheaval, and generally the dozens of things that changed so dramatically in the past year. In fact, when TRU’s Bob Ost reached out to me, he was uncertain if there was anything new to really talk about, given that live-theatre was still vaguely in the future. But my feeling was, and is, that we can always talk marketing even when it seems that the whole world is on shut-down with no major changes in in the horizon. In fact, that’s the best time to talk. That’s exactly when you need marketing the most. So I said, yes, let’s do it, even if we don’t have all the answers, which maybe I don’t (don’t hate me for not having a crystal ball).

And just as we agreed to move forward, just a few weeks later, changes began unfolding. Within days, a few public press conferences, and announcements from government officials followed, and we learned that venues would indeed begin the opening process. For Off/Off and Off-Broadway, the dates seem to loom closer than the Fall 2021 dates being thrown around for Broadway. And on the day of the panel (March 25th), it was announced that theatre workers would soon be getting their vaccines. The conversation was all over social media, even though details were still mostly lacking. For me, the challenge was to talk on subject with what TRU described as the theme of their marketing panel for 2021: Rethinking Marketing Strategies to Reach the Wider Virtual Audience.

Rethinking. That word stood out for me. I literally sat down at my sofa one afternoon and started thinking, er, rethinking.

The more I thought about it, the more it occurred to me that  little had actually changed. Sure, performing live-theatre is going to be a major safety challenge as we reopen and  that won’t satisfy everyone. Audiences are still very much split on returning to live venues, with some saying they won’t return for some time, and others anxious to don a mask (or two) and sit in a theater and start watching anything.

A year ago, digital platforms like Zoom were unknown. Now everyone seems knows how to use it. Restaurants survive on takeout, retailers on e-commerce, and mask-wearing became political. So how is it possible that "little has changed,” you may ask? 

Allow me to explain.

As a marketing consultant, a producer, development consultant, publisher, actor, and stage-director working with hundreds of theatre companies, playwrights, and other marketers outside of the entertainment business, as well as being a college professor teaching marketing, the realization surprised even me. That’s because while the way we do marketing may have shifted,  marketing principles have not changed that much. After some “rethinking,” it occurred to me that if you apply five basic principles to your theatre marketing that existed a year ago to today’s approach, you will always have a better chance at succeeding than if you panic, complicate the process, and jump into a reactive mode of marketing. You still need a marketing plan and strategy. You just have to update it to accommodate all the external and internal changes that have happened. 

So, here they are. Give them the attention they merit, and spend time doing your own “rethinking.” And please, don’t hesitate to share or discuss. Here goes:

5 Things about your pre-pandemic Theatre Marketing that remain exactly the same one year later.

1. You still must offer a good product, meaning your show, event, or whatever you are presenting or trying to sell. Whether it’s a workshop, class, online course, online symposium, or conference, quality is paramount. Why would anyone want to pay anything (even if it’s free which involves investing your time) for a bad product? A playwright friend of mine says he hates Zooms and so do I...bad Zooms. Another playwright I know also hates Zooms and says she’ll wait for theatre to reopen. Bad idea. The reason we may hate Zooms is because they are not often well-executed. But if you set your mind to creating a great Zoom presentation, or even a better Zoom presentation than the other gal, then you are elevating the platform. To me, that’s worth it. Zooming is not live-theatre and never will be. But shit is shit, and gold is gold no matter what platter you serve it on. Sure, I prefer live theatre, but I’ve walked out of a few live shows in the past because they were awful. If you can provide good production values, great acting, excellent direction, and all the things that make a story worth seeing, people will see it and enjoy it. Give that some thought before you throw some actors together on a live-stream with shaky wifi reception, give them minimal direction, and a script that they can barely read, much less perform. Make your story, and story-telling as great as possible.

2. Find your audience(s). This is still the biggest challenge we face. Even before the pandemic, identifying, finding, and serving the right audience for your show was a mighty challenge. Getting them into the theater was even harder. But now you may find that you actually have some advantages on both the live and virtual platforms. Whereas live theatre restricts your audience to geographic limitations, virtual theatre can be enjoyed by anyone around the globe with access to wifi, a device, and a link. This means you can brand your work, your company or yourself, and build a following bigger than ever before. Last year, you might have been struggling to “put fannies in your seats,” a phrase I’ve always despised for being so narrow-minded. This year, the world is your oyster…identify your ideal audiences, talk to them, embrace them with the story behind the story, and present your product. It’s a different type of targeting, but the principle is the same. Identifying audiences is still a priority, but now the net is larger, requiring a slightly different angle of approach.

3. Figure out how to reach/engage those ideal audiences. If you’ve identified them, where are they? Are they in Facebook groups, on Instagram under a particular hashtag, on a certain website, or other platform? Can you identify that audience because they are following a certain influencer? And if so, what are some ways you can engage them in the conversation and generate interest in you, your theatre company, and your show, or event? Once you matched your product to the right audience, you must decide on the best way to reach those audiences and hook them. Post, talk, engage, and bring them into the fold. Make them life-long followers. You can choose to do it with no-cost organic posts, or low-cost email marketing, even paid advertising. You will need to determine what works best, and what you can afford. And remember, don’t always be selling...engage with stories, and conversations first. Repetitive selling is desperate and annoying. 

4. What does that audience would want or need that you can deliver. Why would they see your show? If you can put your finger on that want or need and deliver, you’ve won half the battle. That aspect has never changed. Maybe the need or want has changed, but your ability to connect and deliver is still the same challenge. Think about this, maybe your audience no longer wants to see your show live, but is willing to see it online. Maybe your show fulfills something that can only be delivered in a live show. It really depends on your ability to understand this challenging attribute. Follow that lead. Do your homework.

5. Deliver with a communications strategy that engages that specific audiences’ needs or wants. Make sure your message is clear and convincing. Make sure you begin communicating early enough to hook them when  you’re not selling. Then find the right way to communicate your message and proceed to deliver a good product.good product. To do this, you will need to think, plan, strategize, and execute. You need to start the process early...maybe even months or years before. Very importantly, you will need a new, updated marketing plan. (another article coming soon).

Sure, this still may not answer every question you have, but trust me, this is exactly where to start. Human nature hasn’t changed all that much, good story telling is still good story telling. Many little elements have changed, but at the core of all your theatre marketing, these simple 5 principles still apply today and tomorrow. Audiences may have also changed; how you deliver your show is now constantly evolving, ticket pricing could be reconsidered, the competition is different, casting, union requirements, safety issues, media coverage, and what we define as the theatre experience has undergone huge shifts. This is all true (Coming soon, we will touch on these subjects). But if you root yourself in sound marketing principles, the rest falls in line. 

Let’s get started here.

Theatre Marketing Insights can also be found...                                              

On FB: https://www.facebook.com/TheatreMarketing2021/                            

on IG @TheatreMarketing2021                                                                            

email me at  TheatreMarketingInsights@gmail.com                                          

Need Theatre Marketing? Visit https://www.90-dayfasttrack.com                      

Buy our Theatre Marketing Services at: https://www.marketing-goods.com/​

Phone: 646-285-3033

Please Follow and subscribe.

[moranmagic]

GDS3 Trial 1 Post Script

I went into this challenge with a general strategy in answering the questions overall. I also had a plan in how to go about answering them in the time given. I will first tell you my plan for answering them, then the strategy I was working under to help guide my answers overall, and finally thoughts on the answers I have and how well I did on each question. I mostly won't provide my answers here yet (I will do that either after the contest ends or at least if I know I am no longer in the running).

My plan to answer them worked as follows. First I read each question and then noted them on my phone. I spent the next day just considering each question and talking to myself about it. That night I made notes of possible answers for each as well as a few bullet points of how I could defend those answers. The next day I recorded myself talking about my best potential answers (it was a point where I was stuck in my car for about an hour, so I channeled Drive to Work and talked about Magic). When I got home I listened to that stuff and took some more notes, then set to work writing essays.First draft done, I went to bed.

The next day I reread my answers and then reread the questions, and then reread my answers. Then I rewrote my essays from scratch after considering what about them should change. I was very happy with the second draft I had for each of the essays and I made more minor revisions and corrections on the next day before submitting them. I'm quite pleased with the overall answers.

My strategy in answering them was to showcase a wide range of abilities; I touched on design and development issues, the integration of creative, player reception, and the larger (standard) environment created that each set is a part of (barring supplemental products of course). Some questions naturally focused on individual mechanic and card design, while others allowed me to talk about bigger concerns with a design (for better or worse, and with one answer in particular I definitely dropped the ball in pursuing this strategy).

Question 1

I sought to emphasize my design skills though they are all currently “amateur.” I don't and have not had a career as a professional in any aspect of design, though my hobbies and passions all revolve around it. I also put great weight on my ability and desire to work with a team in collaborative processes. I'd love the opportunity to expand on these things during a face to face interview.

Question 2

I don't think any non-evergreen mechanic currently satisfies the demands of being made evergreen. Due to that, this was the hardest question of the ten from my perspective. I made the argument for skulk, shifted into green to act as evasion on green's smaller creatures where trample doesn't make sense. I'd make it primary in green and tertiary in black and blue, only to be used there when none of their other evasion makes sense somehow. This would hopefully allow the mechanic to see some good use despite its small design space.

Question 3

This felt like the easiest question to answer. Defender is strictly a downside mechanic, there are no issues with writing out the effect defender has since walls are never crowded with text, and mimicking Propaganda text on cards that lose defender actually saves space and simplifies cards that currently have defender. For example I'd drop defender from Hightide Hermit and write its rules text as “Hightide Hermit can't attack unless you pay EE.” Even in a world where defender remains evergreen, that's a good change to make to cards like that.

Question 4

I've taught a few people to play Magic so I feel really good about my answer with this. I even write it out as a bit of a story to help them see how that first game with a stranger would go. I defined the best possible outcome as the stranger wanting to play Magic after I taught them and that the best way to ensure they want that is for them to have fun. I'd grab two planeswalker decks and we'd start playing. First game open handed so I can look at their cards and advise them directly and they can ask questions without feeling like they're giving up information that should remain hidden. I explain just rules relevant at the time and stay away from any complicated stuff or technical terminology that might trip them up or overwhelm them. When we're done with that first game I ask if they want to play again and then we play a normal game with hands hidden. I haven't always taught players this way, but my methods for teaching the game improve each time I do it (one of the first people I taught was my fiancee and I regret that because I did not do a good job at all, but it gave me a better idea of how to teach Magic by making what not to do clearer).

Question 5

The answer to this question is fun, no doubt in my mind. People come to the game because it's fun and they stick with the game because it's fun. You have to make sure it remains fun. Making a fun experience isn't easy, but I also touched on how there are a lot of different players and each of them gets something different from Magic. So the real trick is learning about all the different ways people enjoy Magic and then making some aspect of the game for each of them. In other words, you aren't just designing for yourself.

Question 6

My answer to this question is complexity. I clarify that complexity isn't all bad; some of it is absolutely needed to make the game as enjoyable as it is. But too much complexity or complexity employed the wrong way, ruins the game. Complexity needs to be watched and it always needs to be in service to a fun experience. I think this answer is solid but it felt a bit rote to me as well. I've read and listened to a lot of Rosewater's stuff on design and I never set out to rehash his ideas here, but he has an incredible understanding of design philosophy and since I'd consider myself a student of his in many respects, that comes through in my answers anyway.

Question 7

I wanted so much more from Cipher. I think its shortcomings are that it was difficult to develop, confined mechanically (it couldn't be used on combat tricks and they chose not to use it on instants due to confusion), and it used weird terminology with encode. My solution is a mechanic I called Spellstrike which I believe has more tools to develop it fairly, works on instants and sorceries and as combat tricks, and used only existing and commonly used Magic terminology. That's all I'll say about it here as I hope to design some of these cards in a challenge later.

Question 8

This is where my strategy in answering really bit me. I've talked about specific card and mechanic design in previous questions so I thought this was a good space to expand to block and larger environment design, as well as creative. I answered that I loved Eldritch Moon but that its reception by the larger player base was soured because it followed Battle for Zendikar block. I didn't touch so much on design issues in the set itself here, nor on what I would change because it would have made the set better for me. Instead I focused on how design and creative failed to recognize that the general flavor of Eldrazi would cause fans to conflate Innistrad and Zendikar Eldrazi as being essentially the same thing even though the designs are literally worlds apart. Delaying Shadows Over Innistrad block I believe would have resulted in better reception of it. Still, my answer here is the biggest miss I had among these questions though I still believe it showcases an ability to learn from every aspect of a design.

Question 9

I considered Aether Revolt and Dragons of Tarkir for this. Dragons of Tarkir took away the best mechanic part of Khans of Tarkir, the clans, but introduced a lot of cool dragons. Ultimately I decided I had more to defend in talking about Aether Revolt instead and could better showcase an eye for design with a specific circumstance I'll mention below. Aether Revolt for me just didn't do much that Kaladesh wasn't already doing and better. I didn't include this in the question as I didn't think of it at the time, but now I wonder if that's because it suffered from the blob problem where decks could too easily just play good stuff so not as many cards had the chance to shine in constructed. In limited it just wasn't doing enough to change draft to make it more enticing to draft this than it was to draft triple Kaladesh. I'm not clear on what could have changed that.

But for the actual question, the aspect I think worked best, was the mechanic Revolt. I went on to discuss how it's not simply a Morbid clone and specifically that it forces you to reassess how you play something as simple as Evolving Wilds. Any mechanic that makes you rethink an aspect of the game that you usually take for granted is doing good work.

Question 10

This is the question I had the most potential answers for: use they/their instead of gendered pronouns in rules text, introduce “discard” to red in the form of “impulsing” cards out of opponent's hands, use draw as terminology to describe moving a card (not permanent) from any zone to a player's hand and discard to describe moving a card from any zone to a player's graveyard, getting rid of the legend rule, making enchantment creatures evergreen, and probably a few others I can't think of now.

I opted to defend removing the legend rule. It allows more fun and I believe it's the one design decision that you can most directly connect to a financial business decision because of the huge market evidenced for Commander players. Again, the answer here played into my goal to show a breadth of vision in my design abilities.

Overall I'm really happy with my answers despite the errors I see now. In the short time available to answer them I believe that I provided strong answers backed up with reasoned judgment and examples, even in the case that I didn't quite answer the question at hand in number eight. I also now feel that I should have worked an explanation for my strategy in answering the rest of the questions into my answer for question one. That would have better explained why 8 missed the mark a bit (though I would have answered differently if I thought at the time I wasn't really answering the question provided). I hope it's enough to get my foot in the door and afford me the opportunity to answer more questions or further elaborate on these as well as perhaps offer up other ideas. You could get a really good idea of what a designer is like just by finding out their reasoning for their answer and I want to be able to share a lot of what I said here with the folks at Wizards of the Coast if the opportunity arises.

[donald-clemons]

How to Enhance Your Holiday Return Process

As the busy holiday shopping season comes to a close, congratulate yourself on making it through one of the wildest years in recent memory. Before you analyze your ecommerce store’s holiday campaign performance and map out your strategy for the upcoming quarter, you’ll need to address one lingering headache: product returns.

Fortunately, a streamlined holiday return process can keep these notorious time and budget variables from sidelining your goals. Here are four steps to take to strengthen your return process.

1. Track Your Business’s Average Product Return Rate

While the average return rate for ecommerce purchases is around 15-40%, it’s difficult to use universal benchmarks because of how variable the rate is across verticals and price points. The important averages to know are your own so that you can benchmark against yourself over time.

To manually calculate your product return rate, divide the number of returns in a given timeframe by the total number of units sold in the same timeframe, and multiply that number by 100.

Most analytics dashboards, including Google Analytics, will automatically calculate your product return rate for you. Sometimes standard analytics software can have difficulty providing granular data on individual product return rates, so many people also benefit from using a spreadsheet to track individual products and their rate of return.

You can calculate your business’s product return rate over any time period. We recommend tracking it on a monthly basis along with your other sales data, as this will help stay on top of improvements and/or spot potentially problematic trends. However, such tidy time windows aren’t always possible with product returns, which could occur months after a purchase. Use the timeframe that makes sense for your business, coordinating it with your return window and exploring multiple timeframes as needed. You may find that zooming out to the three-month, six-month, or even one-year view gives you more actionable data.

As you track your performance, answer the following questions:

Has your average product return rate decreased (improved), increased, or remained the same over time?

Do some products have a higher rate of return than others?

Did a particular campaign or promotion result in a higher-than-average product return rate? What messages, channels, and strategies may have accounted for this discrepancy?

Staying on top of your product return rate won’t just help you identify trouble spots and pave the way forward—it will also help you make accurate budget forecasts. As you build out your budget for the upcoming year, factor in the return rate you expect to see so you’re not surprised by budget shortfalls later.

2. Take a Deep Dive Into the Customer Mindset

If you use a CRM system that integrates customer support data into your other analytics dashboards, take full advantage of the wealth of information that’s available to you. With proper documentation, you’ll be able to zero in on the key reasons people return your products, both at an individual product level and site-wide.

Make follow-up questions part of every product return or exchange so you can understand what’s behind each one. Even if the customer is simply exchanging one size for another, that’s meaningful—a pattern of customers making the same exchange might mean the product is oddly or incorrectly sized. Pay extra attention to products with high return rates and identify the likely causes.

3. Tackle Communication Trouble Spots

Outside of neutral circumstances like a customer receiving a gift they already have, all product returns can be traced back to unmet expectations. Addressing these issues may seem daunting, but not all returns necessitate a trip back to the drawing board to rethink the product itself. Often, unmet expectations are rooted in communication or messaging errors. These are generally easier to tackle than product issues.

If there’s a gap in your messaging or communication, your customers might provide feedback like:

“It’s not what I expected”

“It doesn’t look like the picture”

“It’s not what was described”

“I feel bait-and-switched”

“I thought it would include X”

“I ordered the wrong product”

Possible fixes to communication issues include:

Fleshing out product descriptions to include additional details, recommendations, and specifications

Rethinking how certain offers are worded

Reorganizing your front-facing categories so the right customers can find the right products

Making use of segmentation and personalization for better audience targeting

Adding disclaimers for clarity

Rethinking product value propositions

If you notice a pattern of feedback about product quality issues, take the feedback seriously and work to replace or improve the offering in question. Not only will your customers feel heard, but your brand’s bottom line and overall reputation will improve.

4. Maintain a Transparent Return Policy

On the customer’s end, product returns are by no means a universal deterrent to continuing to shop with your brand. On the contrary, they’re par for the course. All you need to do to maintain a neutral or positive relationship with your customer is make your own return process suitably par for the course: no roadblocks. No fine print. No jumping through hoops.

Make sure your return policy is transparent and clearly displayed on each product page. You’ll want to be especially up-front for any products that can’t be returned after being opened, like packaged food, or that otherwise deviate from your standard policy. The good news is that even fairly common return policies, like 30-day money-back guarantees, can be leveraged to boost trust. Consider designing an icon that you can add to each product page or use alongside other trust-boosting icons.

Visit your competitors’ sites and strive to match or beat their return policies. If flexible, hassle-free returns are common in your industry, follow suit. It can be tempting to try to “save” every sale by creating unnecessary steps like calling in to cancel a subscription, but the transactional amount such tactics save is miniscule compared to their impact on reputation and Customer Lifetime Value. Instead, be sympathetic and helpful, and ask for feedback. Deliver the experience you’d want to have as a customer.

In Conclusion

Product returns don’t have to derail your budget or goals. Plan ahead so you know what to expect, consistently optimizing the customer experience to minimize your return rate over time. As more customers walk away satisfied with their purchase, you’ll be powering your ecommerce store with sustainable, well-earned revenue.

How to Enhance Your Holiday Return Process published first on https://yousweetluxury.weebly.com/

[frivoloussuits]

Suits: What Comes Next?

What can Suits do next, in 7b and 8a and beyond? It’s a question I’ve been thinking about for a while, and while I’ve explored it in fic I think it’s about time I do a proper meta post. Strap in for lots of weird predictions about how Suits can go on, and what the potential pitfalls of each route are.

TLDR: Suits is probably but not definitely doomed. Their safest option, in my opinion, is to decisively break up Donna and Harvey in 7b, give Harvey an absolutely awful time through 8a (maybe 7b and 8b too?), and double down on another ship entirely. This is not their only option; Darvey is still on the table.

Word count: ~3K

Question 1: How can they handle Mike and Rachel’s departure?

First things first, now that Mike’s leaving, the powers that be are losing the core relationship of the show. Assuming the reason Mike’s leaving is that he and Rachel got a better job/life opportunity elsewhere (as opposed to, say, the two of them get killed off), there are two options here:

1.) Brush over Mike and Rachel’s departure as a happy, happy event for everyone involved. The remaining characters move on with their lives with minimal angst. Maybe a new sidekick (Alex? Donna? Louis? someone else new?) fills the Mike-sized hole in Harvey’s plot lines.

Pros: Patrick J. Adams described Suits as a fundamentally “aspirational” show. In his opinion the show can approach darkness, it cannot dwell there. This would allow the show to carry on with its typical plot lines without angst.

Cons: This may feel out of sync with the previous seasons. If everyone can pick up and move on without Mike in a heartbeat, then why were they so dedicated to keeping him around and protecting him for all this time? Also, now that two more members of the original core cast are leaving, Suits is at risk of having too few meaningful plots. Glossing over Mike’s departure would mean dropping a major source of potential drama.

2.) Dwell on the implications of Mike and Rachel’s departure. Harvey’s abandonment issues might come back to the forefront.

Pros: Drama. Tension. Sensible, in-character consequences over the loss of the Mike-Harvey relationship.

Cons: If the show dwells on Rachel and Mike’s departure, so will the audience. And if the audience is upset about the departure, they might end up alienated, sick of the reminders of what’s now missing. Also, as mentioned above, this show doesn’t like serious angst; it might be hard to strike the right tone.

Question 2: How to end 7b?

Patrick J. Adams has strongly hinted that the finale of 7b will include the Machel wedding. 7b is also intended to serve as a backdoor pilot for Jessica’s spin-off show. That’s all well and good, but what happens to our core remaining characters, Donna, Louis, and Harvey?

Suits knows the benefits of ending on a cliffhanger (or some sort of tantalizing promise of new conflict), they've done it every season except maybe 6. I think they have to do this again. Because they’ve now lost half their main cast, they’ll probably try to hook people more than ever and give them an incredibly compelling reason to tune back in. What sort of cliffhanger they might use depends on the answer to . . .

Question 3: What’s the driving tension of Season 8a?

(8b’s also important, of course, but I think it’ll be the ending of the series. And since I don’t have a great intuition for how this show can end without Mike, I won’t make detailed predictions. All I’ll say is that I think at least 2 out of 3, if not all 3, of the Donna-Louis-Harvey group will be happily and stably in love, and I think all three will achieve some level of personal growth. I predict that they’ll all be happy with their careers and that the firm will be doing well. Either that or the firm crashes, in which case Harvey probably throws up his hands and moves out of New York, lol.)

Okay, so fandom loves fluffy slice-of-life stories that don’t have conflict, but mainstream TV shows? Not so much. There ought to be a driving conflict that makes 8a run. I think Suits can have three major types of tension:

External Tension: A mostly-new set of characters invades and raises hell. Examples include the Danbury plot of 6a, the investment banking plot of 4a, and the failed Darby merger from 3.

Pros of external tension: So many options for drama.

Cons of external tension: Meh. Suits has done this a lot already, and how do you top the stakes of Danbury? What new threat can outside characters present that we haven’t already seen? If it’s just that “the firm’s in jeopardy again,” I think a lot of viewers will yawn, but the obvious ways of raising the stakes (disgruntled ex-client attempts murder, someone ends up in the hospital for multiple episodes, Louis makes good on the Daniel Hardman death threat, etc.) would potentially be too angsty and out of place.

Another potential issue is that the end of 7b would ideally introduce this new bunch of external troublemakers, and if 7b’s finale is already packed with the Machel wedding and Jessica’s pilot plots then that’ll be tough.

Old-Conflict-Resurfaces Tension: Oooh, this one could be fun. A decent way for Suits to go out (assuming Season 8 is the end) is to do a fabulous villain team-up. Maybe Daniel Hardman’s working with Travis Tanner, who’s being paid off by Charles Forstman, and so on. More broadly, if Suits can reach into its established rogues gallery and present some old threats as more menacing than ever and weave a credible yet surprising legal plot, that might be a way to go.

Pros: Lots of options for drama, though less than above. Potentially cleaner and more elegant, since Suits doesn’t need to introduce bunches of new settings and characters. If done well, it could viewers guessing all throughout, rethinking old episodes and searching their memories for clues to unravel every new mystery. All in all this could feel like a very fitting end for the show.

Cons: This may be very hard to pull off. It can tip one way and become boring, or the other and become absurd.

Internal Tension: My personal favorite. Something changes among our central trio, and they then generate a driving plot of their own free will.

Pros: Elegant. Minimal set-up (well, no, but the setup is all the character dynamics we’ve learned so well over the past seven seasons). A great way to propel meaningful character change and wrap up the central arcs. I think audiences will care about this tension more than any other kind, because it’s all about Donna, Harvey and Louis, and those central characters are what the general audience cares about most.

Cons: We’ve already seen a lot of Donna, Harvey and Louis. We’ve seen how they react in stressful situations. Pushing them to new limits is hard, there are few events that can still do it. The powers that be would have to be pretty damn careful to keep everyone in-character without just rehashing dramas we’ve already seen.

Question 4: Who is Samantha Wheeler?

For those who don’t know, Katherine Heigl is joining the main cast of Suits for Season 8. She’s playing Samantha Wheeler, a “talented new partner at Pearson Specter Litt who challenges the status quo and will either become the firm’s greatest ally or most powerful enemy.”

It’s possible that Samantha will come crashing in and become the one-woman generator of an “external tension” that drives Season 8a. I’m hard-pressed to come up with what’s so special about this character that she can cause such big waves, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Pros: New drama. New relationship dynamics. If she’s connected via backstory to one or more of the main characters (and she probably should be, otherwise the audience is at risk of just not caring about her), that could cause drama amidst the Donna-Louis-Harvey group. Also! She might provide new romance opportunities, and god knows Suits likes its love stories. If Darvey and Louis/Sheila are both definitively together by the end of 7, I think Samantha is even more likely to have a love interest.

Cons: Things are already changing a lot from 7 to 8. The audience is at risk of 1.) being confused, 2.) being bored because they’ve already seen too much like this, 3.) feeling alienated because this isn’t what they signed up for, and/or 4.) just not caring. Adding a brand-new main character may exacerbate these issues.

Question 5: WHAT HAPPENS TO DARVEY?!?!?!

The powers that be wrote themselves into an interesting corner with the 7a kiss. The Darvey tension’s been simmering for ages, but it’s finally been pushed so far that Donna and Harvey have to confront it. If the Darvey will-they-won’t-they dance isn’t finished by the end of 7, I think audiences will revolt.

The writers are devoting serious attention to the fallout the kiss; the consequences will propel plenty of 7b drama, and I won’t be surprised if Donna and Harvey spend 5.99 out of 6 episodes feuding. That said, by the time the season is over, the Darvey plot should be decided one way or the other to avoid the aforementioned audience revolt. Working under that assumption, there are two options . . .

1.) Darvey gets together in 7b.

I’m going to quote another Aaron (the namesake of Rick Sorkin?) discussing the long-time workplace romance of another fictional Donna: “They are in a tough spot . . . because she works for him. Besides, sexual and romantic tension is, to me, much more fun than taking the tension away by having the sex and romance.” And while I can’t find the article at the moment, I’ve seen a related quote from Sarah Rafferty, where she said that she hoped Darvey would happen in the very last episodes of the show, if it happened at all.

Why might they say this? Because hardcore Darvey shippers may be thrilled to watch an entire Season 8 of canon Darvey, but I think more casual viewers will lose interest. The unspoken will-they-won’t-they tension has captivated viewers for years, and once that’s gone so is one of Suits’ biggest hooks. If the powers that be still want the Donna-Harvey relationship to draw people in, they’d better cook up something really special to replace the sexual and romantic tension.

Donna and Harvey have prepared for this relationship for so long that a lot of the typical sources in television love stories (one of them is jealous, one of them cheats, they miscommunicate, they aren’t familiar with each others’ priorities) would make little sense; they should be past that by now. If there’s any relationship conflict, that would have to be written quite carefully.

Another option is to let Donna and Harvey be happy together and throw conflict at them from the outside-- maybe someone else comes and tries to break them up, or threaten them professionally, and maybe they close ranks and become a wonderful battle couple.

(Personal note: If Darvey gets together, I’d like to see canon unquestionably establish Donna as Harvey’s equal in 7b and 8. I want to see them contributing equally to their relationship. I want to be convinced that they’ll both be happy in the long term, that this isn’t a relationship where Donna sacrifices for Harvey but has to grovel for his support in return, and I think they’re not there yet. Harvey really isn’t there yet. Getting there could generate plot.)

So these are some options for how canon can keep viewers invested through S8, but . . . I bet they won’t be as compelling for the general audience as the 7-season mating dance.

2.) Darvey gets smashed to hell in 7b.

I know I’m the only one, but I think this is still a real possibility!

At this point, Suits is running into two issues. One, it feels overall predictable and unsurprising. Two, it feels like it’s pushing its characters out of character in order to manufacture surprises (see: Harvey’s sudden infatuation with Paula, rule-obsessed Sheila’s sudden willingness to cheat on her fiance). If they can thwart viewer expectations on one of the biggest questions-- will Darvey happen?-- while remaining true to their characters, that could be pretty damn cool.

It’s also a reasonable option, in my opinion. It could generate plenty of plot for Donna and Harvey in 8a, since they might completely burn their bridges in 7b and have to rebuild from scratch, and it also leaves room for a different central romance!

So there’s this ship that nobody talks about. It’s a m/f ship, which means it’s more likely to be canon on this sadly heteronormative show than, say, Marvey. The characters have had compelling plots and interactions from Season 1. They’ve laughed together. They’ve survived drama. They respect, care about and understand each other. They have the same interests and hobbies. They have hilariously sexual conversations. They have literally said “I love you.”

I’m talking about Louis and Donna.

Yes, I’m serious, and so was Sarah Rafferty when she claimed Donna needs someone more emotionally open than Harvey to be her “life partner,” and so was Rick Hoffman when he said, “I just don’t understand how Louis could not be attracted to a woman like Donna.”

Pros of Lonna: Surprises! Drama! I can see this being the internal tension that drives 8a, and hell, I can’t imagine a better cliffhanger for season 7′s finale than a Lonna moment. This wouldn’t be radically out of character-- I’ve been checking, and there’s a surprisingly large amount of foundational material for this ship-- yet it’d massively upset audience expectations and also the existing relationship dynamics between Donna, Louis, and Harvey.

No, I’m not forgetting Harvey. Maybe he doesn’t want Donna himself, but seeing Louis end up with her would upturn everything he thought he knew about the world. Given that Mike’s also leaving and that he might still be dealing with Paula-related guilt, this plot twist would send Harvey reeling, especially if he and Donna are still working out the fallout from the kiss. If he lashes out and screws up his professional life too, then that can generate legal plots as well as personal drama.

Long story short, Lonna is potentially a massive plot generator.

Cons: The big downside of Lonna is that (besides Rick Hoffman and Sarah Rafferty who have been discussing it at least since Season 2) practically nobody ships it. Louis is so often treated as fodder for jokes, it’s possible that audiences just wouldn’t take it seriously. Also, a lot of Darvey shippers would be furious and heartbroken.

Question 6: What’s my ideal season 7 finale?

Okay, I know nobody is actually asking this, but I want to tell you!

Mike and Rachel dance peacefully at their wedding reception, safe in a happy bubble, oblivious to the world burning down around them. Jessica’s in the Plaza lobby, threatening some poor sucker over the phone in a desperate bid to save her political career. Harvey’s locked in the bathroom, fighting off a panic attack and failing, wondering whether he’s sick because of Paula, or because of Mike, or because Donna’s not speaking to him anymore . . .

Meanwhile, Louis and Donna share a sweet, intimate conversation on a hotel balcony that leads to a sweet, intimate kiss-- only to have Donna pull back, gasping as though she’s been burned.

SUITS RETURNS IN FALL 2018.

(I don’t know about you guys, but I would so tune in for that Season 8.)

[tak4hir0]

One of my favorite insights on the subject of online community is from Tom Chick: Here is something I've never articulated because I thought, perhaps naively, it was understood: The priority for participating on this forum is not the quality of the content. I ultimately don't care how smart or funny or observant you are. Those are plusses, but they're never prerequisites. The priority is on how you treat each other. I expect spats, arguments, occasional insults, and even inevitable grudges. We've all done that. But in the end, I expect you to act like a group of friends who care about each other, no matter how dumb some of us might be, no matter what political opinions some of us hold, no matter what games some of us like or dislike. This community is small enough, intimate enough, that I feel it's a reasonable expectation. Indeed, disagreement and arguments are inevitable and even healthy parts of any community. The difference between a sane community and a terrifying warzone is the degree to which disagreement is pursued in the community, gated by the level of respect community members have for each other. In other words, if a fight is important to you, fight nasty. If that means lying, lie. If that means insults, insult. If that means silencing people, silence. I may be a fan of the smackdown learning model and kayfabe, but I am definitely not a fan of fighting nasty. I expect you to act like a group of friends who care about each other, no matter how dumb some of us might be, no matter what political opinions some of us hold, no matter what games some of us like or dislike. There's a word for this: empathy. One of the first things I learned when I began researching discussion platforms two years ago is the importance of empathy as the fundamental basis of all stable long term communities. The goal of discussion software shouldn't be to teach you how to click the reply button, and how to make bold text, but how to engage in civilized online discussion with other human beings without that discussion inevitably breaking down into the collective howling of wolves. That's what the discussion software should be teaching you: Empathy. You. Me. Us. We can all occasionally use a gentle reminder that there is a real human being on the other side of our screen, a person remarkably like us. I've been immersed in the world of social discussion for two years now, and I keep going back to the well of empathy, time and time again. The first thing we did was start with a solid set of community guidelines on civilized discussion, and I'm proud to say that we ship and prominently feature those guidelines with every copy of Discourse. They are bedrock. But these guidelines only work to the extent that they are understood, and the community helps enforce them. In Your Community Door, I described the danger of allowing cruel and hateful behavior in your community – behavior so obviously corrosive that it should never be tolerated in any quantity. If your community isn't capable of regularly exorcising the most toxic content, and the people responsible for that kind of content, it's in trouble. Those rare bad apples are group poison. Hate is easy to recognize. Cruelty is easy to recognize. You do not tolerate these in your community, full stop. But what about behavior that isn't so obviously corrosive? What about behavior patterns that seem sort of vaguely negative, but … nobody can show you exactly how this behavior is directly hurting anyone? What am I talking about? Take a look at the Flamewarriors Online Discussion Archetypes, a bunch of discussion behaviors that never quite run afoul of the rules, per se, but result in discussions that degenerate, go in circles, or make people not want to be around them. What we're getting into is shades of grey, the really difficult part of community moderation. I've been working on Discourse long enough to identify some subtle dark patterns of community discussion that – while nowhere near as dangerous as hate and cruelty – are still harmful enough to the overall empathy level of a community that they should be actively recognized when they emerge, and interventions staged. 1. Endless Contrarianism Disagreement is fine, even expected, provided people can disagree in an agreeable way. But when someone joins your community for the sole purpose of disagreeing, that's Endless Contrarianism. Example: As an athiest, Edward shows up on a religion discussion area to educate everyone there about the futility of religion. Is that really the purpose of the community? Does anyone in the community expect to defend the very concept of religion while participating there? If all a community member can seem to contribute is endlessly pointing out how wrong everyone else is, and how everything about this community is headed in the wrong direction – that's not building constructive discussion – or the community. Edward is just arguing for the sake of argument. Take it to debate school. 2. Axe-Grinding Part of what makes discussion fun is that it's flexible; a variety of topics will be discussed, and those discussions may naturally meander a bit within the context defined by the site and whatever categories of discussion are allowed there. Axe-Grinding is when a user keeps constantly gravitating back to the same pet issue or theme for weeks or months on end. Example: Sara finds any opportunity to trigger up a GMO debate, no matter what the actual topic is. Viewing Sara's post history, GMO and Monsanto are constant, repeated themes in any context. Sara's negative review of a movie will mention eating GMO popcorn, because it's not really about the movie – it's always about her pet issue. This kind of inflexible, overbearing single-issue focus tends to drag discussion into strange, unwanted directions, and rapidly becomes tiresome to other participants who have probably heard everything this person has to say on that topic multiple times already. Either Sara needs to let that topic go, or she needs to find a dedicated place (e.g. GMO discussion areas) where others want to discuss it as much as she does, and take it there. 3. Griefing VIDEO In discussion, griefing is when someone goes out of their way to bait a particular person for weeks or months on end. By that I mean they pointedly follow them around, choosing to engage on whatever topic that person appears in, and needle the other person in any way they can, but always strictly by the book and not in violation of any rules… technically. Example: Whenever Joe sees George in a discussion topic, Joe now pops in to represent the opposing position, or point out flaws in George's reasoning. Joe also takes any opportunity to remind people of previous mistakes George made, or times when George was rude. When the discussion becomes more about the person than the topic, you're in deep trouble. It's not supposed to be about the participants, but the topic at hand. When griefing occurs, the discussion becomes a stage for personal conflict rather than a way to honestly explore topics and have an entertaining discussion. Ideally the root of the conflict between Joe and George can be addressed and resolved, or Joe can be encouraged to move on and leave the conflict behind. Otherwise, one of these users needs to find another place to go. 4. Persistent Negativity Nobody expects discussions to be all sweetness and light, but neverending vitriol and negativity are giant wet blankets. It's hard to enjoy anything when someone's constantly reminding you how terrible the world is. Persistent negativity is when someone's negative contributions to the discussion far outweigh their positive contributions. Example: Even long after the game shipped, Fred mentions that the game took far too long to ship, and that it shipped with bugs. He paid a lot of money for this game, and feels he didn't get the enjoyment from the game that was promised for the price. He warns people away from buying expansions because this game has a bad track record and will probably fail. Nobody will be playing it online soon because of all the problems, so why bother even trying? Wherever topics happen to go, Fred is there to tell everyone this game is worse than they knew. If Fred doesn't have anything positive to contribute, what exactly is the purpose of his participation in that community? What does he hope to achieve? Criticism is welcome, but that shouldn't be the sum total of everything Fred contributes, and he should be reasonably constructive in his criticism. People join communities to build things and celebrate the enjoyment of those things, not have other people dump all over it and constantly describe how much they suck and disappoint them. If there isn't any silver lining in Fred's cloud, and he can't be encouraged to find one, he should be asked to find other places to haunt. 5. Ranting Discussions are social, and thus emotional. You should feel something. But prolonged, extreme appeal to emotion is fatiguing and incites arguments. Nobody wants to join a dry, technical session at the Harvard Debate Club, because that'd be boring, but there is a big difference between a persuasive post and a straight-up rant. Example: Holly posts at the extremes – either something is the worst thing that ever happened, or the best thing that ever happened. She will post 6 to 10 times in a topic and state her position as forcefully as possible, for as long and as loud as it takes, to as many individual people in the discussion as it takes, to get her point across. The stronger the language in the post, the better she likes it. If Holly can't make her point in a reasonable way in one post and a followup, perhaps she should rethink her approach. Yelling at people, turning the volume to 11, and describing the situation in the most emotional, extreme terms possible to elicit a response – unless this really is the worst or best thing to happen in years – is a bit like yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's irresponsible. Either tone it down, or take it somewhere that everyone talks that way. 6. Grudges In any discussion, there is a general expectation that everyone there is participating in good faith – that they have an open mind, no particular agenda, and no bias against the participants or the topic. While short term disagreement is fine, it's important that the people in your community have the ability to reset and approach each new topic with a clean(ish) slate. When you don't do that, when people carry ill will from previous discussions toward the participants or topic into new discussions, that's a grudge. Example: Tad strongly disagrees with a decision the community made about not creating a new category to house some discussion he finds problematic. So he now views the other leaders in the community, and the moderators, with great distrust. Tad feels like the community has turned on him, and so he has soured on the community. But he has too much invested here to leave, so Tad now likes to point out all the consequences of this "bad" decision often, and cite it as an example of how the community is going wrong. He also follows another moderator, Steve, around because he views him as the ringleader of the original decision, and continually writes long, critical replies to his posts. Grudges can easily lead to every other dark community pattern on this list. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to recognize grudges when they emerge so the community can intervene and point out what's happening, and all the negative consequences of a grudge. It's important in the broadest general life sense not to hold grudges; as the famous quote goes (as near as I can tell, attributed to Alcoholics Anonymous) Holding a grudge is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. So your community should be educating itself about the danger of grudges, the root of so many other community problems. But it is critically important that moderators never, and I mean never ever, hold grudges. That'd be disastrous. What can you do? I made a joke in the title of this post about weaponizing empathy. I'm not sure that's even possible. But you can start by having clear community guidelines, teaching your community to close the door on overt hate, and watching out for any overall empathy erosion caused by the six dark community behavior patterns I outlined above. At the risk of sounding aspirational, here's one thing I know to be true, and I advise every community to take to heart: I expect you to act like a group of friends who care about each other, no matter how dumb some of us might be, no matter what political opinions some of us hold, no matter what things some of us like or dislike.

[sarahcarolinewriter-blog]

3 Writing Tips I Learned From Stranger Things

Anyone who keeps up with TV news will know that the show Stranger Things, the breakout hit from 2016, just released its second season on Netflix. The cinematic TV show is about a boy named Will Byers who disappears from his small town and how the boy’s friends, mother, and town police chief start searching for him independently, only to find that the boy might have been taken by an otherworldly monster. That’s a poor summary so please, go to IMDB for a better description, or better yet, put on Netflix and start watching.

Now that season two is on I am in Stranger Things Land once again (aka the upside down) and want to talk about the writing tips I’ve learned while watching it. If you’re worried the rest of this article contains spoilers for season two, don’t be. I’m not even going to talk about season two today. I’ll be talking about season one since I’m currently rewatching it and I’ll try to keep it spoiler-free so that even those who haven’t seen this masterpiece of a TV show can read on. Let’s see how this show can help us write better novels.

 First, I consider this show to be a masterpiece of the television medium for many reasons, the main one being that it is very well written. It’s a very tight story structurally, and it accomplishes so much in such a short time you’ll be amazed it’s only eight episodes long. There’s a ton that writers can take way from this show, and this article doesn’t completely cover all my musings on it, but here we go:

1. Characters and what Defines them

All writers have probably heard the argument of which is more important, character or plot. That’s a whole article in itself, but my quick opinion is that they’re almost equal in importance, with character pulling ahead just slightly. You have to have characters the audience can connect with, or how can you get them invested in the plot? You want characters who are relatable. Who are fun to read. And who have individual personalities.

Often when I watch TV or movies and analyze the characters, I have a thought like this:  “Movies and  TV are kind of cheating because the actor brings their own personality to the character.” What I’m talking about is the Acting. Novel writers don’t have actors in their novels, acting out their scenes for people to watch. We can describe the character’s movements, reactions, and facial tics, all down to the last detail, but it still isn’t the same as acting. And often, we don’t want to describe every last detail of how our character is acting and reacting and fidgeting because that gets old fast. So instead, we rely on their dialogue, their thoughts, and their actions. This is how we define our characters.

Well, this show made me rethink some things. Because yes, the actors bring their personalities to the roles, but the characters themselves are still individuals. I know what the characters are likely to do or say based on their dialogue and actions. If different actors were put into the roles, the characters would still be defined by the same actions.

In Stranger Things, Mike, one of our main characters, is a 12-year old boy who is part of a group of misfits at school.

Like his friends, he geeks out over dungeons and dragons, Lord of the Rings, and anything sciency. In fact, all three of his friends share these traits in common. But Mike is defined as an individual by his actions. He often takes the lead in conversations and has a goal-oriented mind set. He’s empathetic and likes to look after people, as he does for the girl Eleven when he finds her in the woods. He volunteers to hide Eleven in his basement while his other friends advise him against it. When he talks to Eleven, he’s mindful of her feelings. Dialogue and actions define him.

Dustin is one of Mike’s friends and he’s just as geeky as Mike (maybe even more so) but he stands out as an individual, not just as “one of the friend characters”.

Dustin is funny and loud, effortlessly delivering witty dialogue. He’s usually the first to make a geeky reference and does so as if he expects everyone in the room to know what he’s talking about. His adult teeth haven’t completely come in yet so he has a speech impediment, which he handles in stride. He spazzes out more easily than his other friends, mostly for comedic effect. At first glance he seems like the less intelligent one of the group, but as the show goes on you realize he’s not only the most level-headed, he might be the smartest, and he’s very intuitive about others feelings. He acts as mediator between his friends and tries to get them to stop fighting, even advising Mike to make things right with his friend Lucas. 

Lucas is harsher with words but he comes off as a decisive character. Once he’s made up his mind, it’s hard to sway him.

Though Dustin is physically the strongest of the three boys, Lucas is the one who projects a tough guy attitude. He never forgets his slingshot (aka wrist rocket) and fully intends to use it on any bad guys that pop up (along with his dad’s knife and binoculars, “from Nam”). He’s a very loyal friend, so much so that he can be suspicious of people not in his friend group. More than once he gets angry at his friends for not being serious enough about looking for Will, and takes it upon his shoulders to look for his friend alone if he has to. Again, taking action. 

We often see inactive characters as being uninteresting. Part of the reason is that they take few actions on their own. As a result, they can’t really be defined by their actions and they come off as one-dimensional.

Dialogue speaks for your character. Actions do as well. Are you letting these things define them?

2. The Characters are Connected to the Plot

This is a topic I’ve been thinking about recently. In a good story, a character drives the plot. In a great story, a character is connected to the plot on an emotional level. This story isn’t just another life event for them, it’s the most important and defining time of their life. As such, this story should be an emotional ride for them, one that they feel and experience so that the reader can do the same.

The character is defined by their actions right? Well, their actions should be directly tied to what’s going on in the story and should, at times, be an emotional response to what’s going on. The characters need to care about what’s happening.

In my own writing, I often have my characters react emotionally to the plot. Where I have problems is knowing how much emotion to use. Am I being melodramatic? Am I spending too much time focusing on their emotional response and not letting them move on with the story? This is a really hard one to navigate.

I don’t think characters should be having emotional reactions all the time. I’ve read plenty of YA books where the MC was getting emotional about every little thing that happened, and it doesn’t work for me. Your character should be behaving intelligently more than they behave emotionally. But when the plot calls for an emotional reaction, let them feel it. Don’t glance over it. Try to use phrases that are outside the norm. Not everything should make the girl’s heart beat wildly out of her chest, or have her inhale sharply. Sometimes these emotions don’t need to be described physically at all, but can be shown through a character’s actions.

In Stranger Things, a boy named Will Byers goes missing and this has a huge effect on those close to him. I’ve seen a fair amount of TV or movies where a child goes missing. The family is usually shown sitting at home, grief-stricken, with little to say except how much they miss their child.

In this TV show, the boy’s family members are some of the main characters, and they aren’t sitting around, they’re moving. Joyce Byers, the boy’s mother, goes to the police in episode one and demands that they listen to her. She frantically searches the woods around her house for her missing kid. All through her actions, she exhibits how frantic and afraid she is. She is emotionally connected to the plot and she feels what’s going on. 

The same is true for the other characters. Take Mike for example. Mike gets upset over Will’s disappearance and lashes out at his parents at the dinner table. He calls his friend Lucas and tells him (paraphrasing here) that Will was a friend who had their backs in the past and they should be out there looking for him, even if their parents forbid it. But Mike shows his connection the plot in other ways, not just with the central storyline.

Mike meets a girl named Eleven, a girl who just escaped from a top-secret lab. When Mike learns of the danger Eleven is in, he agrees to hide her, and even defends her to his friends when they tell him he should turn her in. When he thinks that one of his friends has died, Mike lashes out at Eleven and runs home, a sudden change from his usually kind self. We can see how much the story affects him, which in turn affects us.

3. Personal Stakes

The stakes in this show are always high, thanks to the disappearance of a young boy. Us viewers are automatically more sympathetic to a child character than we would be to an adult. Not only does Will go missing, he vanishes in a supernatural and frightening way when an otherworldly creature starts stalking him in the night. Just five minutes into the show the stakes are real and it seems like this kid who we just met could die any second.

The stakes from this point on are tied to the idea that Will is missing and he could die at any time. None of the characters know if he’s even alive, but his friends and his mother Joyce are convinced he’s out there somewhere, in need of rescuing. This situation creates a kind of ticking time bomb. The characters have to rescue Will before he dies, but we have no idea how they’re going to pull it off, not while a strange monster is on the loose.

The stakes are equally real for the character Eleven. Eleven is a young girl who’s been raised in a top-secret government lab, a lab that has something to do with Will Byer’s disappearance. For Eleven, the real fear is being found by the men chasing her. We witness early on that the men from this lab are willing to kill to get her back, and could even be aiming to kill Eleven herself. As a result, they pose a looming threat, especially since Eleven is being hidden by Mike, Lucas, and Dustin, three kids who we definitely don’t want to get hurt in the crossfire.

A looming threat is a good thing in a story, but what are some ways you can make this threat more real to the characters? For one thing, the characters should know about the threat or they have no way to care about it. If the world’s going to end and the reader knows but the characters don’t for half the story, they can’t react to the situation, resulting in the reader feeling distanced from what’s going on.

If Will Byers had disappeared but it took days for the characters to learn about it, the stakes wouldn’t be real to them. Let the danger present itself in your story as early as possible. Pin your characters up against the antagonistic force. Let them take actions to save themselves or others, actions that help define who they are.

None of this is easy to do, but these are a few things to think about when you sit down for your next writing session. I need to look at the stakes in my own novel and figure out how to make it more intense. Most importantly, I need to let my character’s act in ways that define them.

Because if the reader can connect to your character’s actions, they can relate to them. Once you have a character we can relate to, we will be so much more afraid when their stakes are increased.

What are some ways your characters can be defined by their actions? What are you doing to up the stakes in your story? Have you learned about writing from Stranger Things too or is it just me? And do you even know what this TV show is or are you confused as to why everyone is raving about this girl with a shaved head who loves eggos?

Leave me a comment! And if you want to discuss the show, no season 2 spoilers please. I still haven’t finished it myself.

I Hope you don’t find yourself upside down in your writing this week. ;)

[bootycallreverie]

"Please can we not make her mayor?"

I woke up today to this fascinating question regarding Cllr. Ana Bailão’s votes to uphold systemic oppression within the Toronto Police. “Please can we not make her mayor?”

It was a deceptively complex question that got me thinking of some of the fundamentals of activism, social change and politics, that I wanted to unpack this question bit by bit.

I’ve cut it into five sections: PLEASE, CAN, WE, NOT MAKE HER, MAYOR.

///

1. PLEASE

I assume this softens the meaning of the phrase - “I want her out of politics” is pretty harsh – especially in the context of a man publicly critiquing a woman. Yet it shows us something important – we are implying we need permission to participate in politics.

Why are we asking for permission? And to whom is this appeal directed? Last time I checked, I don’t need permission to do most things in life, including participating in the political process. Our US-based friends did not ask for permission when they recently revolted against their governments; they did it even though they faced police brutality, neo-Nazi paramilitaries, psychological warfare, a global pandemic and more.

The “please” comes out of the respectability politics that makes “Ontario” as a political entity so curious. “Please don’t gut our healthcare!” is not coming from a position of strength. (Anyway, it’s much easier for progressives to walk back overzealousness in the name of justice than it is for people to walk back bigotry.)

To best challenge power, we must never apologize for having ambitious convictions. We need to champion big ideas, even if they’re ahead of the curve. Two months ago, police reform would have been considered impossible in America. And they were right, it was impossible...under the existing model. So they changed the model.

Change – especially lasting change – comes from the grassroots, so while it’s not a bad thing to support progressive political candidates, parties and organizations, it is *significantly* more important to support issues-based activists and organizations (i.e. if you give $10 monthly to the NDP, why not also give $10 to your favourite advocacy group?). Issues-based groups are formed to challenge one specific cog of power at a time and can therefore deliver deep, fundamental and long-lasting impacts. (Plus…this is a great way for potential candidates to gain some experience; get those ppl knocking on doors now and they’ll do much better in 2022.)

2. CAN

If we are asking “do we, as a community, have the capacity to elect someone better?” The answer to this is yes, but if we’re instead asking “will someone within the existing structure please FINALLY get off their ass and challenge her?” then we might ask ourselves why this hasn’t already happened. The civic left has largely allowed Cllr. Bailão (and, to a lesser extent, Mayor Wonderbread, who is merely a pathetic, respectable version of Rob Ford) to go unchallenged because she’s been deemed impossible to beat, but by not challenging her, the civic left has allowed her career to continue essentially unfettered because they don’t want to spend resources on a race they’re unlikely to win. If only there were some other downtown districts where a new, young generation of activists can start to build their careers…except the seats available are full with straight white boy progressives.

Why does the civic left protect Gord Perks, Joe Cressy and Mike Layton? Like…honestly…I just don't see what the big deal about Joe Cressy is. He bumped Ausma Malik out of the 2018 election instead of doing the right thing and making way for a supremely talented racialized woman like I'd hope someone committed to true justice would. There is even a movement in the democratic party to ask white men to not run in safe seats. [This paragraph and the next have been edited for tone, thank you to Colin Burns for encouraging me to rethink my words and my misdirected anger, my frustration naturally lies with Cllr. Bailāo's behaviour.]

Gord Perks verged into alt-left territory last year as a free-speech absolutist and consequently an apologist for bigotry when he should have defended trans folk. He even shared his disappointing thoughts publicly (yup, he did, they’re still up, don’t @ me on this one, you’ll regret it: http://gordperks.ca/toronto-public-library-chief-librarians-decision/) so considering who he seems to be, we can do better after 14 years? (TL;DR – there’s need for renewal in a lot of parts of our movements, and the labour movement is no exception.)

Mike Layton is a lovely man with his heart in the right place. I’ve volunteered for him and would gladly do it again. It therefore pains me to recognize that his last name is more than a name. I’m happy for everything he (and his team) has contributed in a rapidly changing district. My concern is that lefties can’t afford to support dynasties in the same way that liberals and conservatives can, especially in downtown districts where our odds of winning are good and where we ought to be supporting talented Black, Trans, Indigenous, disAbled and economically-disadvantaged candidates that are already on the front lines of social change. (This list is illustrative, not exhaustive.) By the time of the next election, Mike Layton will have been there for 12 years. Perhaps it’s time for him to open an opportunity for others.

3. WE

Who is “we”? Is it people in this district? Is it people in Toronto? Is it progressives? Whoever can identify this “we” and mobilize them will have the best shot of defeating her. This is the “coalition” people describe as needed to win election. Of course, this includes whoever’s running for office and their team. That organizing work needs to start right now if there’s going to be any chance of a lefty winning this seat in 2022. (If you think she isn’t already considering her council seat successor, remember that her old boss was Mario Silva, who was *coincidentally* Davenport’s City Councillor and MP for a combined 16 years.)

4. NOT MAKE HER

This is maybe the biggest hurdle to get over since “NOT ANA BAILAO” is not an option on the ballot. Considering there are no formal (lol) parties or slates on council, her name recognition is her biggest electoral asset, so a keep-it-safe campaign won’t work. Plus her public image is fairly non-toxic, so as pissed off as we all are, most people won’t be swayed by a STOP BAILAO campaign from the left (the trope of the conservative woman can be very powerful – thanks Maggie – so expect her campaign to lean pretty typically right).

When we say “Cllr. Bailão should not be Mayor” we rob ourselves of the ability to say “I think this person would make a great mayor” or “these are the some of the values I want in a mayor.” – and I don’t mean just of the City Council types. (At this point, Josh Marlow is the other councilor to watch.)

I hate hearing “why can’t we have AOC or Jacinta Arden or Anne Hidalgo or Ilhan Omar?” They didn’t come out of thin air. We already have those people here, we just haven’t elevated them to where they can make a difference and this is why. (Also, lefties, let’s seriously push for term limits and ranked ballots…especially the term limits, most ppl out there love the idea, it costs zero dollars and ensures districts have a healthy amount of turnover.)

5. MAYOR

Toronto City Council is a “weak mayor” system. The Mayor need council approval for pretty much everything important. The Mayor will find success or failure on how well he can build a team of reliable allies on council. It’s something thing Mayor Wonderbread does too well: his allies don’t offer a lot of different views. A hypothetical Mayor Bailão would probably do similar.

So then how rigid should a politician be? Are they supposed to be trustees, where we trust them to do what’s best for us and we have a check-in every 4 years? Or are they supposed to be conduits of public opinion with little regard for context? Or is a councillor meant to reflect the demographics of their district, even though they can only truly embody one set of lived experiences as an individual? Or perhaps, in the case of Cllr. Bailão, someone not dedicated to steering the ship but merely running the engine, not caring where it sails even though we've seen icebergs on the horizon? We’ve grown up in a SimCity generation where we think the mayor can make whatever they want happen. As great as that might sound sometimes, in a democracy, accountability matters. But it must come with a recognition that SimCity mayors don't fear the wrath of the voters.

///

I want to recognize that a 10% reallocation is fucking pathetic and still Toronto council couldn’t do it…but at least we know where we stand, and with whom.

We often look at politics as a sport or a soap opera, and it feels great when your team scores points or your favourite character delivers a knockout performance. Even I was like “dang girl” when Nancy Pelosi defiantly ripped up the President’s speech. I was also touched by Jagmeet Singh’s touching display of emotion the day after he was ejected from the House of Commons for calling out bigotry. But that’s not politics, that’s a long running TV drama series, so as disappointed as I am in what happened, I’m not gonna yell at her in the street because White Man Raging is not a great look these days…or ever.

So let’s not make this about my neighbour, Cllr. Ana Bailão. Let’s make it about the system of oppression she has willingly chosen to uphold and tearing that motherfucker down piece by piece.

[mrbookmaker]

Same Old Scotland?

Steve Clarke just experienced his first two competitive fixtures as manager of the national team of Scotland.

Some of the football experts and pundits might think something has changed. But after the two latest results, I don’t think we have witnessed much change at all.

In the match against Cyprus at Hampden on 8 June, Scotland was minutes away from finishing in a draw with Cyprus.

A draw with Cyprus at home would have been a disaster. But fortunately for Scotland, came to the rescue in the 89th minute to give the Scots a 2-1 victory.

My biggest concern with Scotland involves defending set pieces and the goal scored by Ioannis Kousoulos of Cyprus was just bad.

There are more words that I can use to describe the goal, but Kousoulos had a free header and there were two Scottish players nearby.

The bottom line is that Steve Clarke still has a lot of work to do with his footballers.

Online bookmaker 10Bet has the latest odds for which teams are favored to finish in the top two spots of Group I.

※ Current Odds Date & Time: June 17, 12:00 a.m. (GMT)

It comes as no surprise that Belgium and Russia are favored to finish in the top two positions with 1/1000 and 2/17 odds respectively.

Scotland on the other hand has 7/1 odds to finish in the top two and qualify automatically to Euro 2020.

In regards to the match against Belgium, there isn’t much that can be said about a 3-0 loss. The fact is that Belgium is one of the best national teams in the world and the match was played in Brussels.

I still think some Scottish football fans were probably expecting better, but I feel that Clarke’s player selection is something that requires more questioning.

Six of the nine defenders called up for these two matches play in the Scottish Premiership.

Scotland needs to get back to the days when its starting roster had footballers plying their trade in the English Premier League.

It doesn’t surprise me that Clarke started two players that he coached at Kilmarnock. But come on, these are European Championship qualifiers.

Clarke needs to put the best players on the field in big matches, plain and simple.

I have tried to be optimistic many times about Scotland and this time it seems the federation hired a good manager.

But Clarke needs to rethink his player selection or else Scotland will continue to be a below-average national team.

【Useful Links】 ・10Bet Profile ・How to Open a 10Bet Account

【Latest Bookmaker Info Sports Article】 ・Can Front Runner Egypt Lay Claim to Another African Nations Cup?