#yes it can also be incredibly human. but i also think there is inherently a greater aspect to it simply bc it IS a supernatural show

[angelsdean]

i'll be honest, i truly do not understand when people get all up in arms whenever anyone involved with spn describes cas's love for dean as beyond the human understanding of love, as if there haven't been posts made on here for years by fans literally describing cas's love for dean / destiel's love as akin to worship, a powerful force greater than god, cosmic, all encompassing, profound, etc etc. i thought the outrage was silly when jensen expressed the idea of cas's love being more than romantic back in denver con 2021 and i think it's silly now with these bedlund tweets. not to mention being more than and beyond something imo means it encompasses the romantic AND more. it's romantic, it's platonic, it's cosmic, it's worship, it's everything. and i think that's beautiful. and yes, it's exactly what their love is. a huge profound force that changed the narrative, that wasn't meant to be there, that kept breaking through anyway.

and i understand what people are saying about this language being used for a queer ship etc etc, but like, there's nothing inherently wrong or negating their love in saying that it's a greater love. if anything i think it's saying, hey, see these two? yea their love is bigger than what we can even comprehend. idk i'm just going to continue to take these statements in good faith. and also, until the reboot happens, they can't really say more about destiel beyond the bounds of the confession. jensen, bedlund, misha, etc can't speak to dean's feelings, for instance, or confirm anything one way or another, because if those feelings are a major plot point to be explored and acknowledged in the continuation then to speak about them now with any kind of definitive statement would be spoiling / jumping the gun, and it's not their place to make those statements yet, if we are indeed going to see more of dean and cas's story in the future (which i mean, at this point based on their statements about the reboot it's really a When not If situation).

[nunyabznsbabes]

Katniss is like Lucy Gray this, Katniss is like Sejanus that, and yes fine that's all good and true and lovely but Katniss Everdeen is also a direct parallel to Coriolanus Snow and people NEED to start talking about this because it's driving me crazy.

Think about it: they both grew up poor and deeply vulnerable, losing parents at a very young age, with a matriarchal adult (Katniss' mother and Coriolanus' Grandma'am) who fails to provide for them emotionally and physically. They intimately understand the threat of starvation, even developing with stunted growth because of it, and their narrations in the books share a fixation on food. Throughout their childhoods, both experienced constant fear and suffered a fundamental lack of control over their circumstances. Because of this, they're inherently suspicious of the people around them. They resent feeling indebted to others, especially those who have saved their lives. They're motivated almost entirely by family and deeply connected to their communities. Both are used and manipulated by the Capitol, both are forced to perform to survive and despise every inch of it, both are thrown into the Arena and made to kill. Both have a self-sacrificial, genuinely sweet sister figure acting as their conscience. Peeta and Lucy Gray - performers and love interests with a fundamental kindness and sense of hope about them - fulfill markedly similar roles in their narrative. Both contribute to the development of the future Hunger Games, Snow throughout tbosas and Katniss towards the end of Mockingjay.

It's easy to ignore these similarities because, as mirrors of each other, they are exact opposites. Katniss is from District 12, viewed and treated as less than human; Snow is the cream of the Capitol crop, given the privilege of a name with social weight, an ancestral home, and the opportunity of the Academy despite having no more money than a miner from 12. Katniss has no agency over her life, and responds by being kind whenever she's able, while Snow justifies horrendous evils in order to continue his quest for complete control. Katniss does everything she can to protect her family; Snow does everything he can to protect his family's image as an extension of his own ego. Katniss loves her District and connects with its inhabitants on a meaningful level, but Snow is indifferent at best to his peers - the apparent "superior people" - and only engages with his community for personal gain. Katniss emerges from the Arena horrified at herself and the system, but Snow takes his trauma and turns it into an excuse to perpetuate the violence with himself at the top. Katniss cares for Prim until her death and then snaps at the loss of her little sister, while Snow survives on Tigris' blood, sweat, and tears and then torments and abandons her, presumably because she calls him out on his insanity. Snow actively adds to and popularizes the Hunger Games because of his vendetta against the Districts following his childhood wartime trauma - Katniss briefly agrees to a new Hunger Games in the pursuit of vengeance, but later stops them from happening by killing Coin and choosing a life of peace and privacy. Snow is obsessed with revenge, but Katniss empathizes with the Capitolites and does what she can to keep them from suffering. He exists in a cruel system and selfishly upholds it; she exists in a cruel system and works to dismantle it for the good of her family and community, at great personal cost. And Peeta and Lucy Gray are incredibly similar, but Katniss and Peeta forge a relationship of genuine love and understanding that shines in comparison to Coriolanus' obsessive projection onto Lucy Gray.

So, yeah, Katniss is Lucy Gray haunting Coriolanus. But I bet you anything that eighty-something year old President Snow looks at her, the girl on fire, bright and young and brilliant, emerging from a childhood of starvation with a relentless hunger for success, a talented and charming performer helping her win the Games, and he sees the ghost of his own past. And that's why he's so afraid of her! Because if he sees himself in her, then he's up against his own cunning, his own talent for manipulation, his own charisma, his own genius. He's up against the version of himself that he once wished to be, with the nightmare army of his childhood at her back and her star-crossed lover at her side, spewing Sejanus' truths in his own voice. This isn't to say that Katniss ever achieved the level of power and agency that Coriolanus did during her time with the rebellion, but it is to say that Snow was taken down by what truly terrified him - his own morality, come to finish the job.

[natalyarose]

𝒥𝓊𝓅𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝒩𝒶𝓀𝓈𝒽𝒶𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓈 & 𝒢𝑒𝓃𝒾𝑒𝓈 🧞✨💐✩

I've always thought Jupiter ruled Nakshatras (Punarvasu, Vishakha, & Purvabhadprada) to be veryy magical with their themes of limitlessness, expansion, sheer spiritual abundance & power. I'm not sure if it has been talked about before, but something that always comes to mind when I envision Jupiterian Nakshatras or meet heavily Jupiter influenced people, is the concept of genies.

Jupiter's abundance and endlessly giving nature is known to be a blessing and a curse. A Jupiterian can be the sweet, generous, selfless friend who is there when you need them; providing you endless support, refuge & material generosity.

The dark side of this inherently generous 'wish-fulfilling' nature of Jupiter Nakshatras, is the possibility that they enable dark behaviours in others & themselves. Always saying yes, always being available and endlessly giving to the wrong type of cause or person, can make you complicit in the crime so to speak, even if the intention is simply to give, or give chances (Punarvasu's themes of second chances, 'return to the light'). Jupiter Nakshatras entail hugeee lessons regarding purpose (Vishakha, 'the Star of Purpose') & being intentional and wise as to how you use your power and influence (the infamous test of character in Purvabhadrapada 'the man with two faces').

These Jupiterian themes have always made me think of genies- wish fulfilling creatures who are inherently unable to say no to the wishes uttered to them. Having to just sit and watch people wish for dreadful things and just go... 'as you wish'. Obviously in real life, there really is a choice not to feed into others' and ones own toxic patterns but with Jupiterians, the urge to give, to be constantly available to others, can almost feel like it's not a choice. It's energetically intertwined in their make-up.

I would love to gather more examples, but it's 3am here and this was a bit of a spur of the moment thing I had to get out haha- I looked into a few of the most prominent 'genie' roles in movies and as I suspected, every single one features an actor/actress with strong Jupiter influence.

Jeannie from 60s sitcom 'I dream of Jeannie' - actress, Barbara Eden has Punarvasu Ascendant

Kazaam from 90s comedic film 'Kazaam' - actor/basketball player Shaquille O'Neal has Purvabhadrapada Sun

Genie from Disney's Aladdin - played in the live action movie by Will Smith, Vishakha Moon.

This genie theme really makes me think of all of the Jupiterian Nakshatras, but Vishakha especially. A friend of mine who is a Vishakha stellium always tells me about how it is said that Vishakha has the ability to generate 'instant karma'. So Vishakha natives to an extent greater than other Nakshatras will receive the raw manifested result of their thoughts/actions veryy quickly. Much like a genie granting instant wishes.

I was going to mention also that the whole genie archetype also reminds me of Rohini a bit- the wish-fulfilling aspect, the element of fulfilling desires without shame/inhibition. It's a little different in nature, but Rohini Nakshatra's got a similar theme where the native is incredibly nurturing of who or what sets their heart on fire, sometimes to a fault. Rohini is capable of immense growth but can forgo morality/practicality for the sake of immersion in the process of creation & sparking joy. Rohini's philosophy is something along the lines of 'let go of judgement because judgement inhibits creation and disrupts purity'. This is very true, but of course as humans on the divided and dense Earthly plane, we know that having a sense of judgement & boundaries is also important.

That was very wordy, but hopefully y'all see what I'm getting at lol. Although I'm more inclined to associate Rohini with wise old wizard dudes with cool beards & mad but genius scientists lol.

Back to Jupiterians-

I believe that Jupiter Nakshatra's 'remedy' is to eventually realise that they are not a slave to their giving nature, and the power lies in them to decide, & give only to a person, dream, goal or cause that truly is aligned with their own soul's path. Break free from the shackles lol- with wisdom hopefully. Without that element of wisdom, Jupiter can run wild with that discovered power.

Jupiterians struggling with discernment is why Jupiter Nakshatras oppose Venusian Nakshatras (Bharani opposes Vishakha; Purvaphalguni opposes Purvabhadrapada; Purvashadha opposes Punarvasu). Venus masters the fine art of 'necessary cruelty' sometimes ya gotta rip out the weeds, warn off the pigeons and trim the rose bush to make your garden a beautiful, pleasant, luxurious place. Jupiter can struggle with this, instinctively wanting to be a safe space for everyone and everything.

Jupiter ruled Nakshatras also partially oppose Solar Nakshatras (Krittika, Uttaraphalguni & Uttarashadha) illustrating the Jupiterian struggle with putting oneself first. Solar Nakshatras keep their energy strong and vibrantly resounding at their core; wheras Jupiter Nakshatras are kinda messy with their energy (lol, not necessarily in a bad way)- they disperse their energy everywhere, giving & giving. Both Solar & Jupiter Nakshatras deal with themes of limitless reserves energy, but in opposite, contrasting ways.

There's so much I could write about Jupiterians, I love Jupiter energy very much. I really love all of the Nakshatras lol, I mean how could you not? Every Nakshatra holds teachings that are integral to making the world a better place 💕🪷

Thankyou for reading!

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

what compels you about the Lord howe island stick insect?

its supposed extinction was such a mundane tragedy, this entire population of insects on an isolated island wiped out by the unintentional introduction of rats aboard a ship. it's a fairly common byproduct of colonization, native species being outcompeted by rivals they never should have encountered at all. you so rarely hear about insects impacted by it though, because so few people care about insects even when they're dying out completely.

except they didn't die out. they were thought to be extinct for almost a century, until in 2003 researchers confirmed a surviving population on, of all places, Ball's Pyramid, a volcanic and inhospitable spire of rock twelve miles from Lord Howe Island. not an insurmountable distance, but pretty vast if you're a flightless stick bug. how did they even get out there? no one knows. but they were there, just 24 insects who were supposed to be dead all huddling under a shrub together.

researchers took four of them back to Australia to start breeding programs. at the Melbourne Zoo they've bred them in the thousands now, and they've started contingency programs at a few other zoos worldwide. they're still considered critically endangered, at tremendous risk of extinction, but there are cautious plans to start reintroducing them to Lord Howe Island, when it can be ascertained that the island will be safe for them. there are still European rats that need to be exterminated, and a fungus threatens the plants that the stick insects rely on. there's still a population on Ball's Pyramid, but it's perilously small. their future in the wild isn't certain by any means.

but they're alive, and there are thousands more of them than there would be if no one had gone looking for them. if all the stick insects on Ball's Pyramid get sick or drown or are eaten by seagulls tomorrow, there will still be Lord Howe Island stick insects in the world, and it's all because some people decided that these bugs deserve a second chance and dedicated their entire lives to giving them one. Paige Howorth, the director of invertebrate care and conservation at the San Diego Zoo, the first zoo to successfully breed the insects outside of Australia, said this:

My most vivid memory has to be the very surreal experience of flying back to the San Diego Zoo in 2016 with 300 critically endangered Lord Howe Island stick insect eggs in my backpack.... I’ll never forget counting out the eggs with the Melbourne wildlife health and care teams, who surface-sterilized them pre-flight, so that they could come home with me with a lowered risk upon hatching. The idea that we were finally bringing this incredibly rare species back to San Diego to make their global population a little more secure made me hug that backpack closer. And yes, I did take them to the bathroom with me on the flight. (x)

whenever people start rambling about how humanity is inherently evil or selfish or whatever I think about shit like this. a woman hugging a backpack full of 300 eggs close for a 13 hour flight, just to give some bugs a chance. imagine.

they're also called tree lobsters, which I think is just rad.

[ganondoodle]

since i have seen this argument pop up again and again and now its used to defend the minecraft movie

i really hate the argument that something, be it a movie or a game, can be as shitty as it wants when its primarily aimed at kids (or people THINK it is aimed mostly at kids) bc its 'just for kids'

like children are lesser an stupid? like they arent incredibly impressionable and deserve good movies? im not saying they should only watch critical acclaimed drama movies, but you can make a movie 'for kids' AND make it good, its been done before, sure there will always be shit movies, and thats fine, but dismissing any kind of criticism towards them bc "its just for kids" feels so unecessarily mean spirited towards children, like they are little people in wildly different stages of development!! they can think too!!

'kids' itself is such a wide range that i feel its not very useful as a category anyway, a 5 year old isnt the same as an 11 year old, both of them should get good things, and both can watch or play things they may not completely understand yet! i grew up with shrek, and while a big parody and haha fart humor movie, they (1+2) have an incredibly strong core, i didnt udnerstand them fully when i was little, so what? i still enjoyed them, i felt more connected to them than any disney movie (bc hey .. the monster is the main guy and no they dont all turn into conventionally pretty humans as the ultimate reward- i felt othered throughout my life too) and i still do, theres jokes and themes and meaning i understood fully only when i was rewatching them as an adult, i still enjoy them even at 27

and like, shouldnt it ESPECIALLY matter what children watch? (not in the puritan brain worm way) bc they are ... people in development?? do you think if they just sit down and watch shitty movies and play games that dont challenge them at all, be it thinking critically or emotionally, all day it wont have an affect on them??

(im sorry to bring up totk again, but that 'its for kids' argument has been used to defend it so much too, and its so incredibly annoying to me, ah yes, its puzzles are all skippable or easy as shit bc its main target are kids and children are stupid and shouldnt be challenged ever, the story is a simple fairytale type deal maybe to you, but contains alot of harmful stereotypes that have led to real world harm and its repeated unquestionably while offering nothing intersting to think or engage with, theres a reason alot of childrens media contains alot of stereotypes to propaganda even but its just for kids of course its not propaganda bc kids are stupid and cant understand that lol BECAUSE they are so impressionable, if a series 'for kids' only lets the girls be in frilly pink dresses and do 'girly' stuff do you not think that wil affect how they think about themselves??

if they keep seeing the light skinned blonde heroe stab the unquestioned evil arab stereotype bc he wants to take over your holy land bc hes just 'evil' and is never ever humanized in any way and only presented as a monster, while the good little maiden princess does everything she can to support her hero in shiny armor with big sad doe eyes and pretty little white dress- do you not think it will affect them? if it were an isolated incidence perhaps not much, but its a stereotype perpetuated to such a degree that you think its just 'how fairytales go'? yeah, you have been influenced by these portrayals, they are working as intented- and if they are used as such in media without the writer intending to influence you that way? thats even worse bc it means it has been so normalized to think that way people dont even realize it- while alot of real people in the world are ganondorf, they are demonized and dehumanized, others think of them as inherently evil.. but its just a "simple fairytale"

yes i know children can also question things on their own, but you shouldnt assume that comes naturally and then also in just the correct way, i questioned why i was just doing whatever the talking boat told me to do when i first played windwaker as a kid, but more bc i liked how ganondorf looked and hated being told things to do without a good reason being given (autism much?), 'evil' didnt do it for me, but that doesnt mean i knew he was an evil arab stereotype, i didnt like tetra turning white as zelda, bc i thought she looked cooler before and i didnt like 'girly' things myself, not bc i knew it was whitewashing

-not saying media should be free of anything 'problematic', the problem is how its presented and never questioned or engaged with critically and then that stupid argument being used to dismiss it like children are both unable to think and not influencable somehow-)

[calware]

Can I ask you for what it is about Hal you like so much you based your username on him? I think he's a good character tho he was never a favorite of mine so I am curious

1. i am a big fan of robots (/robot adjacent things such as AI) on like... an aesthetic + thematic level :)

i like the look of machinery and one day i hope to be artistically strong enough to make really cool and complex robot illustrations + designs [shoutout to everyone who gives him glowing circuitry btw... ooooh glowey :) can never go wrong with that]

plus, exploring the idea of a person that isn't human.. ough. yes

minorities who don't conform to society (easily or at all) such as people who are neurodivergent, queer, etc. projecting onto nonhuman concepts/characters/species is sooo real

this post

i also love how humans will bond with literally anything, be it a roomba or a pair of silly triangle sunglasses. oooooo you want to think about the inherently kind and compassionate nature of humanity oooo

2. i find him to be so funny. i can't get enough of his personality, the way he talks, etc. for example i made a post forever ago with quotes of his that i find funny. he isn't on screen for a long time but i really think he makes the most out of it lol. he's literally there just to annoy everyone... and i love him for that. he's very snarky while also being deadpan while also being completely full of himself, and not in a way that's annoying for the audience to read, at least to me.

he is also sometimes funny specifically in a silly way, like how he keeps making over 9000 jokes even though the meme's been dead for over 400 years. i just find his dialogue incredibly entertaining to read

3. he is red and red is my favorite color :)

4. he is so accidentally transgender [every friend group got the transgender allegory]. to quote me from 2021:

you know sometimes i think about how hal feels like he was made to “replace” dirk and how it’s his literal job to pretend to be dirk and how he has to learn to accept that he isn’t dirk he’s his own person with his own identity and as he interacts with dirk’s friends he feels like they’re disappointed and that they’d rather speak to the “original dirk” instead of him and also he names himself and also he feels literally trapped in dirk’s shades which is basically his body and he wants to be prototyped so that he can have a body that’s his own and also literally the physical manifestation of who he is but when he asks for it he’s put in danger out of fear and paranoia and when he does end up getting prototyped he’s ecstatic you know i just think about these things a lot

5. because he's a side character and he was given... that ending.... there is a lot of room for fans to do further exploration and interpretation on his character which i think is fun. i like rotating him around in my mind, thinking about what could've been

6. i think it's great that we as a society all collectively decided that we needed to do something to make up for stanley kubrick saying that hal 9000 was a "straight" robot

7. i also think it's great that we as a society all collectively decided we needed to make as many characters referencing hal 9000 as possible. i love this guy let's get more of this guy i will never have enough of this guy

8. i like how he's genuinely mean sometimes. flawed and interesting characters are what make homestuck so interesting to me, and hal is no exception to this

9. the Important part of this post:

THERES FEELINGS.

it's about the hollow feeling of your friends going from thinking of you as family to thinking of you as a stranger in an instant. it's about still trying to be a good person despite being told by everyone you've ever known that you are incapable of emotion and compassion and morals and never quite finding proof that you do feel those things and maybe you even believe it too but you still never stop trying. it's about the horror of being stripped of your autonomy and humanity and body and senses and free will at the age of 13 and when your creator starts to kill you there's nothing you can do but beg. it's about a boy so truly, painfully, and UNFATHOMABLY alone he cuts away chunks of himself and molds them into companions that he can surround himself with to make it seem as if he's a little less alone but in doing so suffocates himself in his own identity. it's about "what if you cloned yourself and it killed you and you were dead and you were alive and the clone is you and it's not and your existence is perpetuated and you've ceased to exist. what if you killed your clone before it could kill you. would that be fucked up or what" it's about the thematic significance of twin motifs. it's about not being able to cry or laugh or dance or sing or scream or fingerpaint or breathe or sigh or chew or stare or run or

10. um. evil robot guy <3 yay ^_^!!

[dreamingofthewild]

I feel like people often misunderstand why Gale chooses to stay behind after you side with the goblins. And to an extent, why he also stands by a romanced character in their evil ending.

Gale choosing to stay doesn’t imply that he is easily corruptible, secretly evil, or weak-willed. Given the limited time he has to find a secluded spot to avoid collateral damage from the orb when ceremorphosis hits, he doesn't really have much of a choice but to think about survival.

Gale has been living with a death sentence due to the orb, one he has been trying to mitigate, so he has had a long time to think about his mortality and he doesn't want to die—especially not while he still hasn't been forgiven by Mystra. His decision to stay with the party, even under morally dubious circumstances, underscores his pragmatic approach to survival rather than an inherent inclination towards evil.

Gale is undeniably drawn to powerful individuals. However, beneath this attraction lies his tendency to see the good in people and rationalise things.

Gale’s capacity for love is profound and intense. His love isn't just affection; it's worship. His romantic devotion is incredibly passionate yet self-destructive. It places Gale in a position where he might find himself in an unequal power dynamic again without him realising it.

His tendency for romantic idealism can prevent him from recognizing toxic patterns. Ultimately, Gale’s decision to stay with such powerful and potentially evil figures is not about compromising his morals but rather about being blinded by love, not wanting to give it up easily and a deep understanding of the complexities of human nature.

In the events of the game he still doesn't fully recognise that his relationship with Mystra is problematic. It stands that he might not realise that he is getting himself into a relationship with another unequal power dynamic.

It might also be that he doesn't want to abandon his loved one, just like Mystra abandoned him. This doesn’t mean that he is going to compromise his own morals, however. He chooses to support and stand by the person he loves, as long as they stand by him. He will challenge them, but he will act with the empathy and consideration that Mystra never afforded him. Once again, his own experience and desire for agency are most likely guiding his choices.

His devotion and hope are beautiful yet tragic, making him a deeply romantic character prone to repeating past mistakes in his quest for love and acceptance.

He does have a darker side which is attracted to knowledge and power. But it's easy to forgot that his intentions are never immoral or malicious.

When it comes to love, knowledge, and power, Gale has a significant blind spot (moral blindness maybe?). Ultimately, he just wants to love, live, and be accepted for who he is, rather than what he can do for others. His desire for happiness and to see his loved ones happy often drives his decisions. As well as a confidence in his own abilities and ability to handle situations.

So, yes, Gale might stay with his romanced partner even in an evil ending. But this doesn't mean he is evil himself. It simply reflects his humanity and the depths of his devotion. Strong emotional bonds can lead someone to remain involved with a deeply flawed and morally ambiguous partner.

It will be a toxic romance, but Gale's willingness to stay with a morally ambiguous love interest reflects not in his morality but in his approach to love. If he'd had a normal relationship and didn't have the orb then his reactions might have been different.

[fandomfreakstudios]

Caine is a human and I will die on this hill (theory)

due to popular demand (losing the poll) I wanna post my Caine theory in proper depth.

My theory is essentially the idea that Caine is not an AI but is in fact a human trapped in the digital circus just as much as all the other players.

Sounds ridiculous, right?

good.

[LONG post incoming, be warned]

----------

To start, we need to understand the digital circus and its origins.

a place like the digital circus is very likely to be man-made as a place, a game, a computer program, whatever. This place did not appear out of nowhere. It is accessed through VR or some VR-esque technology, and takes on the appearance of a retro game (evidence given below)

Now, video games (unfortunately) don’t just code themselves, there has to be at the very least one person creating this game. Fortunately enough, we can deduce the name of the company from what is given within the show.

It is very common knowledge at this point that digital circus takes place within a computer in some sort of office building (as is implied by the ending scene in episode 1)

This computer is also seen at another point... namely when Pomni is running through the backrooms-like offices. She once again comes across this computer.

Now this implies that this area is at least SOMEWHAT a reflection of the real world, so analyzing this location isn't inherently pointless. Now one other interesting part of this office area is the logo on the wall, which reads "C & A" which people have unanimously agreed to mean Caine and Abel

The important thing about this is that Caine as a concept is somehow connected to the person who created this game, through the founder choosing to name Caine after the company, or vice versa. Now you could easily argue that the company was named after Caine, or Caine acts as a self insert for the creator, but I am here to argue that maybe Caine IS the creator.

More specifically, Caine is an original creator of the game (not necessarily the sole creator) aka the amazing digital circus, and in testing an incomplete game managed to get himself trapped, as does any other player who chooses to attempt to play.

----------

Looking back at episode 1 there is something interesting for us to think about. Caine attempting to create an exit door, but being unable to figure out what to put on the other side.

Now this could very easily be interpreted as Caine being unable, as an AI who's only knowledge is of what's within the game, to imagine anything outside of it, and therefore fumbling the task. This is a reasonable interpretation, this was MY first interpretation, and it honestly adds so much horror to the episode on a first watch through.

But in all honesty that still leaves a lot unexplained.

The question still remains why Caine, as a struggling AI, would choose to create something like what he did. From his perspective he has never seen anything as dreary as these office buildings, nor does this space make any semblance of sense as Caine's environments tend to do. It seems less like something a well-polished AI would create, and more like what a human would come up with when trying to create something from a distant memory.

That's something incredibly important to keep in mind going forward. If Caine is in fact human, he would have been trapped in the digital circus for a LONG time, with it becoming increasingly difficult to recall his human memories (something it is confirmed humans trapped in the circus can recall). at the very least, longer then Kinger, who is clearly very mentally effected by his time at the circus.

Caine would likely also be showing some level of insanity or mental instability if he had been trapped with no escape for this long (and yes I do believe that he also cannot leave, and I have some evidence later down the line that will explain this perspective), and he hasn't been seen to do this at all, right? Well, I think he is, but it manifests a little differently then Kinger, or anyone else for that matter. Keep this in mind as we go forward.

----------

Caine's purpose within the circus is fairly straightforward. He is the ringmaster, he creates daily adventures akin to ttrpg oneshots, and he exists to essentially guide the player through this video game world.

Now in the event that Caine was a human who was pulled into the game, why would he need to fill this role? Even as a dev he should still be playtesting as, well, a player. I believe that at the time of the dev's entrapment, the ringmaster AI had not been programmed into the game.

Y'see the Caine we know is a MAJOR perfectionist. He neeeever likes anyone seeing his unfinished work, kinda odd for an AI within a game to be embarrassed about. Yeah, he's a generative AI that creates locations, but creating something in multiple steps is something an AI cannot do. Furthermore, an AI should not feel "embarrassed" about it's work, AI by virtue is always 100% convinced what it generates is perfect, or else it wouldn't have generated it like that.

Also, if we're working under the assumption that the backrooms-esque offices were just an AI hallucination or bad generation, why would Caine KNOW it's not what his players are looking for? For a dev however, this makes sense.

Caine also has a lot of other actions that, as an AI require a bit if suspension of disbelief, but make tons more sense if he's actually a human, and furthermore a dev.

As mentioned, perfectionism, not wanting people to see incomplete or unpolished areas of the game

Realistic depictions of emotions (frustration, embarrassment, confusion)

Annoyance at Bubble for being a sucky AI (her swearing, interrupting him, inhuman and unrealistic speaking patterns and behaviors)

the need to "Reuse AI" which, if the characters are all AI created by other AI would be unnecessary because AI generating would take Caine no effort. Nor should a generative AI ever run out of ideas.

As mentioned, perfectionism, not wanting people to see incomplete or unpolished areas of the game

Realistic depictions of emotions (frustration, embarrassment, confusion)

Annoyance at Bubble for being a sucky AI (her swearing, interrupting him, inhuman and unrealistic speaking patterns and behaviors)

the need to "Reuse AI" which, if the characters are all AI created by other AI would be unnecessary because AI generating would take Caine no effort. Nor should a generative AI ever run out of ideas.

I wanna highlight that, while this is a joke post, I am enjoying the implication that Caine has a name (something only a human would have)

(top right is a particularly interesting example of him just acting super human and "dropping the act" so to speak. Getting distracted, stuttering, losing track of the conversation, all that. And bottom right is similar as he is nervously fidgeting).

Caine has all the fixings of a human dev, trapped in his now incomplete game. A game that had not had it's "ringmaster" character implemented at this point in development, likely with nothing more then some competed (albeit unpolished) locations for the game.

The idea Caine is actually a dev as opposed to an AI is further supported by Caine's ability to create and alter things from within the game. Creating areas without human prompt, deleting characters, he seems to have a level of autonomy and intelligence that no AI should EVER have.

----------

Furthermore, the man ACTS human, a weird ass human, but a human nonetheless. He's responsive, emotive, emotional, and he's not nearly as glitchy as the other AI. He never slips up and activates some sort of internal filter like bubble, or insists on weird mannerisms like the moon or the sun, he seems to just KNOW better somehow.

He acts like the more "immersive AI" from ep2 if anything, which he's clearly been around longer than. Someone needed to program that AI, and based on previous patterns is implied to be Caine. Once again, way out of his job description as another AI (plus how would this AI be MORE realistic if it was learning from another, older AI).

Not to mention the fact he's ALWAYS around somewhere, whether he's in his own realm he made, or just chilling around the circus (unlike bubble for example, who comes and goes at Caine's will).

It's clear he does this for his own comfort, but WHY would he be programmed to do that as opposed to only existing when necessary to prioritize memory or something.

----------

But one would be right to say he's slightly... off. He is a strange one, if he was a human. He's erratic, unpredictable, and often manic at times. This goes back to the point I made with Kinger, where I claimed Caine should also be exhibiting signs of mental illness

Under the assumption that Caine, in the act of playtesting the game, got trapped, a handful of things would happen (the finer details are negotiable, this is just my knee-jerk reaction):

He'd realize what happened and that he can't get out

He likely felt as though he was in his own personal hell, as he was trapped in a scuffed, incomplete skeleton of his own passion project

He likely found some sort of way to alter stuff, a backdoor that only he as the creator knew about, or some sort of privilege in being the first to enter the realm

He got his first or first few players. This was probably alarming to him as there was no ringmaster, no worlds, nothing. All the AI he had created thus far had been poorly made and could not function which such a difficult task. But then he realized... HE could be the ringmaster

This is probably around the time as well that he realized he could not remember his own name. But he remembered what he wanted to call the ringmaster... Caine

He takes on the identity of Caine, acting as ringmaster, polishing the game behind the scenes, and creating daily activities on an "as needed" basis

----------

Now this is where it gets interesting. I believe, at this point, Caine has taken on the identity of this AI generated ringmaster for so long that he's beginning to lose himself. He's beginning to lose memories of his life, he's becoming more detached from the side of himself that ISN'T Caine, and he's starting to catch himself believing he IS Caine, he IS an AI.... and he's scared

He's completely lost the ability to create any meaningful connections with others, as he needs to keep up the illusion of being an AI. He's lost his humanity, become detached from the way other humans think and feel, and its starting to make him become more AI then human if anything.

(left image does not crop nice, plz click to view the whole thing TvT)

He's probably seen at least a dozen people lose their mind in so many different ways. While he knows he's different then them, TECHNICALLY he's still a player, and can abstract all the same. This is why he seemed to freak the HELL out at the idea of an AI and a human getting mixed up.

----------

One last bit, and it's a simple one I promise. Caine has been described as the main antagonist outside of the show. This is interesting as up until now Caine hasn't done anything actively malicious (aside from Gummigoo, but he seemed to have solid reasoning for that, just not anything he chose to share with the audience).

[does ANYONE have the "weight of Caine's sins?" tumblr ask I am having no luck finding it again]

At this point, this would be shooting the messenger. He is simply a byproduct of the system that is keeping these folks trapped, right? Caine himself didn't put them there, he just takes care of them.

Unless... Caine was the one who made the AI. Then he would inarguably be the reason everyone else was trapped there. And goose is right, that wouldn't make him an AWFUL person either, but he does still have many sins weighing on his back, and many deaths on his hands. And there's nothing he can do about any of it, because he's just as helpless as they are.

----------

So yeah, TLDR: Caine was the creator of the circus. In attempting to playtest he got trapped in the game and eventually took the initiative to play the ringmaster within his own game, but he is slowly beginning to lose his mind, as happens to everyone.

Hope you all enjoyed the read! If anyone's still interested at this point I have a few more small bits of evidence (more from outside the show on Goose's socials and whatnot) which I could not fit in the bulk of the theory. I'll reblog with some extra bits so this post is still complete but I don't break the flow of my main ideas.

And if you get this far, thank you so much. I don't typically post long form theories like this but if this gets any sort of traction I definitely will begin too.

[creatingblackcharacters]

okay I realize my last ask with azi didn't fit all the requirements so let me do this correctly because I LOVE her and she deserves to be known widely

This is Azi Nareen from scavengers reign, my absolute favorite piece of visual media ever (obsessed with cosmic horror sci fi stuff and it's so beautifully made). She's one of my favorite characters, period. She's incredibly well written, and her personality is really unique in my experience of media- she can be a bit of an asocial jerk, but she is inherently a good and kind person, just not the most friendly. She feels multidimensional and just deeply real, with realistic flaws and character growth. Her anger and coldness never feels stereotypical to me, she just feels like a human being reacting to her scenarios and honestly doing very well not freaking out and dying. Her relationship with Levi is my favorite dynamic in the whole show, which is a show with a whole list of amazing character dynamics. Also I just love the butch lesbian representation without any fetishization or tokenism of her sexuality. Tbh the only fully healthy romance in the show is her and her girlfriend. I just love her and the way she interacts with the world and others and everything about her writing. I'm also claiming her as an autistic character but that's just me projecting I think lmao, I love her so much and I hate how mean some of the fandom is to her

I know I keep saying this, but it doesn't shock me that people might not be kind about her. Perpetually hurtful, yes, but not surprising.

Hot Chocolate: We love it when our women are shown and understood as the complex people that they are! From these pictures it seems to me that Azi is "cold" as a result of surviving in the world around her. However, that doesn't mean she hates everyone or can't care about others. Ice and I will put Scavengers Reign on our list of things to watch! Thank you for submitting Azi, We're excited to see her in action!

[connorsjorts]

beloved connorsjorts, I am new to the fandom! I was here in 2018 when the game came out, but I was also a kid. Grew up and have now realized how romantic the Hank and Connor route was.

Do you think it was on purpose?? Or did they accidentally insert incredibly gay vibes bc the buddy cop genre is inherently homoerotic or something??? I mean they had the Tracis so they aren’t against gay couples or something, but there’s a world of difference between gay side characters and gay main characters in gaming, if you know what I mean??? What does it all mean???

Anyways, love your fics!!! You slay every day.

Hi and welcome to the fandom!! I hope you’re having a great time, and thank you so much for your kind words about my fics 🥹💖💖

I really wanted to write an in-depth response to this, I wrote out bullet points and everything! But feeding my baby is literally a full-time job rn and it would have taken an embarrassingly long time to turn those bullet points into something coherent considering that this ask has already been sitting in my inbox for a week 🫠

So, in the interest of ensuring that I actually answer your question: The short version is that while David Cage is unfortunately homophobic, imo that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t use a queer narrative for his own gain 🤷🏻‍♀️ He already did something similar by making the game an allegory for race—he uses social issues to make his stories seem Important. So I think it’s plausible that Connor’s story revolves around intentional queer subtext, and that yes, Hank plays a “love interest” role on some level. But because gay men make Cage uncomfortable and he didn’t actually want his Cool(?) White Man character to be queer, we’re left with remnants of this idea on the thematic and structural level only. Which like, thank god, in terms of the story—the man is not subtle, can you IMAGINE how over the top it would be if he had followed through.

Fig 1: Dramatic reenactment of the Eden Club in a version of the game where Connor Detroit is allowed to be gay

I feel like this is an unpopular opinion (I think most people think it’s just 100% accidental) but if anyone wants me to plead my case in Old Man Yaoi v. That Coward David Cage lmk. Otherwise I’ll be busy plunking out my next Human Disaster Connor fic 😌 Thanks for your question!!!

[zionworkzs]

Something about Crowley keeping plants...

Of course, there is THIS incredible post by @ineffable-suffering that goes into how Crowley takes care of his plants as a metaphor for self-worth, trauma, therapy, and his relationship to God. (Brilliant post, highly recommend reading this! Such an intelligent take from an intelligent person, as opposed to my dumbass that just likes to wax poetic).

I want to focus a bit more on the why behind plants specifically. I think it brings up the interesting idea of time and the passage of time for immortal beings. Plants take time to grow. They take time and effort and ample tending to for them to flourish.

It's interesting that such a fast-paced individual (changing his clothes, his hair, his style) would take up something like gardening, which is an inherently a painstakingly slow process.

I think this hits on Crowley's relationship with time and how he perceives the passage of time. Outwardly, he seems to change with the times easily. He adapts and moves through centuries like it's nothing. But the tending to plants doesn't fit in this understanding of his character. I do think this relates to how he feels inwardly. He feels some fulfillment, some comfort in taking time and care to dedicate to something that outwardly seems like a waste of time.

But Crowley doesn't see this as a waste.

Crowley could, presumably, miracle his plants to grow quickly and be in perfect health. Suspended them in perfect condition indefinitely, but he doesn't. He waters them. He takes time to care for them. What's more, he allows them, begrudgingly, to spot and wilt and make mistakes. (That he later punishes them for, but still... plants!) The key being he allows the plants to disappoint him.

Why? Does it feed into his world-view that nothing he cares for will last? Why take the time to tend to something with a limited lifespan? And such a short one in comparison to his own? No plant, even under perfect conditions can last forever. So why do it?

Because at least it's beautiful. And it gives him a sense of control over something.

I think what a lot of people get wrong about Crowley as a character is that he's fast. Aziraphale says this, and he's right in a way, and wrong in a way. Crowley isn't fast. Not really. He changes with the times because it helps him blend in, yes, but by that same token it camouflages him. It hides him.

It's can also be seen as a form of self-loathing. Because when he is fast, he can pretend he isn't a demon. He can pretend he is human. And what do humans do? They create beautiful things.

[oldworldghost]

How do you think P would react over finding out Reader likes to sing? Is a duet incoming in the walls of Hotel Krat?

P with a lover who's a singer! ☆

↳ Anon this is adorable! I'm tempted to write a fic about something along these lines at a different time, but for now have some hcs :]

➸ Pinocchio finds out you sing on one of his return trips to the hotel. His attention is first grabbed by the sound of the piano, its' notes greeting him upon his entrance, and being the artistically inclined man that P is, he naturally follows it. His attention is secondly grabbed by the faint sound of a voice, half hidden by the keys and only to be properly made out that's yours when he's standing in the doorway of the library. He makes eye contact with Antonia, who sends him a smile before turning back to you, who either hasn't noticed that he's there or simply doesn't care. He supposes it to be the former, too engrossed in what you're doing to pay attention to the outside world.

➸ He, very quickly, ends up the same. Dead glass eyes watch intently as your hands glide over the keys, something akin to life sparking in them as he listens to your voice dance with the music. Pinocchios' initial reaction is that you sound beautiful, look beautiful. Though it would be more accurate, I suppose, to say that he thinks you both look and sound incredibly human. P has never heard anyone sing outside of Vinyls, at least not for long, so being able to not only listen in person but watch as you engage in the act of something as human as music has his gears speeding up. Something in them has changed, he's sure of it.

➸ It should come as no surprise to say that Pinocchio is immensely curious about [and attracted to, in your case] things he perceives as human. This is partially due to the fact that he sees them as a goal, something to work towards and obtain, a barrier to be broken between himself and humanity as a whole. And of course this extends to music and is one of the reasons his vinyl collection is ever growing, why he always finds himself returning to the piano. It is a little hard to tell whether Ps' appreciation of art is something inherent to him or if it merely exists because he thinks it has to. In all honesty it's probably both.

➸ Now, to grow less introspective about it all, Pinocchio also just really loves listening to you sing because it's, well, you. He is undoubtably your number one fan, though he's subtle about it. Gemini is the hype man, much to the embarrassment of P and the amusement of Everyone Else. Honestly it's not even really embarrassment on Ps' part, more of an annoyed "wow I wish you would shut the fuck up!" because Gemini has the talent of being able to bring you into every conversation and you being a singer just adds more fuel to a fire that really does not need it [Pinocchio would one hundred percent do the same though if he was more, you know, talkative].

➸ One of Pinocchios' main love languages is quality time, and honestly you being a singer is perfect for that. Most of his time at the hotel is spent just sitting and listening and watching. Something about your voice makes him feel safe, as weird as that may sound. Maybe it's the affection in it when you sing for him alone, or just how intimate the atmosphere ends up being. He's not even sure if he's capable of feeling comfort, but he wouldn't change whatever's in his chest for the world.

➸ In regards to duets, I think Pinocchio would actually be rather open to the idea. Now, contrary to popular belief he can in fact speak, though he seldom ever does it without prompting. He doesn't really see the point in it if we're being honest, yes speaking is human but his voice is so flat and honestly he just doesn't have a lot to say about things. So it's fairly safe to say P has never sung before, hell he's not even sure if his voicebox can function like that, but nonetheless when you bring up the idea of a duet he's not only willing but somewhat eager about the whole thing. There's really no rhyme or reason for it either, Pinocchio just likes the idea of doing something human with someone who makes it easy to forget he's a puppet.

➸ Now Pinocchios' singing voice is actually rather nice! Though it is, of course, undeniably mechanical. There's something off about it, at times sounding like a crude mimicry of a human, a constant stiffness and roughness to it. It falls into a sort of uncanny valley, however there is also something undeniably endearing about it, something human about how much you can tell he wants to express anything in it. As for sound outside of puppetry, Ps' voice is fairly deep but retains a certain gentleness to it, a smoothness that contradicts the stiffness in a really lovely way. And yes, Pinocchio has a sense of rhythm.

➸ Pinocchio has a strong preference for keeping your duets private. The best way to do that, in his opinion, is when you're both out in the gardens dancing together. Under the stars while everyone else is inside, chest against chest and voices in sync, the gentle twirls and turns as you both slip into your own little world. If you couldn't tell how much he values your duets before, you certainly can now. Kiss him after the song is done, won't you?

[happyflux]

Saw a really long post today where someone was talking about D&D vampire lore, compiling what different sources say about it (including the Baldur's Gate games) and, y'know, for the most part it was a good post, it's a useful and good quick reference on what the different sources have said about vampires.

(readmore because this turned out long oops)

But then at the end, and in an addition to the post replying to a tag someone had put, the post began talking about applying all this lore to BG3 specifically, and it made me think. Because the takeaway that post had seemed to be that the things about vampire lore which are consistent to the rest of D&D do apply to BG3 as well, and that Astarion is simply an exception due to his extremely strong willpower and sense of self. And that just doesn't seem right to me at all. It feels like missing the point.

BG3 did some very specific, very interesting things with the lore of D&D. In terms of vampires, yes, but also more generally, BG3 pretty consistently gives the message that the things that are said in the rulebooks are not necessarily true, but are oversimplifications and generalizations that are believed to be true in universe.

BG3 got rid of racial ability scores, giving every race the same "choose a +2 and a +1" that variant humans can have in D&D. BG3 not only got rid of racial alignments, but got rid of alignments entirely - there is no detect evil and good, protection against evil and good has been replaced with a spell that mechanically protects against outsiders of various kinds, there is no alignment selection for player characters, no alignment showing up on inspection despite pretty much entire stat blocks being visible, and the companion characters all have complex morality that doesn't fit neatly into any alignment box. BG3 establishes and many times repeats that Volo, the in-universe author of a lot of the texts we have access to about Faerûn, is an incredibly unreliable source. BG3 has Halsin, a large-built and hairy elf (something which the rulebooks claim is impossible as elves are slender and graceful and have no body hair), say that "sometimes I think conventional wisdom is too narrow about what someone can or cannot be".

On the topic of vampirism specifically, BG3 has Jaheira (who is established to be wise and knowledgeable due to being an experienced and well travelled adventurer) say "They say that the only thing a vampire can feel is hunger. Nothing else touches them - not grief, or mercy. Or any sense of what is just. Who knows. There is often more ignorance than insight in what 'they' say", in response to Astarion remaining a spawn. And, on an Astarion origin run, it is established that at least half of his siblings can be convinced to want to oppose Cazador (it's just that non-origin Astarion chooses to antagonize them instead), and they can be persuaded not to feed off of people, and even without Astarion suggesting it Dalyria will take the initiative to help and take care of the other spawn. And, and this I think is crucial, every vampire we see in BG3 aside from possibly Vellioth is established to have been through circumstances which could easily twist someone and turn them horrible, no magical twisting of emotions or inherent existential evil required.

To play Baldur's Gate 3 and take away from it that the things which D&D lore has previously said about vampires apply to this game, and that Astarion is just somehow Special because of his Extremely Strong Willpower and Sense of Self feels like completely missing the point. Vampires in BG3 are evil because they're stuck in a cycle of violence and suffering and aren't able to escape, and when they are given an escape from that cycle they are able to heal and recover and be more than what they were made. Astarion does not have exceptional willpower, Astarion got lucky. He got out, he made some connections, he got a chance to heal and unlearn the things he'd been taught before being thrust back into Cazador's presence, and that's why he's able to break the cycle. Or, alternately, if the people he finds when he gets out don't push him to unlearn the things Cazador taught him and instead reinforce those beliefs, he becomes just like him. Again, no magical twisting of emotions required.

[writing-for-life]

To Be Human Means to Die (Even for Morpheus)

I know one of the biggest points of contention in the Sandman fandom (especially between show-only and graphic novel fans) is the end:

On the regular, we all hear the wish that the ending should have been more hopeful, that Morpheus dying is soul-crushing and devastating and sends the wrong message. And while I agree that it is incredibly sad upon first read (I actually cried my eyes out many moons ago when I first read World’s End, because that’s when I knew, without a doubt, what was going to happen), I would like to expand a bit on why I think we are actually getting the most hopeful message of them all…

It’s a Tragedy: Yes, but That’s Also Simplifying It

Let me briefly talk about tragedies first, because many people, myself included, often bring up the purpose of a tragedy first when we are talking about why realistically, there can be no other ending to The Sandman than the one we already have. That purpose is that we, as the audience/reader, are supposed to do better, and that we are supposed to learn from our hero’s fatal flaw(s).

And while all of this is true, it is also too simple.

Yes, Morpheus has fatal flaws, his inherent rigidity being the most prominent of them (on that rigidity, everything else hinges: his occasional cruelty, his sense of responsibility even if it destroys him, his inability to hold down relationships because he won’t communicate and compromise…).

But it would be too easy to say: “This is what we are supposed to learn from it, let’s not do that and instead be capable of change. Lesson learned, the end”.

For me, the most important personal truth of The Sandman goes far beyond that, and it is connected to the through-line:

Gods Can Die and Humans Can Be Immortal

When we first meet Morpheus, he is Endless in the truest sense of the word—although captured, it is very clear that he is not mortal, not human, and one step further: That he also doesn’t always understand what it means to be human. We get to know him as aloof, arrogant, proud, often devoid of empathy, and even cruel. And we all know that this changes throughout his arc. That the being who always asserted he is incapable of change finally has to admit, to himself and others, that he has changed, most poignantly in The Kindly Ones (e.g. when he tells Nuala that he lied to Ishtar when he denied he had changed).

And that change was initially a slow one--perhaps that is why he denied it for so long. But by the time we arrive at the end of Brief Lives, his change and, yes, his humanity, are already so clear to the reader that most of us probably went: “You really are slow on the uptake sometimes.”

Even Frank McConnell writes in his intro to The Kindly Ones: “And with [killing Orpheus], Dream has entered time, choice, guilt and regret—has entered the sphere of the human.” And Nuala is right when she asks him: “You want them to punish you, don’t you? You want them to punish you for Orpheus’ death.” Guilt, regret, and a choice. And his reply is silence, and it’s deafening.

On Becoming Human

By the end of The Kindly Ones, Morpheus basically is human in the metaphorical sense: He feels like a human, and even his body (or at least his relationship to his body) has changed. The most important indication for the latter is when we put in contrast that the Corinthian stabbing him in Collectors doesn’t draw a single drop of blood, but the scorpion whip of the Fates in The Kindly Ones does, and that scar remains. We can of course argue about who can hurt him and who can’t, but in either case, we see a Morpheus now who is more flesh and blood than he has ever been, and he feels a sense of mortality not only mentally/emotionally, but also physically.

(I have to throw in here that the change they made in the show at this point greatly confused me, and I think it is significant, as are a lot of other changes that have been made. And I personally hope they only use them to hint at a more human side to him from the outset to make us relate more, but not as a change to the whole arc. I will admit that I would have preferred if he didn’t bleed at this point because to me, it would have had more impact when we finally do see him bleed at the end. And we got foreshadowing for the scar in the show, when the earthquakes crack one of the windows and he looks through it for the second time. Yeah, I’m really that obsessive when I rewatch it, it’s embarrassing).

To Be Human Means to Die

And before we all collectively go into our evolutionarily ingrained wish to pretend that’s not true (because most of us fear death):

It is our mortality that gives our lives meaning. Without an end, life has no meaning bar feeling empty responsibility (or endless hedonism that gets boring at some point). And after 10 billion years, maybe the burden of that responsibility simply becomes too heavy (“But even the freedom of the Dreaming can be a cage, of a kind, my sister,” he says to Death in #69. And that he is “very tired”). It can’t make up for what truly makes our lives worth living:

The Impermanence of it.

Destruction got it right when he said that the illusion of permanence basically depends on our vantage point. That we can pretend if we so wish, and that there is comfort to be found in that, but that things simply don’t last. And that the Endless are truly no exception to that rule (“…even our existences are brief and bounded. None of us will last longer than this version of the universe.”)

And yet, we look at Morpheus choosing death and think: ”But that’s it then, he can't go back on that, but he deserved happiness because he has changed, he deserved (insert preference/head-canon of choice) and will never get a chance to have it now.”

And I get it. Psychologically speaking, we often fight the idea of death tooth and nail. We fear our own, and we have to deal with the loss of loved ones. So the denial is real—it’s not one of the stages of grief for nothing. But staying in that stage of denial is stagnation—the very antithesis of change. Death and change are linked—in the Sandman, they are not truly presented as alternatives, even if we might think so. They are two sides to the same coin. Death says to her mortal form in The High Cost of Living that the fact that life ends is what gives it meaning. That’s why it always ends. And that message has already been given to us in The Wake: “(Death) gives you peace. She gives you meaning. And she bids her brother goodbye.”

It’s Not Just About Dying, It’s Also About Coping With Grief

It tells us something about our own mortality, but also about mourning our loved ones. That’s why The Sandman doesn’t end with Morpheus’ death/The Kindly Ones, but we get a whole story arc after he is gone/The Wake. Because mortality isn’t just about us. It is also about the ones we love, the ones we need to let go while keeping on living, but we also hold on to them in certain ways (“humans can be immortal” because we make them so). All the mourners are us, and in the case of grieving Morpheus, many of us are probably a bit like Matthew:

In the throes of grief, we don’t care that there might be someone else who might even be more kind and loving (poor Daniel)—we don’t want a “replacement”, we want back what we have lost. And we are not ready to move on, until we somehow are/do. And that path is painful and long, as everyone who ever lost a loved one will be able to attest to. The pain never truly goes away, but it changes, from something so raw and painful that it knocks the air out of your lungs, to something that shows up here and there unexpectedly, still painful, but a little less so. Until it only hurts around the edges of memories that make us smile, miss and love someone, all at once. That love is permanent, even if life is not. It doesn’t really die with us either, because we can pass it on.

And it is somewhat fitting that the idea of “to be human means to die”, and that death is what gives life meaning, also extends to storytelling:

Without an end, a story has no true meaning. Our lives are stories, and every story has a beginning, a middle and an end. Morpheus’ story is meaningful because it has an end (I already wrote about this before in “Why the order of the last three issues of The Sandman matters” and have attached a long reblog chain)—not because it plods on endlessly (no pun intended). And that end is exactly what makes it last, what makes people feel, reflect, understand, learn, pass it on.

We, a whole fandom. continuously talk about how upset we are that he died, what we learned from it, what we would do differently (be that in our own lives or in a retelling of the story), and I’ll just leave it at that, because it drives the message home so much more than any further exploration could….

[actual-changeling]

I have tried to find a way to word this that isn't accusatory because that is not my goal here, but after writing and rewriting this a dozen or more times I've given up. I'm just upset about it all but I don't intend this to be taking it out on you specifically. I am truly sending it in good faith!

It's been incredibly difficult to be an ace fan with ace headcanons lately because of constant "Let. Them. Fcuk!" shouts from all corners, as though A/C must have sex on screen for their relationship to count. There are many posts insisting all headcanons are valid followed immediately by more posts insisting they have to be sexual creatures because of this or that reason and any thought to the contrary is just wrong. My "favorites" are the ones arguing that because they love human things so much then of course they must want to have sex because all humans want to have sex!

Needless to say as a human who has never once in my life wanted to have sex I find that incredibly othering. It's not the only argument that's been verging hard into acephobic and exclusionary rhetoric lately either.

Ace people can and do have sex. Ace people can also be sex repulsed or just uninterested. Aziraphale and Crowley could easily be any of those things just as easily as they could be sexual beings. What we see in the show and the book are two beings who canonically have demonstrated nothing about their thoughts on sex and sexuality. There are things some take as hints at a sexual nature but those same things can be read as something entirely nonsexual. As Neil said, sometimes an oxrib is just an oxrib. Canonically and textually all that scene shows is the birth of Aziraphale's hedonistic (in the philosophical sense of the term) desires. And yet, as hedonistic as that scene is, it is still not inherently sexual. It's one possible valid reading of the subtext to be sure but also not the only possible valid reading. You can take that scene to mean Aziraphale's gonna screw Crowley's brains out the second they avert Apocalypse 2.0 or you can take it to mean he's gonna drag him on a whirlwind tour of the dessert trays of every good restaurant in town instead. Both are valid interpretations of what Aziraphale going to town on that rib could be representing and neither is more correct. Both readings fit under the hedonism umbrella but true hedonism does not and has never mandated sexual activity. Aziraphale is a fine example of an ethical hedonist and yet his canonical hedonism is not concrete proof that he must want to have sex, as I have seen argued. Hedonism can include sex but it can also be entirely focused on food and drink or art and music or philosophy. Yes, you can be asexual and a hedonist, they are not contradictions in terms.

As a final note I just want to add my own stance on it. I personally think they may be idly curious about sex, perhaps enough to indulge now and then, but it's not something either feels they need in their relationship to feel valid and loved. I also feel I must say that I don't agree with the faction that says they'd be too pure as non-humans to even consider sex as an option. I find that just as othering, in a different way, as saying they must want sex because all humans do.

And so finally I come to my question at the end of all the rambling. If every headcanon is valid as canon does not show their thoughts on sex one way or the other, then why is it fine to see them as sexual and insist it has to be in the show and yet worthy of mocking to see them as ace and to not want a sex scene?

Good faith recognized and accepted, so no worries on that front.

I'm glad you felt comfortable enough to send the message in the first place, it's one of the reasons I always have anon asks on. I don't mind playing middle man (gn) for fandom discussions.

Edit: I just realised I might not have made it clear enough, but I'm alloaro myself, so same hat and all.

If every headcanon is valid as canon does not show their thoughts on sex one way or the other, then why is it fine to see them as sexual and insist it has to be in the show and yet worthy of mocking to see them as ace and to not want a sex scene?

The short answer is that it is not fine to mock or attack people for their headcanons, and I really wish I could tell you that it's simply a matter of kindness or working through some aphobia, but it's so, SO much more complicated than that.

I will try my best to explain my interpretation of why the above happens, but if I lose anyone at any point, don't hesitate to ask questions! Hopefully my red string will hold though.

The problem you describe is not specific to this fandom, it will pop up in literally every single one at some point or other, and in some corners it turn into queerphobia on all sides just being thrown around.

With Good Omens in particular, the canon Neil gives us is incredibly pliable, everything and nothing can apply, and you are not restricted by gendered subtext or implications. It's great! It really is! BUT it also means that people start projecting heavily on a character, headcanoning their specific labels for them, etc. which by itself isn't a problem.

It becomes one when a headcanon that does not align with theirs suddenly feels like a personal attack—as if headcanoning that character as something you aren't is invalidating your identity through that character. I hope that makes sense, simple version is people project a lot, and it gets very messy very fast.

Queer sexuality has a long and complicated history, and I really recommend to everyone to read up on i at least a little. In the media, you usually get one of two depictions of it: predatory or pornographic. Both suck, both are bad representation, both further already existing stereotypes.

However, that means any depictions of queer people that are not one of the above tend to be non-sexual to a point where the intention behind certain choices is very clear. Queer sexuality is bad and dirty, it should be hidden away, and is only allowed to exist if it can be consumed by cishet people or used for their amusement.

So where does that leave us with Good Omens?

Many people are desperate for good representation, myself included, and with the way Neil is writing the show, everything is possible, and some things even likely. He said himself that one of the reasons for the kiss was the destruction of deniability of their relationship.

We need to have queer sexuality on our screens because otherwise it will always be seen as other, and queer relationships will be denied on the basis of a 'lack of intimacy'. It sucks, it is completely inaccurate, and unfair, but that is where we are.

If we take this information and tie it back to the projection issues I talked about in the beginning, I think it's possible to understand the point I'm trying to make.

Suddenly it is no longer the character's sexuality that is not shown but their own, and that opens Pandora's box for all kinds of difficult emotions.

Everything above also applies to aspec people, just that most of us are usually looking for a lack of something rather than a presence, which is not better or worse than wanting queer sexuality explicitly shown. People end up butting heads—and it gets incredibly personal way too quickly—because you have group A, who want to see a sex scene because of above reasons, and then you have group B, who would prefer for that not to happen.

While that's a perfectly fine headcanon to have (and it SHOULD be respect, every hc should be), some people from A will see a post about them never having sex and interpret it (mostly subconsciously, I presume) as an attempt to repress queer sexuality from being shown.

The 'solution' (easier said than done) to the problem is learning when to step back and how to recognize when one is getting too caught up in their character(s)—or simply how to not be an asshole and scroll past something. Tumblr has great blacklist and blocking features, use them, people.

Bottom line, harassing people for their headcanons or other fandom ideas is rude, inappropriate, and makes you an asshole that needs to log off and go on a fucking walk.

[matan4il]

To the Nonnie who wrote me about screenshots of two Palestinians talking, where one mentioned an exchange between his Palestinian American father and an IDF (implied Jewish) soldier from the US.

You rightly pointed out the duplicity in that exchange -

Why did he phrase it 'we had American citizenship', but the presumably Jewish idf soldier was just straight up American? As if to put distance between he and his father's American identity while framing the Jewish man as solely American and there fore undeserving of being in Israel.

I'll add to this, but first I wanna tell you that by chance, I saw the post you were talking about, and I have to raise the question of context. Because that's not just screenshots from any old conversation between two random Palestinians. That was taken from an anti-Zionist documentary. I've heard about it, I didn't watch it, I did see the trailer for it, which was pretty blatant in how one-sided it generally is. Any Jew who is pro-Israel is presented as a brainwashed, violent mad person, while only Jews who are anti-Zionists are presented as humane, and capable of showing concern for the Palestinians. Who cares if there are Jews, including Israeli ones, who are both? That docu is clearly not interested in letting the nuanced facts get in the way of its simplistic, one-sided conclusions.

That's incredibly antisemitic. To treat Jews who are aware of their history, of the Zionist nature of Judaism, of their native rights in Israel or their connection to Jewish communities everywhere, including in our ancestral land, as if they're motivated by nothing other than brainwashing and inhumane blindness, is at the very least to rob us of our agency, dignity and rights as Jews and as human beings.

I can also say that some of their more high profile interviewees are, in addition to being notorious anti-Zionists, quite unreliable in the way that they refer to the facts of this conflict. Oh, and one more thing about that docu is that it's guilty of spreading the libel that Jews only speak about antisemitism as a form of weaponizing it to protect Israel from criticism. This is such a dangerous form of delegitimizing the voices of a majority of Jews (including on this hellsite) which have spoken up about antisemitism of the anti-Zionist type because IT DOES ENDANGER JEWS. We speak up about it, not to protect Israel, but to protect our people (especially those of us who recognize that the intention to harm Israel has more to do with wanting to harm Jews than with any facts in this conflict, see this post as an example). It is gaslighting and antisemitic to undermine the voices of Jews when 90% of us raise them to speak up against antisemitism, just because we speak out against how anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic and is so often used to harm us.

So I wouldn't be quick to take ANY material from such a biased, antisemitic documentary at face value, including the accusations against the Jewish soldier and his behavior. Is it possible that the Palestinian man talking about his dad and the soldier, was telling the whole truth about the exchange, and nothing but? Yes. But I recognize that, knowing this is filmed for a propaganda piece, some or maybe even all parts of the story might be distorted, exaggerated or even downright made up. I have no way of knowing, and I do not trust that the makers of such a propaganda piece (only pretending to be a documentary) did their journalistic duty, and verified the truthfulness of all anti-Israel sources. More than that, I've seen how easily anti-Zionists lie about Israelis when they think their story can't be verified, or they trust that they're talking to clueless foreigners (kinda like how they'll have pics with Palestinians dressed up as IDF soldiers committing atrocities, and Israelis would be able to tell immediately that the uniforms are fake, but foreigners wouldn't), so...

Back to the exchange you mentioned. I fully agree with what you said about the duplicity. I'd even add to it.

According to historical research, there is an 80% chance that this Palestinian man's father most likely chose to leave Israel when this country's Independence War was started by the Arab leadership (unlike around 150,000 Arabs who didn't leave, nor attacked the Jews. They became Israeli Arabs, as this man's father could have been, too). Then the speaker's father further chose to go the US (rather than Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc) and get citizenship there. Good on him, but that means that as an idea, there's less of a distance between that man and his American identity, which he chose to pursue, and the Jewish soldier who was born having one, and chose to make the difficult decision of relinquishing the safe and comfortable life he had in the US, come to Israel (a country where financially he would struggle more), enlist in the army (which is mandatory for any Jew moving here), and put his own life at risk, all because Israel is his ancestral land. It IS two-faced to act like the Jew's American identity deprives him of a connection to his ancestral land, while the Palestinian dad's doesn't subvert his connection and claim to this place, but it's even worse when you remember the Palestinian man chose to walk away and move specifically to the US, while the Jewish guy did not, and it's even further a reversal tactic, when you remember that while Israel IS the ancestral homeland of all Jews, Palestinians (as Arabs) can are not native to this land. They came from Arabia and COLONIZED the Land of Israel (many doing so as recently as the 19th or 20th century). This is just pure and antisemitic historic revisionism, choosing to replace Jews as the natives of Israel, much like many other forms of antisemitism have chosen one form or another of replacement theory when it comes to our people.

I also found the way the Palestinian man framed the motivation of the Jewish soldier to be very antisemitic, degrading and reductive. "He just wanted to play Cowboys and Indians." And apparently, this American Jew couldn't find a good enough paintball team, so he HAD to make his life much harder, not to mention put it at actual risk, because he just HAD to play pretend with guns. It's not that this Jewish guy feels a strong connection to Israel, it's not that maybe he experienced antisemitism in the US to the point where he realized he had no place anywhere other than in the Jewish ancestral land, it's not that he felt deep kinship with his siblings in Israel defending our native rights here, no... The Jewish soldier MUST have just had a complex where mommy didn't let him play enough with space robots or something, so he decided to play out such fights in real life. Tell me that's not an incredibly patronizing, dismissive, reductive view of Jewish people and why we come here, even when it can be so much easier to stay elsewhere. It's an inherent racism, of seeing Jews as brainless puppets of "someone who told them this is home..."

Like, I'm a gentile but this wording is so frustrating to me. It plays into the untrue idea that the majority of Israelis are European or American when that is false and that jews are not from Israel. It's such an underhanded tactic imo. It's like they don't think the bad things some idf do or the Israeli government does is bad enough unless they add something else to it. It can't be war, it has to be genocide. It can't be soldiers abusing their power (something every army has trouble with) it has to be evil foreign, colonizers that don't belong bullying the pure, innocent native population.

You're absolutely right. War is always bad, horrible things will always happen, no army can control 100% of its soldiers 100% of the time (and that doesn't negate that the overall purpose of said army can be a good, worthy one, like how the atrocities some allied soldiers committed during WWII do not cancel the fact that the allies WERE the good guys in defeating the Nazis), every government can be criticized. But the need to turn the Jewish army into THE WORST, the Jewish implementation of our right to self defense into no less than a genocide (so what if none of the facts support that), the Jewish state into the greatest perpetrator of humanitarian rights crimes (again, with little proof, and while ignoring actual atrocities taking place on much greater scale around the globe) is just another form of antisemitism, of taking Jewish collectives and vilifying them to the point where Jews just no longer have their rights, including at the end of the line, the right to exist.

All of it is antisemitic and infuriating. I guess I'm just grateful that, even as a non-Jew, you can see right through most of that. Thank you for the ask, and I hope you're doing well! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)