I imagine Essek had one or two record scratch moments in his youth

Such as, alternately,

ppl who are like "everyone is reading red robin wrong, there's no tension anymore between dick and tim, everything was completely resolved, look at these panels see they're completely fine :-)" im always like. Did dick tell you that

these stupid fucking gay pirates

in that post abt the gender unicorn graphic, in the comments the idea of the “split attraction model” is brought up and you say you dont want to litigate that. however, im really curious what your opinion is bc i have some ideas abt it too. i feel like its sort of an incomplete analysis? like, people feel different ways about others and that cant really be flattened into like two modes of attraction. but i personally would call myself aromantic and bisexual so obviously i have some level of investment of the idea. anyways i just ask because in general i find your analysis and opinions compelling

thank you! re: this graphic

My issue with splitting “physical attraction” and “emotional attraction” is that it does the same naturalising trick that the chromosomes-as-the-symbol-of-sex does - by splitting the emotional from the physical, this implies that physical attraction is natural, without emotion, and by the same token that emotion can exist completely detached from the physical body of the person you emotionally desire. Like I just don’t think this is true! For example, the idea of “casual sex,” ie sex that is devoid of emotion/emotional investment, is a social construction, it is a sexual act that is being contrasted against societal norms of “serious sex” or “invested sex” or whatever you want to call it - sex that is being done in the context of a monogamous, married relationship, or an otherwise exclusive long-term one. the base social unit of much of western society is the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is “ideally” produced by monogamous, cis-heterosexual, racially homogeneous reproductive sex. That is the norm by which all other sexual behaviour and activity is judged by.

and to be clear I’m not using “emotional” in an idealistic or moral sense, I am not using it as a shorthand for romantic feelings, I am purposefully using the language the graphic is using - I mean any emotion. Like just to be super clear, I’m not suggesting that people who have casual sex all secretly love the people they fuck, or that sex has to always be a serious emotional endeavour, or that people who do not feel sexual attraction to the people they have romantic feelings for are secretly lying, but that I don’t think sex is something that can be devoid of emotionality entirely. Like I think we are engaging in this Cartesian body/mind dualism where the physical acts we perform are somehow wholly separate from our emotional states. Pleasure has an emotional component to it, I don’t know how to articulate my experiences with pleasure that do not involve some level of emotionality, and emotionality has a physical character to it. Like in fact I think this graphic is treating emotions as ideal states - it reminds me of like old misogynistic psychological theory that described rationality as an absence of emotion, that to engage in rationality is to move away from emotion. It treats rationality as “out there,” objective, natural, detached from social influence, and emotion as “in here,” in our hearts, ruled by the social. And this distinction is made on the idea that the social world is detached from the physical world, which is pure idealism.

this is not a dismissal or denial of anyone who feels a disconnect between their sexual and romantic desires, such as asexual or aromantic people - while I am neither of those things, I have experienced intense physical desire for the person I’m fucking while actively dissociating during sex as a result of dysphoria/heteronormativity/etc etc. by the same token I have also felt emotionally compelled to be physically attracted to someone without actually feeling physical desire. These are both emotional states that were in conflict with my physical desires, or rather my physical desires as I understood them at the time. our ability to interpret and understand our desires is itself social! otherwise heteronormativity wouldn’t be a thing. We don’t have unmediated, unemotional access to physical desire, which I think this graphic is arguing, intentionally or not.

so having complicated, contradictory, disconnected, or otherwise ‘non-normative’ relationships to our emotional states vis a vis physical desire is obviously very real, and the reason they are real is because physical desire is also socially mediated and constructed. What and who we find attractive, why types of bodies, physical and character traits, etc are attractive to us are all part of (joker voice) society.

now, idk how you easily communicate this in graphic format. perhaps these things are unsuited to the medium of easily digestible graphics, or perhaps I’m limited in my imagination. either way I don’t think bifurcating emotional-desire-as-social and physical-desire-as-natural is particularly helpful

historical revisionism of second-wave feminism

I'm wondering where this idea that "second-wave feminism" didn't bring up race came from. It seems to be conflating liberal feminism, starting with Betty Friedan's "The Feminist Mystique", for the entire movement. But "second-wave feminism" refers to an entire era of feminist organizing, including lesbian feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminist, and numerous Black feminist works with multiple intersections. Why should Friedan and NOW's 'liberal feminism' be the representative of an entire era of feminist writing? What do we have to gain from pretending that there were no Black feminist writers during the second wave?

The US women's movement has always had ties to anti-racist movements like abolitionism and the civil rights movement, as well as the New Left and socialist/anti-war movements. White feminists tried to include racial analysis in their books - to mixed effect, e.g. Susan Brownmiller's book "Against Our Will" proved to be contentious for its treatment of interracial rape of Black men against white women (example).

It feels like there's been a wave of historical revisionism to make the second-wave seem more limited and single-issue focused than it really was, in order to make "third-wave" feminism seem novel, exciting, and necessary. It's resulted in a whole generation of feminist writers and cultural critics who don't read or quote or engage with the feminist works of the second wave. They are dismissed out of hand as irrelevant or limited. It feels like another way to say "stop paying attention to women's history, just believe me when I say the first and second waves were irrevocably damaged and that the third wave is the only way to go."

I think this article does a good job of capturing one of the reasons why an interracial feminism failed to form, which is that white women assumed Black women also wanted an interracial feminism, when many Black women, especially at the start of the movement, were not interested in solidarity with white women. The fantasy of a racially integrated society was often much more important to white organizers than to Black organizers, who may have instead wanted Black self-determination. I disagree with some of the points of the article (can elaborate if anyone is interested) but I recommend reading it anyway for a retrospective on why white attempts to reach out to Black women failed - white feminists did attempt to reach out, but failed to focus on issues that were relevant to Black women, failed or were offensive in their racial analysis, and failed to understand the importance of racial solidarity for Black women.

Correcting the record on the racism and failures of white feminists in the second-wave is necessary work to building a strong movement. But there's a difference between correcting the record and pretending that white feminists didn't try to talk about race at all. They did! They were participants of anti-racist movements! But they failed to understand their own racism. They failed to understand the complex dynamics between white men, white women, Black men, and Black women. They failed to focus on issues that resonated with Black women. They were failures of bad attempts, not that no attempt was ever made... and that's the part I find weird.

The idea that there was no racial analysis made during the second wave, by white women or Black women, flattens a complex history. Like fun fact - the Combahee River Collective Statement which is the foundation of intersectional feminism and third wave identity politics? Is a second wave text! It was published in 1977, in the late era of second wave activism in the US!

I have more to say later, but for the moment, I'd like to present you with some examples of second-wave feminist texts written by Black women. Read them, and avail yourself of another myth - that there is One Black Feminism. Black Feminists have always had internal disagreements, which frightens white feminists, because white feminists want to know The Correct Answer On Race. I highly recommend reading these (and modern Black feminist texts too!) to understand the situation Black feminists faced in the 60s and 70s. All of these texts were published between 1960 and 1980. They are all essays or excerpts - links provided where possible.

Black Women’s Liberation group of Mt. Vernon, New York - Statement on Birth Control

Mary Ann Weathers - An argument for Black Women’s Liberation as Revolutionary Force (https://caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/mary-ann-weathers-an-argument-for-black-womens-liberation-as-a-revolutionary-force/)

Frances M. Beal - Double Jeopardy: to be Black and Female

Doris Wright - Angry Notes from a Black Feminist (https://yu.instructure.com/courses/49421/files/1918241/download?wrap=1)

Margaret Sloan: Black and Blacklesbian

Alice Walker - In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens

Angela Davis: Joan Little: The Dialectics of Rape (https://overthrowpalacehome.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/ms.-magazine-from-the-archives.pdf)

Michele Wallace: A Black Feminist’s Search for Sisterhood (https://www.amistadresource.org/documents/document_09_03_010_wallace.pdf)

The Combahee River Collective (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/)

Barbara Smith - Racism and Women’s Studies (https://hamtramckfreeschool.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/smith-barbara-racism-and-womens-studies.pdf)

hey! do you have any thoughts on demise as a looser/more fluid/symbolic/metaphorical figure in the context of the story of the series- like thoughts on what he represents, and stuff like what his curse could mean thematically rather than the more essentialistic absolutistic "literal satan" interpretation that most of the (at least western) audience seems to take?

i know he may be somewhat contentious as a choice introduced by the writers especially considering from an outside perspective what he kind of did to the majority of fandom analysis and discourse, but i've been thinking about how it's quite possible the writers had a more paganistic approach to what it means to be a deity and how demise doesn't even really have a NAME so much as he is supposed to be some sort of manifestation/personification of the concept of demise, and maybe also of hatred, and also i don't know, like, what the point of that hatred is or why there has to be demise/what implications there could be of this worldbuilding

hope that was coherent enough to make sense of anything i just said but yeah i was just curious if you do!

Heyy sorry never replied, replying now!! Thanks for the ask!

Yeah it's exactly how I'm taking Demise, and I think what you mention connects more to what little I know and understand of shintoism.

In French, Demise has an absurdly long name and is basically called "The Avatar of the Void", which I think is... interesting? It makes me extremely curious as to how Demise is called in original japanese --because to me, "Void" is about the absence of things more than their destruction. It's about the absence, not the inevitability of things crumbling down that comes with Demise. I don't know which of these concepts are the closest to the original vision (if it's Void rather than Demise I think it recontextualizes everything we thought we know about this world and characters, but in my opinion it feels too incoherent with the rest of the world, so my guess is that it was a poorly thought-out translation --but I might be wrong!), but to me it's all in the title: Demise. The curse is that every golden era must end with a reckoning.

I think the curse is extremely compelling in that mythological sense, the way Demeter and Persephone's tale is about the joy and pain of passing seasons; it's the given cause for this world's fate as it is condemned to rise and die continuously; and that their eternal, bright future will always be opposed. To be honest, I'm not even sure it's a *bad* thing. Conflict is not only inevitable, it needs to rise to the surface instead of being suppressed to ensure things do not remain stagnant and shortcomings are being acknowledged and addressed --which is also partially why the suggestion of TotK's golden forever after really doesn't sit right with me, especially since nothing was learned and nothing truly changed in the course of its runtime.

I think the curse sucks when people think it means that Ganondorf is a generic evil demon man without motive of his own. It especially grinds my nerves since I somehow never hear this argument being made for *any* other villain in the franchise. I know they look alike the most (and TotK didn't help matters here), but I never *ever* saw people arguing that Vaati doesn't have motive, for example. Or Majora. Or Zant. Or even literal nothing characters like Bellum, who by all means looks more like a primal demonic evil acting on instinct than anyone else. Somehow, we get to assume they have internal motives that, while obviously wicked and self-serving, are their own! But somehow, Ganondorf, the actual main antagonist of his series with the most amount of games hinting at his backstory and internal moral code, gets flattened as an evil puppet with no internal life whatsoever. It's genuinely bizarre.

Anyway sorry sorry! Thanks again for the ask!

one thing i have feelings about but not fully articulated thoughts about is the analysis i’ve seen going around that Otis Sr. died because of a coin and that symbolizes how he was too focused on money in life (or something to that effect) and i just

i feel like that flattens him as a character, and i know we dont have much from him since he dies so soon in the movie, but we also do have more from him because he built the ranch! he built the business! i think it’s right before he dies but it might have been in a flashback, he talks about a new movie they’ve booked, and how if it goes well they’ll want them back for the sequels, and i remember because he said “we wont have to sell any more horses”

and i think that moment is there to tell us—the financial precariousness isnt new after his death. He built the ranch, he built the business, and the legacy, but it’s not in such a solid place for him to slow down or retire or anything (im working off his actor’s age, 66, since there wasnt anything abt the character’s age online, to say he’s at or close to “retirement age”). he’s still working, still trying to provide for his family.

And like, he’s a Black man trying to leave a legacy, financial and otherwise, for his children in a country that has always made it hard for Black people to accrue generational wealth. And we see that the white commercial crew didn’t trust OJ despite knowing his father, didn’t give him a chance to get Lucky back under control (or listen to a single thing OJ said or act like they’ve ever met a horse before but. i digress). We can infer (i think) that OJ has had trouble getting other jobs. Now he’s lost this one. Otis Sr. left his children a ranch, a business, a name, and white people can’t legally just take the ranch/business anymore, so instead they try to take the name, by refusing OJ any of the respect they showed his father (and when i say respect i’m mostly assuming that they listened to him with horse wrangling more than they did to OJ—we didnt see how they interacted with him, so all i have is the comments on set like “where’s the older one” and “your father left a hole”). And that chips away at Otis Sr.’s legacy—em is incredulous when OJ tells her he’s sold ten (i think) of the horses (“dad’s horses?”). He’s going to get them back, except we know he can’t. They’re gone.

and i just think that all gets missed when his death is reduced to “money killed him because he was too focused on money”. especially when the reason given for him being too focused on money is the jean jacket story because i honestly think that story is heartbreaking on both sides! he trains jean jacket for that movie because he wants to build something for his kids and in doing so makes one of his kids feel unseen! that hurts!

anyway this was long winded and clumsily worded, i just wanted to say something because i feel like for all that he has like, five minutes of screen time, Otis Sr. is a good, layered character, and while i think him being killed by a coin is absolutely deliberate and symbolic, it’s not as simple as “oh he’s a capitalist”

All roads lead to patriarchy.

Male advantage? It’s the patriarchy. Female advantage? The patriarchy “backfired”. Violent men? Patriarchy. Violent women? Patriarchy (made her do it). Women without rights? Patriarchy. Men without rights? Patriarchy.

Everything wrong, for everyone, everywhere, for all of time; it’s the same simple one-word answer – and it’s ‘patriarchy’.

The big P.

It’s the perfect, singular and absolute truth, so disengage brain, and don’t ask any questions.

And people *don’t* ask questions.

Most just accept the concept as settled truth, with any challenge to such ‘truth’ all too often resulting in childish whines of ‘misogyny’.

So time rolls on.

Sixty years slip by and the theory refuses to be scrutinised or questioned.

Meanwhile the inconvenient facts that discredit such a world view are twisted through Olympian-level displays of mental gymnastics, contortions of logic, and semantic spluttering of: ‘well, the patriarchy must have backfired!’

I can’t imagine such a “backfiring” concession means much to the homeless, drug addicted, incarcerated, or suicidal populations – all overwhelmingly male. As such a theory provides little nuance or sympathy toward the impossibility complex causes of each.

It needn’t matter anyway.

The supervillain to all of the world’s problems continues to be “smashed” for eternity; as radical feminists stamp their feet and shake their fist at the clouds, as the money rolls in.

So when is it smashed?

If it hurts men too, then why does nobody “smash” those parts?

And if ‘the patriarchy’ is so powerful, why is it always “backfiring”?

So many unanswered questions, so many awkward caveats, blindspots, and cracks through which vulnerable men and boy fall.

So when does it end?

When do we ask for better answers?

-

Sources:

Homeless deaths: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsofhomelesspeopleinenglandandwales/2021registrations

Incarcerated Population: https://data.justice.gov.uk/justice-in-numbers/jin-public-protection

Workplace deaths: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Suicide by sex: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2022registrations

Drug deaths by sex: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2022registrations#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20death%20relating,per%20million%20(949%20deaths)

Homicide by sex: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/GSH23_Chapter_2.pdf

Education over time: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/my-favourite-parts-from-the-boy-crisis

==

Smells like "god" to me. The devout insist that their god answers their prayers. Except, they don't actually do any better in life than the non-devout, or the devout of other gods. Xians die of diseases at the same rate, they don't win lotteries any more often, they aren't more successful in business. You should be able to tell who the "true" god is by the results. Except you can't.

Their prayers are either answered, or responded by "not yet," or "something better." Except you never know until after the fact. We're simply informed that god works in "mysterious ways." Aside from contradicting the notion that you can know god is there or answering your prayers at all, this makes the entire proposition unfalsifiable.

Importantly, how do you tell the difference between god being "mysterious" and "not there at all"?

"The Patriarchy" is exactly the same. If it's that unreliable, that unpredictable, how can you claim to know it's there at all? "Patriarchy hurts men too," is just "god is testing you." It's an excuse for why the thing that always works isn't.

Believers point to the fact their house survived the tornado as proof that god is good and answers their prayers. Never mind that the rest of the town was flattened. Or that they're thanking the same god who sent the tornado in the first place. For every male CEO or president, there's hundreds of homeless, suicidal or workplace dying men. People who believe based on faith only pay attention to the "hits," not the "misses." And even the "misses" somehow get turned into "hits."

There's no difference here. These are exactly the same concept, and they're exactly as nonsensical, unfalsifiable and not validatable, even in principle (and fail testing that we do attempt). So how either ever came to prominence, much less regarded as factually true, is incomprehensible.

In both cases, the result seems to be nothing more than desperate confirmation bias-motivated post-hoc attempts to salvage a simplistic, ideologically-based answer that doesn't even mirror reality.

Especially when we have more plausible answers that are taken from actually observing and testing reality. Which neither ideology does, and actively deny the need to.

"Patriarchy" theory follows the same mindset and language as an abuser: if you do something wrong, it's your fault, but if I do something wrong it's because you made me do it, so it's also your fault.

Karin for the character ask game :)

yesssss thank you >:3

This thing got really, really long, so her character analysis will go under a cut. F&H's writing is just that good LMAO

Sooo, Miss Sauer... She's quite the gal, isn't she? I adore her, really. You take a person who sees so much injustice in the world and wants to do something about it, but, due to her upbringing and the fact she hasn't truly experienced hardship in her life... (yes she was kidnapped, but she had a relatively normal childhood despite The Dread of being raised on ransom) She does. Not know how things work. At all. Karin's the type of girl to chastise the powers that be and then use said powers to her advantage when they benefit her and not realize that's what she's doing. Her civilians arrest dialogue where she says she'll relish in the player being sent to Bohemia's notoriously inhumane prisons sticks out to me a LOT.

But she genuinely loves people. She loves people so fucking much and puts herself through absolute hell to "save" them. Unfortunately, she's gotta put people into boxes of "deserving" and "not deserving" or she'll go god damn insane. So she's biased, people fall through the cracks, and despite it being her worst fear there is a reason journalists like her are called "vultures".

Anyway, rant aside, ships. I enjoy Karin/Olivia because Karin needs to be dominated by someone she initially thought she'd need to protect. Go have your worldview shattered by the freaky gun fetishist who has terrible bdsm etiquette and masquerades as a Normal Girl to hide her pent up envious rage of her sister. Karin/Levi also appeals to me, but more in a way where they'd REALLY enable each other but not realize that's what's happening. Levi'd 100% fall into her Valkyrie complex and I love examining when characters go wonky.

I don't care for Daarin though. It can be good (and I've seen it be very good! Ao3 user Bobsledhostage's fic "Remaining Routine" is an excellent example of how that type of mutual spite-filled codependency can work), but a combination of it being... so common, and Karin's genuine hatred of Daan being flattened down to a "haha the wife hates her husband isn't it funny???" type beat has left me soured on it. But this game has phenomenal writing and literally every single character dynamic has potential so its a very minor, and very fandom heavy misgiving.

I'll die on my hill that Karin's not a natural blonde. It makes insane amounts of thematic sense for her character and is one of the few ways I'll be interested by Daarin, with Daan once again gravitating to a brash, black haired woman who steps all over his boundaries.

Let's see, let's see... Fanfictions... Well. I am. currently, in the process of writing a Karin/Olivia sm*t fic, but that's been on the backburner for a couple of. Months. By this point. But know it does exist. And it is emotional.

She's loud bird to me. If she were a Pokémon she'd be a yellow Squawkabilly, or perhaps a Mandibuzz if I wanted to be really evil.

I believe that's it. I love Karin a lot. I really, really do. She's an amazing character from an amazing game who reminds me so much of myself when i was 14 it's physically painful.

I hope she finds more empathy in the world.

i mean i love spike but i’m obsessed with your metas and agree with most of your criticism of him

i see him as a stupid little guy who is shitty about being evil and shitty about being good but someone who doesn’t have those huge expectations that everyone has of buffy in those later seasons.

he’s an idiot who becomes obsessed with women who hate him consistently throughout his life/unlife and loads of spike lovers kinda ignore that this trait is a flaw that he is punished repeatedly

i think your deep understanding of angel actually makes you well equiped to discuss spike cause they’re so connected characterisation wise, like spikes constructed identity is a reflection of angelus you know

anyways, it sucks that people that like spike don’t understand that you’re not attacking him when you critique, literally every character in buffy deserves critical analysis cause they’re all more than what we like about them

WELL SEE I DO LIKE SPIKE IS THE THING! I just think he’s overrated and gets made into someone by fans when he isn’t textually like that. and it’s not even just on here I feel an issue ppl have with me is that I mention fan interpretation and they get stung bc that includes them when I take in consideration what I’ve seen on other sites like youtube. then angel gets flattened which frustrates me as he’s textually so so interesting if you actually look at his character. in fact I’ll see people attribute the positives of angel onto spike, and the negatives of spike onto angel. an example is angel was cursed to be good whereas spike fought to be good. it’s in fact textually SWAPPED as being ensouled does not equate to goodness (see literally any human villains) and angel sought out darla after getting ensouled- he wanted to try to get back to the life he knew but ultimately he couldn’t and was rejected. he had a pessimistic view of humans and did not really associate with them until whistler gave him the chance of having a positive and meaningful purpose of existence through assisting buffy. yes the ensoulment was a punishment but his life afterwards was filled with choices. which the voiceover by whistler in “becoming” emphasize this point. spike on the other hand had a chip implanted in his head that he had to adapt to. he begrudgingly assisted the scoobies because demon fighting helped scratch his itch to fight that was restricted because he couldn’t harm humans unless it caused him a great deal of pain. it’s practically a shock collar. furthermore, he was able to get blood and money from them as he no longer could feed from humans. and obviously this whole chip plotline was a justification for spike being on the show to fill in the space left by angel and cordelia. and then an instance of spike’s flaws being used against angel is I’ve seen people say the line wishverse buffy says to angel about wanting to get in her pants is so true when it’s like…. yeah angel was attracted to buffy but he repeatedly was like “we shouldn’t do this.” though he does goes along with it instead of stopping, they reciprocated their desire and buffy herself would initiate things (such as the first time they have sex in “surprise”, the kisses in “forever” and “end of days”/“chosen”!). and they literally only had sex once (sans “IWRY”) and he leaves her as he knows that they aren’t good for each other. you could argue it I guess bc of the angelus arc and taking her innocence, but to me that was using angel’s soul predicament and the current tropes he fell into and making them into relevant real life analogies (older sweet guy becomes a douche after having sex with you), complicating their dynamic instead of having them as the couple the show was seemingly heading towards and fans wanting- now there’s tragedy and trauma that effects them for the rest of their shows. it also made angel a more interesting character as I see angelus as the worst of humanity and then we see angel trying to be good despite the fact he has these capabilities and desires. whereas spike used buffy and her partners and sex life as a means of goading them (buffy, angel, riley) into getting upset. spike fantasized about buffy and sex to the point he had a sex robot made of her. and when they have their sexual relationship in s6, he further makes her feel dark and wrong for it by mentioning how her friends would be upset with her and insinuating she wanted it even when she would verbally say no (“dead things”). angel has his redemptive journey influenced by buffy, but I don’t think there’s necessarily the need to impress or win her over in the way spike did (like in “crush”). I would argue that’s trying to get into her pants lol

and yes exactly! spike is similar to xander or the trio regarding his approaches to women and really it’s not acknowledged much by spike fans imo he gets very very romanticized when he acts a lot like what we call now an incel but he gets pass because he’s charismatic, attractive, and a bad boy. but he has entitlement and a tendency of propping women he likes onto a pedestal, and blames them for him being rejected without being introspective (until it comes to buffy later on when he realizes that he has to get a soul like angel in order to be actually respected or loved by her). though I do also view spike as a foil of angel so obviously they have different approaches to things. that’s the point. they’re the same but they’re not type of deal.

sorry this message was very long but I appreciate this ask <3 I like to be reminded that people appreciate my takes and think I’m insightful instead of an asshole

i'd like the rest of your opinion on jet if that's ok i like hearing peoples thoughts on him :)

SORRY i didn't see this okayyy hrm i can do that but i'll stick it under a cut. My rambles.

w the disclaimer that this really is just my opinion which means what my mind has scrambled up with without any prodding at it or outside interference (and i don't really read about or interact w content w jet and never really DID just as a btw) but basically: the way this show frames characters is very deliberate and going beyond the initial projection of who you're "meant" to see them as can be difficult sometimes (not just for this show, i mean in general wrt media analysis), esp when there's nothing else to like... cushion that.

for example iroh is obviously a fan favourite and i love him as a person who loves zuko (in both interps of that sentence), and their dynamic is really important (particularly + the standpoint of iroh being his brother's brother and what that means) but he was also you know, a revered general who lead a years long siege in support of the colonial regime...? this is kind of a mirror of what i'm getting at in that the show doesn't WANT you to or even feels the need to particularly dwell on that, even if his active hand in the war and then the subsequent movement to dismantle it firsthand is significant, because if people dwelt on it they... REALLY wouldn't like him as much on a much larger scale and he wouldn't be the same character anyways. i actually think it's a disservice to say the show doesn't at alllll address this bc i think it's obviously a huge part of who his character is next to zuko even though obviously the children's show is not going to be able to handle colonialism or genocide in a way that doesn't in some way feel flattened obv. anyway.

this is essentially why it took me such a while to warm up to jet even though he is a pretty cookie cutter "look beyond what you see" guy bc i couldn't really DO IT other than holding obviously a lot of sympathy for him and knowing he is deliberately presented as a certain kind of quote unquote extreme product of the fire nation's tyranny, much like hama is as another popular example, even if in real life it would actually be a pretty normal reaction and that hating your oppressors obviously doesn't make you evil. my autistic ass (SORRY) simply has to imagine a world where he can eventually go "i shouldn't have tried to kill an entire village of innocent people My bad" and it's easier to think about it wrt he is also you know, like 16? and obviously a victim. i've mentioned before i struggle with moral scrupulosity and what i consider to be "right" which does affect the things i like in context as well, and jet falls pretty squarely on morally pretty dark, esp in comparison to the other antagonists on the show, but that doesn't make him a villain obv. other than that the show itself presents him as an antagonist meant to cause conflict, and you're meant to sit with what it means to see people driven to such extremes bc they feel they have no choice, but you're not necessarily meant to like him i don't think, especially when you initially meet him. he really comes off as like a Cool Guy who's all charm who uses it to get his way which can feel kind of slimey i s'pose.

thinking about jet in regards to ZUKO is what helped me wrap my brain around him as a whole and soften to his like, harshness i guess bc i think they're good foils for each other. i think without making him necessarily fangless to do it that they're a really interesting duo and i honestly love that he came back to deliberately become an antagonistic figure to zuko as well (even that both "sides" just happened to meet him 😭 like what are actually the chances lol) and that prior to it they were working side by side even for a short time. i honestly wish the show was longer than it was bc i wish he hadn't figured out iroh was a firebender as quickly as he did, or at least hadn't assumed zuko was also one, bc i think it would've been really really interesting to see the behind the scenes conflict of them being friends and working together and jet forming some sort of relationship with zuko and iroh, and THEN finding out they're who he considers inherently immoral and an enemy even though he knows he and zuko are very similar/agree/he trusts them, and what that would mean for him. the initial "he'd just freak out and accuse them of betraying their trust and the same fight happens anyway" would be a natural conclusion but i can also see it NOT happening, bc while jet is an incredibly complex interesting character i think him coming to terms with certain things and shifting his mindset would have been fulfilling for ME at least.

i know that a character doesn't have to "redeem" themselves to be worthy and that moral pureness is not exclusive to being a Good Character and i like plenty of morally grey characters trust me etc etc but i just tend to want to... enjoy engaging characters who reflect my own values enough that it's justifiable WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the rest of whatever's going on in/the relationships of the other characters which is essentially why... he's fine and i like him but he's not my favourite. and what i mean by that is like as in, i love team avatar and i don't think they themselves would be friends with jet entirely as is, but if he was in another setting or situation or show or what the hell ever i honestly wouldn't care as much. i also think it's sort of strange to be like "ha ha you don't like the character who killed/wanted to kill kids" as if that's not like totally normal to be uncomfortable with 😭 anyway. other than all that i really like how he's a retro cool anime character transplanted into the show and i like his dumb mouth grass thing and i think he could've been a cool ally and wish they'd have leant more into his connection and closeness to the freedom fighters esp in ba sing se. i also think the angle that he's somehow kissed everyone in team avatar barring the littles is really fucking funny and they would gossip about him if it wasn't so like, tragic... also i don't think he died i think he can run real fast.

OH edit: one last thing i'll tack on to like the beginning of my own thought process re: the cushioning characters are afforded we see i think actually nothing of jets backstory other than what he says and nothing ELSE of his goal in life other than like, staying alive + keeping his fighters safe + what they stood for and fighting the fire nation. and while that's all like definitely plenty to establish his character it's why i couldn't come around to him as quickly bc i didn't really see the point when regardless of everything i've said i pretty much don't think he WOULD want to "redeem" himself or change as a character in any way and he's kind of just some guy to me so i didn't really want to put the effort in myself. i don't fault anyone who does ofc.

do you think there's anything to be implied about the quality of rwby's writing and framing in light of how much of the audience misinterprets salem/oz and the role of the gods? i see so many people reading the lost fable as a straightforward condemnation of salem and ozma as a pretty basic tragic hero that it makes me nervous about the future of the show and that IM reading too much into things when i see more nuance in salem. are that many people really that shallow when engaging with rwby? idk

nah people are—well tbh i think what it comes down to mainly is that fandom is not really centered around critical analysis, it’s centered on transformative engagement, and while these are by no means mutually exclusive endeavors they are in fact. Different. analytical vs transformative approaches to the text are different endeavors with different goals requiring different skillsets and can but do not inherently overlap. frankly in fandom spaces i think real textual analysis is not just ancillary but actively discouraged; nobody is quicker to respond to analytical discussions with “it’s not that deep” than a fan who doesn’t like the discussion and there is a noticeable tendency in fandom spaces for any analysis that isn’t 100% ebullient to be read as negativity or critical—e.g. note the frequency with which my reading of ozma is interpreted as character bashing—which isn’t to say that fandoms do not engage analytically at all, but in broad terms there is something of an unspoken… chilliness toward textual analysis in fandom culture. and i am saying this from the perspective of having written a lot of textual analysis and a lot of fanfiction across different fandoms; there is A Pattern. you write a detailed analytical breakdown of your reading of a character and see people tagging it fandom negativity while gushing about the detailed character study you wrote based on that same reading enough times and you start to pick up on the fact that maybe fandoms are not really built for analytical engagement. there is also the whole thing where fandom has an entire category of headcanon predicated on “this thing happened in the text but i don’t like it so no it didn’t” and a second entire category predicated on “this has no basis and is possibly out of character but i like it so happened actually” lmao [TO BE CLEAR THIS IS NOT A VALUE JUDGMENT I HAVE NONSENSE HEADCANONS ALSO ITS FINE.]

anyway this is all fine but! because fandoms devote the bulk of their collective energy into pouring out vast endless streams of like, fanfic and fanart and headcanon and “ship dynamics” [i still do not quite understand what these are] and incorrect quote mills and so forth you tend to get a sort of collective flattening of the text. there is a tendency for characters to be stripped down and reduced to small easily-manageable sets of tropes derived more from aesthetics and first impressions and for any moral complexity to be boiled down to simple black and white and for unique worldbuilding to be smudged a bit until it resembles its nearest recognizable trope. there is a sort of creative entropy. a smooth surface is easier to write on. also sometimes fans do not Obsessively Rewatch The Show four times in the space of a year and over time details get memetically blurred and this, obviously, is detrimental to the overall fidelity-to-canon of popular fanon.

and then like the thing to remember about rwby is it’s a very detail-oriented story, and one that respects its audience. the one downside of that storytelling approach is that fandom is uniquely ill-equipped for it (think about how many people Completely Missed that ironwood was on the express train to fascism land in V4-5 even though. the narrative made it like. hilariously obvious)

In Summary i lived through the fandom where the protagonist after two years of increasingly toxic behavior towards her bestie, charbroiled her friend’s arm into a shriveled blackened husk and not only did not apologize but had a whole episode about being mad at the friend for being upset and then 95% of the fandom was shocked when the friend went “fuck you” and stole the magical artifact whose power was involved in the charbroiling incident all of four episodes later; and almost two years later half the remaining is still Discoursing about how the friend “didn’t have a reason” for betraying the protagonist. tts was a show written with small children in mind. i have witnessed Actual Forty Year Olds insisting that this character’s betrayal was petty and childish. rwby is a lot more tightly-written and nuanced and not a disney princess cartoon and while it does benefit from its fandom not being mostly Disney People the fandom is still. A Fandom. doing what fandoms… do.

so today I made time to watch your new video, and I have to say I really adored it. I didn't have a working computer when Marble Nest came out and, when finally I did, I also wrote it off as a tech demo. Wow what a mistake! I'm actually going to play it soon. I don't have a lot to add to analysis or anything it's all still kicking around my brain (probably for the next two weeks) but I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate these deep dives and your writing style in general. Also Skye has the ability to humanize Daniil in a really serious way for me and a lot of those lines on this one really hit home. (Like thanking Sticky for taking care of him I WEEP) I always related to Artemy, and sort of struggled to understand The Prickly Prick but I really do kind of Get It now. With the voice performance and your script writing I can actually empathize a lot more with his personal pain and frustration. Anyway it's two in the morning, but thank you for making stuff and props as always to everyone involved.

Thanks for the kind words!! ^^ I've personally found Daniil to be a uniquely compelling character since I first played Pathologic cause, like, he is undebatably The Worst™, at least of the 3 playable characters, which is why I will be reblogging that post that lets me kick him down a flight of stairs again once I post this. But it always frustrated me the way so many were eager to flatten him into being a two dimensional cartoon villain when there's just so much more nuance to him other than 'smug arrogant asshole assumes he's right'. Having started the project in 2020, I found it pretty easy to relate to a doctor who was ultimately just trying his best to provide care for a populace that hates him for no self-evident reason before it inevitably breaks his will to give a shit. Also helps that Skye is staggeringly talented at selling that reading on him as well. Suffice to say tho, I'm really glad I could help someone else see him from my perspective. gonna go kick him down a flight of stairs now

VIOLENCE AND BLOOD AND MAKING EVERYBODY MAD. 1, 19, and 25 >:)

SAE 0W-20. Oh oops. Wrote this in notes app so. Here, have my car’s motor oil flavor

Anyway I think I’ll do ace attorney bc that’s the one I’ve been Most aware of its fandom

1 — character everyone gets wrong

There are several,,, but the ones that peeve me the most are Maya and Franziska

Maya’s often flattened into memester burger queen comedic relief who dispenses Romantic advice to make nrmt happen. It’s such a waste when she’s got So much happening and is pretty damn smart

Similarly, Franziska is sidelined even More and is reduced to Angry Meanie and also a prop to encourage nrmt. I find that the average franziska portrayal is really one-note and is just like “Haha she says fool and whips people” which sucks bc again she has So much unexplored complexity in the games And in fandom that people wouldn’t hesitate to explore if she were a male character instead

And also these tend to combine into really boring franmaya just to make sunshine/grump happen. Or again, they’re off to the side or used only as a vehicle for nrmt development.

Or like… I’ve seen ppl think Maya was head over heels for Franziska from Day One like. No??? Wtf? I think Maya had More Important Things on her mind than like. “Ooh that person prosecuting me is kinda hot👀”

I can’t even elaborate Too much bc I’d be here all day but. Also criminally misportrayed is Phoenix. He is not uwu sunshine bleeding heart heart on his sleeve. And neither is Ryuunosuke.

Ok one more salt. Temenos OctopathTraveler2 wasn’t Madly In Love with Crick. Also he is Not as horny/flirty as many are portraying him as…. He outright said staves don’t need sheaths smh my head

19 — smth I’m mad/ashamed I actually kinda like

My lawyer says I don’t have to answer this question

(jk)

Idk if Shame/anger is the word for it. But I want to study kristoph under a microscope and also purposefully zoom in too far so that he gets crushed when the long magnifier breaks the slide glass

It’s more like… I don’t want to be associated w people who like genuinely think he was just misunderstood 🥺 uwuuu he was in WUV, he had a bad childhood. or the opposite, with ppl who go a lot darker in their interpretation bc that’s just not smth I want to think about

Cuz like. Obviously this guy fucking sucks and I hate him but also he’s sooooo pathetic that it’s funny

And also I think it’s interesting to think about like, what being friends (or “friends”) with someone like that for Seven Years does to Phoenix. Bc I lov putting that man through the wringer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

25 — common fandom complaint sick of hearing

Any apologism and vehement defense of shitty male characters lol

Godot’s shitty condescending misogynistic remark at franziska wasn’t a mistranslation. He calls her a shrew/unruly woman, basically says “that’s enough princess, it’s adult time” (notably using “-Chan”, where Phoenix calls her Von Karma Kenji [“prosecutor von karma”]). This line was translated to “But you can go now, princess. It's time for the big boys to take the reins.” So like…. Where’s the misinterpretation 🤨

And also he says “I don’t like talkative women”. There might be more nuance there that google translate can’t capture but like. That’s Still a sexist thing to say.

Just admit ur horny for godot and don’t care about women

Mvk doesn’t have lead poisoning; he’s an emotionally abusive parent and shitty person. Like u don’t even have to squint at the games to come to that conclusion. Kin memories and brainless analysis won’t disprove that. Sometimes abusers can even do nice things or genuinely love someone, but that doesn’t mean they’re not abusive

Barok van Zieks doesn’t have a Redemption arc from his Constant Indefensible Racism. You clowns are just horny and have bad taste.

musical ramblings #4

okay look i know i said i was doin' the brains but then shuffle put this on and i was like "oh." so !!

surface pressure ; jessica darrow (encanto)

i'll never shut up about the fact that these barely-20-somethings have what feels like the weight of the world on their shoulders-- or, in the case of clock-la, they might have genuinely had the weight of the world on their shoulders.

i will also never shut up about the cooper legacy and how much weight it puts on their shoulders independent of the whole fighting for their lives thing.

again, in-depth analysis/breakdown under the cut <3 this one's a little on the longer side, i think. and the choruses get typed out every time bc i didn't want to cut around them bc of the "give it to your sister" segments. so yeah.

this is also mostly murray & sly, but theres a fair amount of bentley in there too :3

i feel like this one is a lot of me taking canon and running with it but i am a very fast runner so i think it's okay. but um i hope it's okay if this one's a little more headcanon-y. i've tried to make clear what was My Brain and what was Actual Stuff thus far but i have many emotions about this song and i need to explain their complicated self-image ok. hopefully that's okay

also this might be LESS comprehensible than the last one but probably not less comprehensible than my little reason why. braincell is ping ponging around within me skull

update from midway through, this is very sly 2 focused i think. oops but like not really fdhsjkafhd

"I'm the strong one, I'm not nervous / I'm as tough as the crust of the Earth is"

yeah that's just murray in a nutshell. well post-sly 1 at least. just know that "i'm not nervous" is said in the absolute most nervous way possible, because murray absolutely is.

"I move mountains, I move churches / And I glow 'cause I know what my worth is"

the beginning of this song is very murray lol. he seems to be the one most confident in his strength & skills during 2 & 3, esp. during 2. but he is also the one to reassure bentley that they're equals during 3 which isn't entirely related but it does show that he does indeed know his worth. <3

"I don't ask how hard the work is / Got a rough, indestructible surface / Diamonds and platinum, I find 'em, I flatten 'em / I take what I'm handed, I break what's demanded, but"

more murraycore lol. i think this is pretty self-explanatory

(fun fact: murray has the most health of the cooper brothers, meaning comparatively to, say, bentley, he does in fact have a "rough, indestructible surface" <;3)

"Under the surface / I feel berserk as a tightrope walker in a three-ring circus"

okay now we fall out of the surface level "yeah that makes sense". i gotta say using the word Berserk there ... has me thinking of the Murray Tries To Kill You section w/ the agitators. to be FAIR i'm pretty sure tightrope walkers Don't Do That. but i've also never been to the circus, so.

anyway ! i feel like he's also the like. the Silliest, y'know? the naive one that's usually getting made fun of, i think. and he presents the most, he's not built for subtlety; he's very visible. which is also part of why this line is He. he probably feels like he's a circus act to be watched and laughed at, y'know?

"Under the surface / Was Hercules ever like 'yo, I don't wanna fight Cerberus'?"

note the missing green bc i feel like bentley feels much less Forced into his role. he likes being the smart guy !

now, that's not to say that murray and sly don't like their roles, because of course they do! but being the strong one was, as we see, not murray's first choice. and being the strong one means you do all the heavy lifting, and while murray likes that most of the time... i'm sure there are times where he'd rather have stayed just the getaway driver.

and then there's sly, who loves the whole thief thing and loves his role and wouldn't trade it for the world, but... he got shoved into this whole thing too, y'know? he loves being a thief, but i'm sure he would love it more if it had been his choice, if anybody had asked him before it was suddenly his everything.

"Under the surface / I'm pretty sure I'm worthless, if I can't be of service"

yet another cotton candy line. look i can go SO in-depth about sly and his self-esteem issues esp. during sly 3. there's an interaction during a cold alliance that is pretty much the entire formation for this head of canon ("Sure you won't need my help on the inside?" "I'm afraid this is a problem only technology can solve." "...Right. Well, have fun with your, uh, technology." "Don't wait up- this could go all night!")

and then there's murray, who thinks he's not "of service" and leaves because he doesn't want to hinder the team any more than he thinks he already does (see the sly 2.5 comic.) he doesn't just think he's worthless if he's not doing something, he thinks he's worse than that; if he's not helping, he's a hinderance. hell i'm pretty sure he thinks he's a hinderance even when he IS helping sometimes. (see: him blaming himself for the clock-la incident.)

"A flaw or a crack / The straw in the stack / That breaks the camel's back / What breaks the camel's back? It's- / Pressure like a drip, drip, drip that'll never stop, woah / Pressure that'll tip, tip, tip 'til you just go pop, woah"

admittedly this is mostly just vibes. but also they need a nap and a hug. i'm pretty sure that by the end of sly 3 and all the fighting and the tensities and the bigger team that they're all about 3 seconds away from snapping.

"Give it to your sister, your sister's older / Give her all the heavy things we can't shoulder"

yet another gender swap but again for the sake of lyrical clarity i'm not changing the pronouns. just Know that pretty much every she is actually a he. that's a good life motto in general actually /j

this is mostly just bc i am an oldest bentley truther lol. but also i think he does wind up with a lot of "heavy things [they] can't shoulder" because as the planner i think that's just how that goes. he knows his brothers' skillsets! if something needs done that the two of them can't do, it's bentley's job. (see: demolitions, rc, etc.)

"Who am I, if I can't run with the ball / If I fall to... / Pressure like a grip, grip, grip and it won't let go, woah"

okay this was originally combined with the next one but i needed a place to talk about sly and the generational trauma. like sly's entire LIFE is built around being a thief (hence the "who am i if i can't run with the ball"- if sly cooper isn't a master thief, who even is he?) and living up to his family's legacy, hence the pressure. and no matter what he does, he can't escape it (it won't let go, wink wink.)

now because sly 4 simply isn't real this'll probably be the only time i mention it in this breakdown but even when he isn't a thief he still can't escape the Cooper burden, and his whole bloodline is once more put into peril because of something he had nothing to do with.

...i think. i'm only like 1/4 of the way into sly 4 but i'm pretty sure it's the classic steven universe style my parent(s) did something to you but now they're dead so you're determined to take it out on me bc i'm their kid thing.

"Pressure like a tick, tick, tick, 'til it's ready to blow, woah / Give it to your sister, your sister's stronger / See if she can hang on a little longer / Who am I, if I can't carry it all? / If I falter..."

murray honey your self-esteem issues are showing again. this is more of that "if i'm not helping i'm hurting" mentality that he seems to have. and also more Strong One shenanigans !

also the "tick tick tick 'til it's ready to blow" is very the murray very much so has Some Rage Within There. most notable example of this is Opera of Fear when octavio pisses him off by harassing bentley and he beats the shit out of the poor opera lion man.

i'm realizing the way him and sly view themselves are very similar lol. however i think murray finds some peace in training with the guru and is able to fall back from this mindset a bit. but that's not related.

again, more Strong One. he's big and tough and therefore he should be the one handling these things. he's the Strong One and therefore he is handling these things and he is handling them fine, he says, like a liar. he is Not Fine.

"Under the surface / I hide my nerves, and it worsens / I worry something is gonna hurt us / Under the surface / The ship doesn't swerve as it heard how big the iceberg is"

bentley is very Worried in General, as we know. "hide [his] nerves" probably comes into play bc he's their voice of reason, and if the voice of reason is panicking then everything is terrible and they're all gonna die. HOWEVER if he's not panicking then he might accidentally make sly and murray think they're in less danger than they are (leading to them being a little more careless and only worsening his nerves.)

OKAYOKAYOKAY "the ship doesn't swerve as it heard how big the iceberg is" gives me very much so vibes of the one Ro.tTM.NT episode with the poison pizza puffs and the younger three are constantly like "rap.h'll bail us out :]" and rap.h is like "NO."

i think sly and murray do that to bentley a lot, esp. post jailbreak. it doesn't matter what kind of trouble they get into because bentley can bust them out ! which is why the metaphorical ship isn't swerving. it's kind of sweet the amount of trust they have for bentley however bentley would like to humbly request they stop showing him they trust him by throwing themselves into danger!

"Under the surface / I think about my purpose, can I somehow preserve this? / Line up the dominoes, a light wind blows / You try to stop it toppling but on and on it goes"

and the return of the cotton candy self-esteem issues again and still pretty much for the same reason. though i admit this line is mostly murraycore, hence why it's so much more pink than blue <3

murray's 'purpose' is to be the strong one, sly's is to be a thief. again they both think that they're "worthless if [they] can't be of service" but sly is a little different in the fact that his purpose rlly isn't going anywhere.

meanwhile murray after the clock-la incident is pretty sure he has lost his purpose! he thinks he failed at being the Strong One ("can i somehow preserve this?") and that dominoes (wink) into him spiraling over every tiny mistake he makes (as we see during the aforementioned sly 2.5 comic where he blames himself for every little thing) but all that really does is make him clam up and mess up more which. "you try to stop it toppling but on and on it goes," y'know?

"But wait, if I could shake / The crushing weight of expectations / Would that free some room up for joy? / Or simple pleasures"

sly is atlas and the cooper name is his globe, y'know?

"Instead we measure, this growing pressure / Keeps growing, keep going / 'Cause all we know is / Pressure like a drip, drip, drip that'll never stop, woah / Pressure that'll tip, tip, tip 'til you just go pop, woah"

again with the very sly 2 vibe i think. the whole Growing Pressure just reads as them learning about the klaww gang and their spice schemes and neyla and suddenly this isn't just about destroying the clockwerk parts it's about saving paris and i doubt neyla would have stopped with just paris and i'm sure the cooper brothers know that too

these colors are out of order (usually it would be green -> pink -> blue) because i wanted sly to have the "all we know is" ... despite the fact that it really matches all of them. they've never lived any other way, sly especially.

"Give it to your sister, it doesn't hurt and / See if she can handle every family burden / Watch as she buckles and bends, but never breaks / No mistakes, just"

again w the family thing like i said i will never shut up about it. 'cause sly's been dealing with the consequences of his family's (specifically his father's) actions this whole time and he's been succeeding, he destroyed clockwerk, he destroyed clock-la, he defeated dr. m, but he's still floundering under the pressure of living under legends.

even when he's Literally About to Die bc his dad didn't believe in minimum wage he's worried about how he compares to the Coopers before him ("Would he be proud? Or ashamed?") like bb harbor some resentment in there for the hell you've been put through.

"Pressure like a grip, grip, grip and it won't let go, woah / Pressure like a tick, tick, tick 'til it's ready to blow, woah"

debated switching sly and murray's lines for this ending segment but i think this works the best. again with the Rage That Will Explode and also his inescapable hell of being The Strong One.

"Give it to your sister and never wonder / If the same pressure would have pulled you under"

this is both about bentley being the jack of all trades when he needs to be and about him keeping the other two out of trouble. he's certain the other two would be 'pulled under' by the stress of more things to do, and he's certain they would be 'pulled under' and kept under if he wasn't there to bail them out.

"Who am I, if I don't have what it takes?"

guess what .. it's the generational trauma again <3 more about sly and his need to live up to his family line because as the line says who is he if he doesn't have what it takes!

"No cracks, no breaks / No mistakes, no pressure"

bentley's determined to not crack under the pressure because of his brothers, both to keep them out of trouble and to bail them out of the troubles they get into anyway. murray's determined to not break because he's The Strong One, and if he's not, then he's certain he'll be some kind of hinderance. and sly's determined to not make any mistakes so he can earn his cooper name and make his father proud.

this will definitely not wind up causing at least 3 breakdowns. (sarcasm)

I posted 4,067 times in 2022

That's 1,054 more posts than 2021!

93 posts created (2%)

3,974 posts reblogged (98%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@arofili

@i-was-once-a-flower

@ultimate-queen-of-fandoms2

@animate-mush

I tagged 4,052 of my posts in 2022

#lotr - 1,525 posts

#funny - 1,239 posts

#fanart - 1,190 posts

#art - 308 posts

#analysis - 298 posts

#pride - 268 posts

#nature - 211 posts

#cute - 177 posts

#history - 171 posts

#politics - 154 posts

Longest Tag: 131 characters

#for some reason i have nightmares about having ten books checked out that i'm supposed to be reading to give the librarian feedback

I sent 1 gift in 2022

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

Iceland, forgot which lake.

I tried to take these picture to show fellow drop-off-fearer @plaguedocboi the slope here, but you can't really see it. Also, it was only about 45 degrees, that's just a lot by my standards. Sinkholes are common where I live, but I guess they're easier to flatten out into a shallow lake than volcanic calderas are.

The slope starts at my toes and continues at the sane grade.

See the full post

22 notes - Posted July 14, 2022

#4

I just want to be able to breathe through my nose again. I want to be able to cuddle my ferrets. I want to go back to work on Monday. I'm beyond ready to be done with this.

Sad ferrets:

26 notes - Posted July 15, 2022

#3

Fun moment today: I was looking up older third gender pronouns (specifically ones coined in or before Tolkien's day) to use in a fic, and I ran into a problem. Several sites say that ae/aer was created in a 1920s science fiction novel, but all the sites I found ultimately traced their information back to a Psychology Today article that doesn't even provide a quote of how the pronoun was used in the book.

So, being slightly obsessive once I get an idea in my head, I borrowed the ebook version from my public library, opened it in a browser window, and searched "ae" until I found the definition of the pronoun.

(Surprisingly many words have the letter sequence "ae" in them.)

Here it is! A Voyage to Arcturus, by David Lindsey, first published 1920, ebook published 2012 by Duke Classics. And no, you can't make me write a formal citation.

I'll add an image description when i get to my computer tomorrow, unless someone else wants to do it.

29 notes - Posted April 26, 2022

#2

Have we ever figured out why Orome was the one to discover that the Elves had awakened, not Namo (Mandos)?  There must have been plenty of dead Elves in the few thousand years they were awake before he found them.  Morgoth’s forces were already attacking them, and they literally had to learn how to hunt, forage, and make fires entirely by themselves.  Because of the Sleep of Yavannah, they wouldn’t have many food options and wouldn’t even have many animals that they could watch for ideas on what to eat.  And Tolkien says that they were a lot more like Men in those days, so they probably couldn’t survive for long periods of time without food or survive food poisoning.  So I can’t imagine a scenario where no elves had died yet.

Were their souls not going to Mandos?  Maybe Namo didn’t start calling for them until he knew they existed.  That makes it unfair that Tolkien says that Elves who stay in Middle Earth after their death are “marred” or evil.  (I mean, I think it’s unfair anyway, but even more unfair.)  Maybe once Namo became aware of Elves, those who had already died were allowed to go to him?  But I seem to remember Tolkien saying that Elves in those days really wanted to get away from Morgoth and wanted to go to Mandos to be safe.  So... when did that happen?

So were the souls of Elves going to Mandos, but Namo just didn’t tell anyone?  If any of the Valar would keep their mouths shut about that, it would be him.  But I’m not sure why he would want to keep that a secret.

Or maybe he just built his halls and then didn’t visit them again for thousands of years, and came back to find them full of Elvish souls who had no idea where they were, just that there wasn’t anything evil here.  Now that’s a scenario I’d like to read a fanfic about.  @galadhremmin maybe?

72 notes - Posted March 1, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

OK, so you guys know I’m not happy about the Amazon show, but I’m going to defend politically ambitious Elrond here.  People are saying that it doesn’t make sense because he was a healer and refused to be high king.  But that’s after the Last Alliance.  After Gil-Galad dies, and Elendil, and probably hundreds of people he knows.  After he established Imladris as a home for refugees.  After he experiences what it’s like to be second in command to the high king.  It’s called character development, y’all.  Let him have his politically ambitious phase.

130 notes - Posted February 14, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →