Request- Young Splinter? From any version of tmnt, but I was thinking your own iteration!

young splinter and his best buddy!

this made me so happy i love getting to talk about iteration turtles, their origins in particular (i’ll ramble in tags) thank you so much for the ask!

How Each of the 5 Major Plot Points Turn a Story

I recently had an epiphany on structure that I wanted to share. When I first realized this, it felt pretty significant (at least to me), but as more time has gone on, I've realized, in some sense, it's actually kind of obvious--I just hadn't seen it from this perspective before 😆 I'm willing to bet a lot of others haven't either, so it's definitely something I want to share. But where to start? I think I'll start with a problem I ran into: midpoints.

Midpoints happen in the middle of the story (usually around the 50% mark, give or take). It's a moment when new, significant information--or at least a shift in context--enters and turns the story in a different direction. To put more simply (or in some ways, vaguely), it's when the protagonist gets a sense of what's "really going on" in the plot.

For example, in the movie Interstellar, the midpoint happens when the characters learn that there is no Plan A--everyone on Earth is destined to die.

In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the midpoint happens when Harry overhears the professors in the Three Broomsticks and learns Sirius Black is the reason his parents are dead.

The midpoint moves the protagonist from reaction to action. It enables them to go on the attack--at least a more informed, aggressive attack than before.

This is what I was first taught midpoints were, and I was introduced to them in Story Engineering by Larry Brooks.

But as time went on, I ran into a different definition.

In Blake Snyder's Save the Cat!, he says that midpoints are events--a "false win" or a "false lose."

It's near the middle, and it's when the protagonist seems to win or lose what he or she wants.

For example, in Mulan, the midpoint happens when Mulan retrieves the arrow on the post, proving herself worthy of staying in the army with the men (a seeming victory).

In Stranger Things Season One, the midpoint is recovering Will's body (a seeming defeat).

So which is it? Is a midpoint new information? Or is it an event?

Personally, the more time goes on, the more I think both definitions are right. So these days, I prefer to combine them together:

The midpoint is a significant event and/or revelation that is either a seeming victory or a seeming defeat for the protagonist. It often provides a broader understanding of what's actually happening in the plot, enabling the protagonist to become more proactive in their goals.

The midpoint almost always happens right in the middle of the story.

And it pivots the story into the second half.

(Of course, this is not to say some rules can't be broken.)

Okay, now I'm going to talk about something else, and come back to this.

I've talked about the next section a few times, so if you are already familiar with it, feel free to skim the next few paragraphs.

In a well-structured story, nearly everything makes this shape--whether it's a scene, sequence, act, or whole story. And it can even fit, in smaller pieces, inside a scene. It's essentially like a nesting doll or a fractal.

The climactic moment is sometimes called a turning point because it "turns" the direction of the story.

This moment can only be one of two things (well, or both of them): a revelation, or an action.

Why? Because these are the only ways to turn a story!

This is most obvious in the overall plot level because that is what we are most familiar with. THEE climactic moment will either be a revelation or an action and often it's both.

Whatever it is, and in whatever it is (scene, sequence, act, or whole plot), that's the turning point.

I do want to add one thing: it doesn't necessarily have to be the protagonist who has the revelation or takes the action to create a turning point. It just needs to be someone significant, so that it turns the story. For example, a turning point may be the audience or an important side character having a revelation. Or it may be someone else (likely the antagonist) taking an action.

In the structure of a whole story, there are usually several major turning points:

1. The Inciting Incident (sometimes called the "Catalyst" or "Call to Adventure")

This is when something new enters the story and disrupts the established normal. The inciting incident will either be a problem or an opportunity. In The Hunger Games, Prim having her name drawn out at the reaping is the inciting incident--it's what turns the story in a new direction, leading us into the main conflict. Without that problem, the books wouldn't exist. In Harry Potter, the inciting incident is Hagrid telling Harry, "Yer a wizard" and inviting him to Hogwarts. Without that opportunity, the books wouldn't exist.

2. Plot Point 1 (sometimes called "Break into Two" or "Crossing the Threshold")

I hesitate to use the term "Plot Point 1" because I've found it to be rather ambiguous, as some people consider it to be (or at least include) the inciting incident, while others consider it to be the moment the protagonist chooses to move forward irrevocably, to address the new problem or opportunity. This is usually a transitional segment that takes us from the beginning of the story to the middle of the story. (Today, this is what I mean by "Plot Point 1.")

In Interstellar, this is when Cooper blasts off into space. That can't be undone, and it takes us into the main conflict of the story, the middle.

In Mulan, Mulan cuts her hair, takes the armor and horse, and goes to the camp in her father's place. Once she arrives as "Ping," her decision can't be undone (at least not without big ramifications, such as dishonoring her whole family). This takes us to the main conflict, the middle of the story.

The inciting incident and Plot Point 1 put the protagonist into a reactionary state. They are reacting to new obstacles.

3. Midpoint

I already talked a lot about midpoints, but just to keep things even, I'll repeat.

The midpoint is a significant event and/or revelation that is either a seeming victory or a seeming defeat for the protagonist. It often provides a broader understanding of what's actually happening in the plot, enabling the protagonist to become more proactive in their goals.

The midpoint almost always happens right in the middle of the story.

And it pivots the story into the second half.

You can see examples above.

4. Plot Point 2

At the end of the middle, a few things usually happen:

The protagonist faces the antagonistic force and experiences a defeat. This leads to what's called an "all is lost" moment--where it feels like (as you probably guessed) everything is lost, like there is no way the protagonist can succeed.

Soon after this, though, the protagonist gains something empowering that allows them to move forward toward the climax.

Some writers call the "all is lost" moment Plot Point 2, while others call the moment of empowerment Plot Point 2. What matters is that you understand that these things happen. This can get a little more complicated (for example, instead of experiencing a defeat, the protagonist may get what he wants and experience a hollow victory), but I'm gonna stop here for today.

Like Plot Point 1, this is a transitional segment that turns the story toward the climax--it moves us from the middle of the story to the end of the story.

In Mulan, Mulan is discovered to be a woman and dishonored. She thinks of going home, when she learns that the Huns are still alive. This propels her to the climax.

In Spider-verse, Miles watches his uncle die and gets tied up. After his dad visits, he gains a clear understanding of perseverance and faith, busts free, and heads to the climax.

5. Climax

The climax is the biggest, most pivotal turning point. It will either hinge on a revelation or an action and often it's both.

It might be a revelation that leads to an action. Or it might be an action that leads to a revelation.

For example, the protagonist may have an epiphany (a revelation, and often a thematic one) that informs him how to defeat the antagonist, so the protagonist takes that action. Alternatively, the protagonist takes an action to defeat the antagonist, and the result leads to a realization. If the latter happens, often the revelation will be further explained after the danger has passed.

For example, in Interstellar, Cooper realizes that love is indeed part of a higher dimension, and through it, he can communicate to his daughter Murph. He then takes the required action to reach her across spacetime and save the human race (and therefore defeat the antagonistic force).

In Harry Potter, Harry takes action against Quirrel. This leads to a revelation: Quirrel can't touch him. Later, Dumbledore explains Lily's sacrifice left Harry a magical protection: love.

(Love doesn't have to be the realization, of course, I just happened to pick two examples that share that in common 😆)

Now, this is all generally speaking, and it will be different if you are working with negative character arcs, but talking about all the variations is beyond the scope of this article, today.

Let's start tying these topics together:

So, generally, there have been two different definitions of the midpoint. Significant information. Or significant event.

Well:

Information = Revelation

Event = Action

Revelation is just another word for "new information," while "event" is just another word for action. Right?

Guess what? The midpoint and the climax are similar in this way. They turn on revelation or action or even both.

What about the other major turning points?

Every story structure I've looked at, emphasizes that at Plot Point 1 (or "Crossing the Threshold" or "Break into Two"), the protagonist chooses to move forward--that means taking action. The protagonist doesn't just want to move forward, he has to do something. So Plot Point 1 turns on action.

Let's look at Plot Point 2. After the "all is lost" lull, the protagonist almost always learns ("gains") something. This may be plot-focused--such as Mulan learning the Huns are still alive. Or it may be thematic, such as Miles Morales now understanding and embracing perseverance and faith. But it's essentially new information, a new understanding. So Plot Point 2 turns on revelation.

Okay, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking of stories that maybe don't fit this. You are thinking of stories where Plot Point 1 hinges on revelation and Plot Point 2 hinges on action. Like many writing subjects, this can become a chicken vs. egg conundrum. After all, when we act, we learn new things. And when we learn new things, we act.

A protagonist may learn something new that leads him to take action for Plot Point 1.

And the "all is lost" moment usually follows a big event (read: action), so we may have an action that comes before the revelation of Plot Point 2.

It's also not impossible to have two actions in a row, or two revelations in a row.

But Plot Point 1 and Plot Point 2 are transitional segments. They turn us to the middle and to the end, respectively. And that turn is usually an action and a revelation, respectively.

Of course, I'm not going to go as far as saying that no stories exist that break these rules. But most stories turn in these ways.

It's also worth noting that sometimes you have moments that blur the lines a little--for example, a character may take a big action that reveals something significant simultaneously.

Recall how earlier I said not all turning points are focused on the protagonist. For example, a turning point in a scene, may be an antagonist taking an action. A revelation may be a side character learning something. In a well-structured story, there will be lots of turning points of action and revelation. And of course, you can slice and dice stories in different ways (which is why learning structure can be so confusing sometimes).

But when it comes to these four major turning points, they usually focus on the protagonist.

At Plot Point 1, the protagonist takes a forward action.

At the midpoint, the protagonist takes a significant action or learns something significant.

At Plot Point 2, the protagonist gains valuable information.

At the climax, the protagonist has a realization and/or takes an action that thwarts the antagonistic force.

Now we have the inciting incident. The inciting incident is a little different than the other major turning points because it's what kicks off the story. It's the first turn that starts the story--it's disrupting an established normal, not changing up the main conflict.

Unlike the other four major turning points, the inciting incident sort of . . . How do I want to say this? It sort of comes from outside the protagonist more? In the other major turning points, it's the protagonist who is acting and gaining information on the journey.

The inciting incident hinges more on an outside source. I mean, it has to, because it disrupts the protagonist's life. The protagonist hasn't hit the main conflict yet.

For example, Effie in The Hunger Games and Gandalf in The Hobbit, are the ones bringing the inciting incidents to Katniss and Bilbo, respectively. In Legally Blonde, Warner is the one breaking up with Elle.

This isn't a perfect concept, but it is a generality. Perhaps the idea I'm trying to convey is that the inciting incident is something that happens to the protagonist. (Usually, there are exceptions.)

Notice that the inciting incident can also hinge on an action or a revelation.

Peter Parker getting bit by a radioactive spider is an action. It's the spider's action--an outsider's action--against Peter.

Harry being told he's a wizard from Hagrid is a revelation. It's information that Harry didn't even know to consider--completely unexpected.

So let's map out the five major turns:

Inciting Incident: Disrupting Action or Revelation

Plot Point 1: Primarily Turns on Action

Midpoint: Turns on Action and/or Revelation

Plot Point 2: Primarily Turns on Revelation

Climax: Turns on Action and/or Revelation

Now you will have a clearer understanding of how to handle the five major turning points in your own stories.

And should you have a protagonist who does not want to take action at Plot Point 1, as is sometimes the case--well, I have something to help with that.

That pretty much sums up my epiphany . . . or should I say, revelation? 😉

SFX interview with Pedro Pascal

The latest issue (Jan. 2021) of SFX magazine carries a 2-page interview, which took place after the S2 premiere (technically right after The Passenger). It’s pretty good, and insightful given what took place.

This Charming Mando

Shortly after the launch of the second episode of season two, SFX caught up with the Mandalorian himself, Pedro Pascal, speaking from Budapest.

words: Adam Tanswell

There are tons of fun and interesting ways that The Mandalorian ties into Star Wars canon. Are you aware of all the Easter eggs when you’re working on the show?

There’s plenty that are pointed out to me and there’s plenty that are obvious, but I think it would be impossible for me to remember them all. On top of the Easter eggs, what I love the most is the reference to very specific genres of cinema.

Can you give us an example of that from the second season?

For season two, the set of the second episode [“The Passenger”] was the first set that I walked on to. It was this shipwrecked Razor Crest on this snowy set, and I’d seen the illustrations of the spiders that were so incredible. The spiders hatching out of those eggs were right out of Alien. Working on the show fires off all of these references to me. And then, of course, there are the specific references to the Star Wars past as well. It’s impossible to keep up with everything, but it’s endlessly fascinating.

What did you enjoy the most about working on the first episode of season two, “The Marshal”?

Working with Timothy Olyphant and being on Tatooine with Jon Favreau was incredible. I don’t know if I’m allowed to say this, but you wouldn’t believe the kind of rehearsal that the three of us had early on for that episode, in order to understand and block a sequence. You know the scene where we’re in the bar and then we step out to the main square of the town to see the Krayt Dragon? We had to rehearse it virtually first. We put on these mechanisms [VR headsets] with remote controls where we were literally able to be in a virtual world. We were actually able to rehearse it all before getting on the set. We were able to physically block the scene, which was crazy to me.

How would you describe the relationship between the Mandalorian and the Child in season two?

Through all of the action, adventure and special effects of the show, the core of it is this relationship between the Mandalorian and the Child. In spite of, and within, the largeness of it all, their story gets more intimate and deeper, which is the ultimate risk for somebody like the Mandalorian. It’s a huge risk to be vulnerable and to develop attachments, so it’s a very special relationship that we see unfold this year.

How does it feel to share the spotlight with the Child?

Honestly, it’s been an amazing experience because you get to witness a very, very unique show come to life. This isn’t my diplomatic answer; I mean this sincerely. To be part of a project like this is a unique experience for everyone, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to take the position as the central star because it’s not just me. There’s the Child and many, many others involved. There’s the incredible Industrial Light & Magic people, who have created this character of the Child that everyone has fallen in love with. Plus, there’s the production design team and every single department that’s involved in creating this experience, along with Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni, who are the ultimate parents of this show.

Talking of whom, what’s it like to work with Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni at the helm on a day to day basis?

The success of the show is because of their storytelling skills, as well as their fascination and their very, very, very pure love of Star Wars. It’s funny, because I have to figure out to the best of my abilities where I can contribute to achieve the success of it in every way. I saw images for the show when they were first talking to me about the project. Back then, I saw illustrations of the Child and it was the reason why I said yes to the project.

Have there been any changes to your iconic costume in season two to make it more comfortable for you?

The costume actually got a little heavier in season two. We ended the first season with him upgrading his armour. In order to have a more cinematic shine on the breastplate, it meant that some pieces were a little heavier than last year’s version

What are the themes and underlying messages of the second season that resonate with you the most?

These are very classic tales of good and evil, and how it all exists inside of us. It’s also about the journey towards the light, if that makes any sense. With my character specifically, I love that there’s this ruthless person whose physical identity is kept from the world around him – and possibly a psychological identity that’s kept from himself – but he starts to discover himself through this relationship with a vulnerable but very powerful creature. He follows his heart and does the right thing, no matter how it is against one’s practice or creed or what’s convenient. For me, that would be the prevailing message. It’s a much more intimate message than the broad strokes that can be painted onto the story as a whole. On a basic level, it’s about fighting for good.

It’s a huge deal to be such an iconic part of the Star Wars universe. Were you ready for the fame and attention that comes along with a project like this?

To be honest, I think it would be challenging for any human being. I’ve certainly been navigating how to honour being part of something as iconic as this to the best of my ability. It’s definitely a challenging, intimidating and exciting experience. It’s all of those things.

You play an iconic hero in The Mandalorian, but who were your heroes when you were growing up?

I had so many heroes. I would have to say my parents are my obvious heroes for ushering in the introduction of so many heroes, either through cinema or literature. And I continue to add more and more people to the list. As a child, Indiana Jones was definitely my personal hero. And as I got older, I remember the writer James Baldwin really, really influenced my mind and my life. I introduced myself to his writing when I was around 19 years old and he has definitely been a hero to me.

How does it feel to be a Star Wars hero?

I think it’s a beautiful thing because I can see the effect of a show like this on the children of my friends. It isn’t anything like I’ve experienced before. I love to see the look on their face if their parents tell them, “This is the Mandalorian”. There’s usually some confusion at first, because there isn’t a lot of association to this face as far as the role is concerned – but they seem to understand that somebody needs to be behind the mask. It’s somebody’s voice and it’s somebody’s limbs. It’s a magical feeling to see children’s eyes light up like that. If only I could carry around the Child everywhere, then I would really be winning!

Would definitely recommend buying the issue if you can, print or digital (via Zinio or any other platform), to show your support.

Media Market Research (and why its undermining all the things you love)

Trying to understand what is dysfunctional about Hollywood is an epic task, and the answers are like the stars – arguably infinite. Hollywood is dysfunctional for literally more reasons than I could count.

But market research plays a fairly heavy role in its dysfunction (IMO) and the time has finally come for me to add my professional two cents about this issue. (This rant of mine has been building for a while, FYI. Hence why it is so...comprehensive. There is a tl;dr section towards the bottom, if you want the high level summary)

*** For the last 4+ years I’ve worked in the field of market research, almost exclusively with major media makers like Warner Bros., NBCU, AMC/BBCA, Viacom, FOX (before Disney acquired them), A+E, etc. (this past year I quit the job where I was doing this work for a variety of reasons, many of which will become clear as you keep reading, but I am still listed as a consultant on the company website):   https://www.kresnickaresearch.com/who/ (Rachel)

And just for comparison, here is a Halloween selfie I took 4 years ago and posted on my blog, so you can see I am who I say I am. 

I know a fair amount about how market research on major media franchises is conducted and how it influences production, and a lot of these choices can also be at least somewhat tied back to the massive flaws in the market research industry and its impact. *** First, at the highest level, you need to understand market research in general is not well-conducted much of the time. Even the people doing a reasonably good job at it are VERY limited in doing it well because of financial constraints (clients don’t want to spend more than they have to), time constraints (clients want everything done as fast as humanely possible) and just the inherent problems within the industry that are decades old and difficult to fix. For example, all market research ‘screens’ participants to make sure they qualify to participate (whether it is a mass survey, a focus group, a one-on-one interview, etc.). So, we screen people based on demographics like race, gender, age, household income, to get representative samples. But people are also screened based on their consumption habits. You don’t want to bring someone into a focus group about reality TV if they don’t watch reality TV. They aren’t going to have anything useful to say. 

However, a lot of the people who participate in market research have made a ‘side-gig’ out of it and they know how to finesse the process. Basically, they’ve learned how to lie to get into studies that they aren’t a good match for because most market research is paid, and they want the money. So, a lot of TV and film market research is being done on people who don’t actually (or at least don’t regularly) watch those shows or movies or whatever but have learned how to lie well enough in these screening processes to make it through. And because of the aforementioned time and money issue, clients don’t want to spend the time or money to actually find GOOD participants. They just accept that as an inevitable part of the market research process and decide not to let it bother them too much. So, a fair number of the people representing YOU as a media consumer are people who may not be watching Supernatural (for example) at all or who watch a rerun occasionally on TNT but haven’t been watching consistently or with ANY amount of investment whatsoever. You can see why that creates very skewed data. But that’s just the tip of the skewed iceberg. *** Second, media market research is conducted in line with the norms of market research more broadly, and this is a huge problem because media is a very atypical product. How people engage with media is far more complex and in depth than how they engage with a pair of jeans, a car, or a coffee maker. There are only so many things that matter to people when it comes to liking or not liking a coffee maker, for example. Is it easy/intuitive to use? How much space does it take it on my counter? How expensive is it? Does it brew the coffee well? Maybe does it match my décor/kitchen aesthetic? Can I make my preferred brand of coffee in it? The things you as a consumer are going to care about when it comes to a coffee maker are limited, fairly easy to anticipate in advance, and also easy to interpret (usually). How people mentally and emotionally approach MEDIA? Whole other universe of thing. Infinitely more complex. And yet it is studied (more or less) as if it is also a coffee maker. This is one of the many reasons I decided to leave the media market research field despite my desire to have some ability to positively influence the process. As so often seems to be the case, I fought the law and the law won. I could never make the other people I worked with in the industry understand that the questions they were asking were not all that useful a lot of the time and they weren’t getting to the heart of the matter. They were just following industry standards because they didn’t know any better and none of them want to admit they don’t REALLY know what they’re doing. Which leads me to point 3. *** Most of the people doing this research don’t have any expertise in media or storytelling specifically. They are typically trained as social scientists in the fields of psychology, anthropology, sociology, or math/statistics. And many of them do not have any kind of specialization or education in media/storytelling beyond the English classes they took in high school and the one Media Studies course they took as an elective in college. Most of them have a very unsophisticated understanding of narrative structure, thematics, tropes, subtext, etc. They mainly think in terms of genres at the VERY broadest level. Also, not infrequently, they don’t watch or have much knowledge of the shows they are supposed to be doing research on, beyond what they’ve read on IMDb or Wikipedia or what is generally common knowledge. Unless they by chance happen to watch the shows themselves (which often they don’t) they often know very little about the shows they are crafting these questions about. Again, partly because they think it is like the coffee maker, and you don’t need to understand it in any depth to research it. (I know this must sound insane to you as avid media consumers, but that is the general attitude among those who do market research) There is such a lack of sophistication in how people in the business side of the industry understand media and storytelling. Most of them are either MBAs or social scientists and their training has not prepared them to examine fictional works with the kind of depth that people in the Humanities (who are specifically trained to study texts) have. Somehow, despite the fact that the Humanities is all about understanding texts, that is the one discipline they make almost no use of in the business side of Hollywood. And boy howdy does it show. *** Point 4 – average consumers CANNOT ARTICULATE WHY THEY LIKE THINGS. Particularly media things. I know this sounds condescending, but it is my honest observation. It is unbelievably hard to get people to have enough self-awareness to explain why they actually like things, especially things as mentally and emotionally complex as media. What typically happens when you ask people why they like a TV show or movie, for example? They will tell you what they most NOTICE about the TV show or movie, or what is distinctive to them about it (which may or may not have anything to do with what they actually LIKE about it). They will say things like “I like the genre”, “I think it’s funny”, “The car chases are exciting”, “I want to see the detective solve the puzzle.” Sometimes you can get them to talk about what they find relatable about it, if you push them a little. But often they leave it at either the level of literal identity (young black woman), basic personality traits (she’s a social butterfly and so am I) or situations they’ve personally experienced (I relate to this story of a man losing his father to cancer because I lost a close family member to cancer). But the vast, vast, vast majority of them can’t go to the deeper level of: a) Why X representation of a young black woman feels accurate/authentic/relatable and Y representation doesn’t b) Why it matters to me that X,Y,Z aspects of my personality, identity, experience get reflected in media whereas I don’t really care about seeing A,B,C aspects of my personality, identity, or experience reflected in media c) How and why they are relating to characters when they can’t see the literal connection between their identity/experience and the character’s identity/experience. (For example, many people have argued that women often relate to Dean Winchester because a lot of his struggles and past negative experiences are more stereotypical of women – being forced to raise a younger sibling on behalf of an actual parent, being seen and treated as beautiful/sexually desirable but vacuous/unintelligent, his body being treated as an instrument for a more powerful group to quite literally possess, etc. Part of the reason Supernatural has always been such a mystery/problem for the CW and Warner Bros is they could never crack the code at this level. Never.) Part of the reason they can’t crack these codes is average people CANNOT give you that kind of feedback in a survey or a focus group, or even an in-depth interview (much of the time). They just don’t have the self-awareness or the vocabulary to get it at that level. Let alone asking them to articulate why Game of Thrones is compelling to them in an era where wealth disparity is creating a ruling class that is fundamentally incompetent at maintaining a just/functional society, which is especially concerning at this particular moment, given the existential threat we face due to climate change. And the truth is, that IS part of what people – even average people – are responding to in Game of Thrones. But what they’ll tell you when you do market research on it is: they like the dragons, they like the violence, they relate to Tyrion Lannister being a smart mouth, maybe they’ll say they like the moral ambiguity of many of the conflicts (if they are more sophisticated than average). But the ‘Dean Winchester is heavily female coded despite his veneer of ultra-masculinity’ or the ‘Game of Thrones is a prescient metaphor for the current political dynamics and fissures of modern western society’ is the level you ACTUALLY need to get to. And most market research can’t get you that because the people ASKING the questions don’t know what to ask to get to this level, and most of the respondents couldn’t give you the answers even IF you were asking them the right questions (which usually you are not) And I’m not saying average people are dumb because they can’t do this. But it requires practice, it requires giving the matter a great deal of in-depth thought, and most people just don’t care enough about it to do that while taking a market research survey. (I know this is going to feel counter-intuitive to people on Tumblr. But you have to remember, you are NOT average media consumers. You are highly atypical media consumers who have far more self-awareness and a much more sophisticated engagement with media than the average person watching TV. If you didn’t, you probably wouldn’t be here talking about it in the first place) Point 4.1 – People also lie/misrepresent their own experiences to market researchers because they want to maintain certain self-narratives. You have no idea how many people would get disqualified from our surveys for saying they watched less than 5 hours of TV a week. And sure, that might actually be true for a few of them. But if you watch TV with any regularity at all (which most people in modern America do) you probably watch more than 5 hours a week. The problem is, people think it makes them sound lazy to say they watch 15-20 hours a week, even though that’s about 2-3 hours a day (which actually isn’t THAT high). People lie and misrepresent their behaviors, thoughts and feelings because it can be socially uncomfortable to admit you do what you actually do or feel how you actually feel, even in the context of an anonymous survey, let alone a focus group or a one-on-one interview. People want to make themselves look good to THEMSELVES and to the researchers asking them questions. But that makes the market research data on media (and lots of other things) very questionable. For example, one finding we saw more than once in the surveys I was involved in conducting was people would radically downplay how much the romance elements of a story mattered to them, even large portions of female respondents. When we would ask people in surveys what parts of the story they were most invested in, romances ALWAYS came out among the lowest ranked elements. And yet, any passing familiarity with fandom would tell you that finding is just WRONG. It’s wrong. People are just flat out lying about how much that matters to them because of the negative connotations we have around being invested in romance. And never mind the issue of erotic/sexual content. (I don’t mean sexual identity here, I mean sexy content). The only people who will occasionally cop to wanting the erotic fan service is young men (and even they are hesitant to do so in market research) and women frequently REFUSE to admit that stuff in market research, or they radically downplay how much it matters to them and in what ways. There is still so much stigma towards women expressing sexuality in that way. Not to mention, you have to fight tooth and nail to even include question about erotic/sexual content because oftentimes the clients don’t even want to go there at all, partly because it is awkward for everyone involved to sit around crafting market research questions to interrogate what makes people hot and bothered. That’s socially awkward for the researchers doing the research and the businesspeople who have to sit in rooms and listen to presentations about why more women find Spock sexier than Kirk. (Which was a real thing that happened with the original Star Trek, and the network couldn’t figure out why) Aside from people not have enough deeper level self-awareness to get at what they really like about media content, they also will lie or misrepresent certain things to you because they are trying to maintain certain self-narratives and are socially performing that version of themselves to researchers. *** Point 5 – Qualitative data is way more useful for understanding people’s relationships to media. However, quantitative data is way more valued and relied upon both due to larger market research industry standards and because quantitative data is just seen as harder/more factual than qualitative data. A lot of media market research involves gathering both qualitative and quantitative data and reporting jointly on both. (Sometimes you only do one or the other, depending on your objectives, but doing both is considered ‘standard’ and higher quality). However, quantitative data is heavily prioritized in reporting and when there is a conflict between what they see in qualitative versus quantitative data, the quant data is usually relied upon to be the more accurate of the two. This is understandable to an extent, because quantitative surveys usually involve responses from a couple thousand participants, whereas qualitative data involves typically a few dozen participants at most, depending on whether you did focus groups, individual interviews, or ‘diaries’/ethnography. The larger sample is considered more reliable and more reflective of ‘the audience’ as a whole. However, quantitative surveys usually have the flattest, least nuanced data, and they can only ever reflect what questions and choices people in the survey were given. In something like focus groups or individual interviews or ethnographies, you still structure what you ask people, but they can go “off script.” They can say things you never anticipated (as a researcher) and can explain themselves and their answers with more depth. In a survey, participants can only “say” what they survey lets them say based on the questions and question responses that are pre-baked for them. And as I’ve already explained, a lot of times these quantitative surveys are written by people with no expertise in media, fiction, or textual analysis, and so they often are asking very basic, not very useful questions. In sum, the data that is the most relied upon is the least informative, least nuanced data. It is also the MOST likely to reflect the responses of people who don’t actually qualify for the research but have become good at scamming the system to make extra money. With qualitative research, they are usually a little more careful screening people (poorly qualified participants still make it through, but not as often as with mass surveys, where I suspect a good 35% of participants, at least, probably do not actually qualify for the research and are just working the system). 

Most commonly, when market research gets reported to business decision-makers, it highlights the quantitative data, and uses the qualitative data to simply ‘color in’ the quantitative data. Give it a face, so to speak. Qualitative data is usually supplemental to quant data and used more to make the reports ‘fun’ and ‘warm’ because graphs and charts and stats by themselves are boring to look at in a meeting. (I’m not making this up, I can’t tell you how many times I was told to make adjustments on how things were reported on because they didn’t want to bore people in the meeting). (Sub-point – it is also worth noting that you can’t report on anything that doesn’t fit easily on a power point slide and isn’t easily digestible to any random person who might pick it up and read it. The amount of times I was told to simplify points and dumb things down so it could be made ‘digestible’ for a business audience, I can’t even tell you. It was soul crushing and another reason I stopped doing this job full time. I had to make things VERY dumb for these business audiences, which often meant losing a lot of the point I was actually trying to make) Point 5.1 – Because of the way that representative sampling works, quantitative data can be very misleading, particularly in understanding audience/fandom sentiments about media. As I’m sure most of you know, sampling is typically designed to be representative of the population, broadly speaking. So, unless a media company is specifically out to understand LGBTQ consumers or Hispanic/Latinx consumers, it will typically sample using census data as a template and represent populations that way. Roughly 50/50 male/female. Roughly even numbers in different age brackets, roughly representative samplings of the racial make-up of the country, etc. (FYI, they do often include a non-binary option in the gender category these days, but it usually ends up being like 5 people out of 2000, which is not enough of a sample to get statistical significance for them as a distinct group)   There is a good reason to do this, even when a show or movie has a disproportionately female audience, or young audience. Because they need enough sample in all of the “breaks” (gender, race, age, household income, etc.) to be able to make statistically sound statements about each subgroup. If you only have 35 African American people in your sample of 1000, you can’t make any statistically sound statements about that African American cohort. The sample is just too small. So, they force minimums/quotas in a lot of the samples, to ensure they can make statistically sound statements about all the subgroups they care about. They use ratings data to understand what their audience make up actually is. (Which also has major failings, but I’ll leave that alone for the minute) With market research, they are not usually looking to proportionately represent their audience, or their fandom; they are looking to have data they can break in the ways they want to break it and still have statistically significant subgroups represented. But that means that when you report on the data as a whole sample – which you often do – it can be very skewed towards groups who don’t make up as large a portion of the show’s actual audience, or even if they do, they don’t tend to be the most invested, loyal, active fans. Men get weighted equally to women, even when women make up 65% of the audience, and 80% of the active fandom. Granted, they DO break the data by gender, and race, and age, etc. and if there are major differences in how women versus men respond, or younger people versus older people, they want to know that...sometimes. But here’s where things get complex. So, if you are doing a sample of Supernatural viewers. And you do the standard (US census-based) sampling on a group of 2000 respondents (a pretty normal sample size in market research). ~1000 are going to be female. But with something they call “interlocking quotas” the female sample is going to be representative of the other groupings to a degree. So, the female sample will have roughly equal numbers of all the age brackets (13-17, 18-24, 25-34, etc.). And it will have roughly 10% non-heterosexual respondents, and so on. They do this to ensure that these breaks aren’t too conflated with each other. (For example, if your female sample is mostly younger and your male sample is mostly older, how do you know whether it is the gender or the age that is creating differences in their responses? You don’t. So, you have to make sure that all the individual breaks (gender, race, age) have a good mix of the other breaks within them, so groups aren’t getting conflated) But what that means is, Supernatural, whose core fandom is (at a conservative guess) 65% younger, queer, women, gets represented in a lot of statistical market research sampling as maybe 50-100 people, in a 2000-person survey. 50-100 people can barely move the needle on anything in a 2000-person survey. Furthermore, usually in the analysis of data like this, you don’t go beyond looking at 2 breaks simultaneously. So you may look at young female respondents as a group, or high income male respondents, or older white respondents, but you rarely do more than 2 breaks combined. And the reason for that is, by the time you get down to 3 breaks or more (young, Hispanic, women) you usually don’t have enough sample to make statistically significant claims. (It also just takes longer to do those analyses and as I explained in the beginning, they are always rushing this stuff). To do several breaks at a time you’d have to get MUCH larger samples, and that’s too expensive for them. And again, I want to stress, this type of sampling isn’t intended to sinisterly erase anyone. Kind of the opposite. It is intended to make sure most groups have enough representation in the data that you can make sound claims about them on the subgroup level. The problem is that it can create a very skewed sense of their overall audience sentiment when they take the data at ‘face value’ so to speak, and don’t weight segments based on viewership proportion, or fandom engagement, etc. Point 5.2 – Which leads me to my next point, which is that fandom activity that doesn’t have a dollar amount attached to it doesn’t make you a ‘valuable’ segment in their minds. One of the breaks they ALWAYS ask for in data like this is high income people, and people who spend a lot of MONEY on their media consumption. And they do prioritize those people’s responses and data quite a bit.   And guess what – young women aren’t usually high-income earners, and although some of them are high spenders on media, high spending on media and media related merch skews toward higher income people just because they HAVE more disposable income. Older white men are usually the highest income earners (absolutely no surprise) and they are more likely in a lot of cases to report spending a lot on the media they care about. Having expendable income makes you more important in the eyes of people doing market research than if you’ve spent every day for the last 10 years blogging excessively about Supernatural. They don’t (really) care about how much you care. They care about how much money you can generate for them. And given that young audiences don’t watch TV live anymore, and they give all their (minimal) expendable income to Netflix and Hulu, you with your Supernatural blog and your 101 essays about Destiel is all but meaningless to many of them (from a business standpoint) Now, some of them kind of understand that online fandom matters to the degree that fandom spreads. Fandom creates fandom. But if the fandom you are helping to create is other young, queer women with minimal income who only watch Supernatural via Netflix, well, that’s of very limited value to them as well. I don’t want to suggest they don’t care about you at ALL. Nor do I want to suggest that the “they” we are talking about is even a cohesive “they.” Different people in the industry have different approaches to thinking about fandom, consumer engagement and strategy, market research and how it ought to be understood/used, and so on. They aren’t a monolith. BUT, they are, at the end of the day, a business trying to make money. And they are never going to place the value of your blogging ahead of the concrete income you can generate for them. (Also, highly related to my point about people lying, men are more likely to SAY they have higher incomes than they do, because it’s an ego thing for them. And women are more likely to downplay how much money they spend on ‘frivolous’ things like fandom because of the social judgement involved. Some of the money gender disparity you see in media market research is real, but some of it is being generated by the gender norms people are falsely enacting in market research– men being breadwinners, women wanting to avoid the stereotype of being frivolous with money) *** In sum/tl;dr: Point 1 – Market research in general is not well conducted because of a variety of constraints including time, money, and the historical norms of how the industry operates (e.g., there being a large subsection of almost professionalized respondents who know how to game the system for the financial incentives) Point 2 – Media is a highly atypical kind of product being studied more or less as if it were equivalent to a coffeemaker or a pair of jeans. Point 3 – Most of the people studying media consumption in the market research field have no expertise or background in media, film, narrative, storytelling, etc. They are primarily people who were trained as social scientists and statisticians, and they aren’t well equipped to research media properties and people’s deeper emotional attachment and meaning-making processes related to media properties. Point 4(etc.) – Average consumers typically don’t have enough self-awareness or the vocabulary to explain the deep, underlying reasons they like pieces of media. Furthermore, when participating in market research, people lie and misrepresent their thoughts, behaviors, and emotional responses for a variety of reasons including social awkwardness and preserving certain self-narratives like “I’m above caring about dumb, low-brow things like romance.” Point 5 (etc.) – Quantitative data is treated as way more meaningful, valuable, and ‘accurate’ than qualitative data, and this is a particular problem with media market research because of how varied and complex people’s reactions to media can be. Also, the nature of statistical sampling, and how it is done, can massively misrepresent audience sentiments toward media and fail to apprehend deeper fandom sentiments and dynamics. There is also a strong bias towards the responses of high income/high spending segments, which tend to be older and male and white. Side but important point – Research reports are written to be as entertaining and digestible as possible, which sounds nice in theory, but in practice it often means you lose much of the substance you are trying to communicate for the sake of not boring people or making them feel stupid/out of their depth. (Because god forbid you make some high-level corporate suit feel stupid) *** What can be done about this? Well, the most primary thing I would recommend is for you to participate in market research, particularly if you are American (there’s a lot of American bias in researching these properties, even when they have large international fanbases). However, some international market research is done and I recommend looking into local resources for participation, where ever you are. If you are American, there are now several market research apps you can download to your smart phone and participate in paid market research through (typically paid via PayPal). Things like dscout and Surveys On the Go. And I know there are more. You should also look into becoming panelists for focus groups, particularly if you live near a large metropolitan area (another bias in market research). Just Google it and you should be able to figure it out fairly easily. Again, it is PAID, and your perspective will carry a lot more weight when it is communicated via a focus group or a dscout project, versus when it is shouted on Twitter. However, that’s merely a Band-Aid on the bigger issue, which I consider to be the fact that businesspeople think the Humanities is garbage, even when they make their living off it. There is virtually no respect for the expertise of fictional textual analysis, or how it could help Hollywood make better content. And I don’t know what the fix is for that. I spent 4 years of my life trying to get these people to understand what the Humanities has to offer them, and I got shouted down and dismissed so many times I stopped banging my head against that wall. I gave up. They don’t listen, mostly because conceding to the value of deep-reading textual analysis as a way to make better content would threaten the whole system of how they do business. And I mean that literally. So many people’s jobs, from the market researchers to the corporate strategists to the marketing departments to the writers/creatives to the C-level executives, would have to radically shift both their thinking and their modes of business operation and the inertia of ‘that’s the way it’s always been done’ is JUST SO POWERFUL. I have no earthly idea how to stop that train, let alone shift it to an entirely different track. BTW, if you want the deeper level of analysis of why I can’t stop rewatching Moneyball now that it’s been added to Netflix, the above paragraph should give you a good hint

i dont "kin for fun" but through tiktok i found out about the whole kin for fun vs actual otherkin... situation ig? im having a really hard time taking it seriously... maybe im just burnt out and bitter from dealing with the worlds current events, and maybe its because on tiktok the only people i saw mad about it were white people, but you're the most reasonable person ive seen talking about it (a lot of other posts have this odd tone that 12 year olds on tiktok saying kin is the worlds greatest opression and it weirds me out) so ig my question is just... why exactly does this matter? why does it matter enough to post about and care about and not just ignore? /gen

Hey! I don’t blame you for being a bit weirded out by it, we’re a weird subculture and we’re well aware of it! xD I appreciate you taking the time to actually look into it past your first knee-jerk reaction, especially considering burnout and the state of things.

I’m not totally sure if you’re asking why otherkinity matters or why the “kin for fun” being wrong matters, so I’ll answer both - they’re pretty well tied together anyway.

The short version:

Otherkinity is an identity. It’s who we are, we can’t choose to pick it up or put it down, and it comes with struggles - though no, ‘kin are not systematically oppressed (though we are pretty badly bullied and, at this point, pushed out of our own words and spaces).

What people calling roleplay/relating to/projecting onto characters “kinning for fun” does is steal our words, make them meaningless, and in doing so, make it difficult or impossible for us to find each other. If someone says “I kin [x],” I no longer know whether they mean “I am [x] on an intrinsic level” or “haha I relate to this character a lot”. I no longer know whether they actually share my experiences or if they’re going to turn on me and call me “crazy” as soon as they realize I’m not exaggerating or joking or roleplaying. It’s done massive harm to the community as a whole because it’s become difficult to tell whether someone is actually ‘kin or if they’ve misunderstood the whole thing - and because antikin rhetoric, which I’m seeing more and more in KFF spaces, hurts far more when it’s coming from inside what you thought was a community space than when it’s coming from self-labeled “antikin.”

There are other words for roleplaying and relating to and projecting onto characters. Hell, there are words for strongly identifying with-but-not-as characters/things, though usually KFF people don’t even seem serious enough for those to fit in my experience. I’m really not sure why these people are so determined to steal and misuse our words, words that were specifically created to mean something else, when they already have their own and are just refusing to use them. (Or, hell, if you don’t feel like those fit, make your own. We did. It’s your turn to put in the work. (General you, not you-the-anon, of course.))

An analogy, if that still doesn’t quite land for you:

Consider, for a moment, the transgender community. I am aware this is a dangerous thing to say, but bear with me. Obvious CW for hypothetical transphobia up ahead is obvious.

Consider if you were part of the trans community (I don’t know if you are or not), having finally found a word to explain why you feel the way you do about yourself, why your experiences don’t seem to match up with those of everyone else around you. Having found a community, a home, full of other people like you, people you never would have met if not for words like “transgender” and “gender dysphoria/euphoria” that were created specifically to describe your experiences.

Now consider if people suddenly stumbled across your community for the first time who were not trans themselves. They see community jokes and lighthearted posts out of context, because Tumblr and Twitter aren’t exactly conducive to making sure people find the Transgender 101 information posts first. They don’t bother to do further research, assuming they understand: ah, these people like to crossdress! They like to pretend they’re a different gender! This seems like a fun hobby, I want in!

They begin to post things like this. They post photos of them crossdressing and caption them “hi, I’m [name], and I trans men!” and things of the like. Suddenly the concept of “transing for fun” seems to be everywhere - and it’s not at all what being trans actually is, but these people either don’t know or don’t care. When actual trans people try to politely correct them, they’re accused of “gatekeeping” - and to be clear, this is not “nonbinary people aren’t real,” it’s “transgender means you identify as a gender other than the one you were assigned at birth, and you’re self-identifying as the gender you were assigned at birth 100% and telling us this is just a fun hobby for you, therefore you’re not trans, you’re crossdressing or doing drag or being GNC. That’s fine, but it’s not being trans - you have other words to describe that, use those.”

(Yes, I am aware these things have a history with the trans community - please just ignore that for the sake of the analogy and bear with me on the slightly simplified version of this. “Kinning for fun” does not have that same history with the otherkin community.)

...And then the response to those attempted corrections, in some corners, turns into “wait, you ACTUALLY think you’re another gender? idk that sounds pretty unhealthy, maybe you should see a psychologist or something :\” and “you’re taking this too seriously.”

I imagine, in this hypothetical scenario, you’d also be pretty fuckin peeved.

(Obviously, in this hypothetical scenario, systematic transphobia would be an issue as well, which isn’t the case for otherkin - again, you’re gonna have to bear with me on the simplification for sake of analogy there.)

(EDIT: this is not an anti-MOGAI/exclusionist argument, this is “you’re literally telling me you don’t fit the definition,” explanation on that here)

The long version, which is probably still worth reading if you have the time and energy:

Otherkinity is... pretty core to who I am, who we as a group of individuals are. We live with being otherkin on a daily basis. Many of us spent a long time feeling different and disconnected and not understanding why until we found the otherkin community. Even people like me, who don’t share that experience and still had social connection - I’ve still had to live with weird differences that I had to learn to mask when necessary; instincts that don’t line up with human society well, feeling body parts that weren’t there and that no one else ever seemed to have, things that other kids grew out of because it was just make-believe for them and I... didn’t, because it was never make-believe for me to begin with. Oh, sure, I played make-believe too - I played warrior cats and house and all those things with the other kids, but there were things that weren’t play-pretend for me too. I didn’t have an explanation for it for a long time - it was just how I was, I was weird, and fortunately for me personally I was okay with that (many of those with species dysphoria or more trouble connecting with humans have more problems from that than I did).

And then I found the word “otherkin.” And suddenly everything fell into place, and I had an explanation for the things I’d been experiencing, and there were other people like me. Something I’d assumed didn’t exist. I found others who shared my unique experiences, who were talking about how to cope with the instinct to growl or snap jaws at people instead of expressing annoyance in a human way instead of just saying “that’s weird, don’t do that”, who were talking about dealing with phantom wings and tails, who understood me. I wasn’t weird, I wasn’t broken, I was exactly what one would expect from a dragon living in human skin. I found an explanation for myself. I found a home.

That is why otherkinity matters - it is who we are, it’s not something we can walk away from (certainly not most of us, anyway), and it’s something many of us need the support of the community to help deal with on a daily basis. Being a nonhuman in human society isn’t always easy, but it’s not something we can just magically stop being - it’s core to who we are, we (generally) didn’t choose to be this way, and we (generally) can’t choose to stop. Which is fine - the vast majority of us can cope with it just fine, with a little advice and help and space to be our authentic selves in. We found each other, we built this community from the ground up to make a space and words to make finding each other easier - or possible at all.

Thus we come to the second half of our story.

It was only a couple of years ago that the “kin for fun” trend started getting big. It had existed before that, of course, but it only started going mainstream two, maybe three years ago, from what I can tell. Suddenly people were treating “kin” like it meant relating to, projecting onto, roleplaying as, or just really really liking a character or thing - not being that thing, which is what it actually means. Not long after that, it became hard to tell whether someone saying “I kin this” meant they were that thing, that they were actually part of our community - or that they really really liked that thing and either didn’t know or couldn’t be bothered to learn that that wasn’t the case for us.

Not long after that, it became relatively commonplace to hear phrases like “otherkin are ruining kinning!!” and “you’re taking this too seriously” and “idk, if it’s that serious for you that sounds unhealthy. maybe you should get some help :\” (all directly quoted, or as exactly quoted as I can remember, from things KFF people have said to me or people I know).

It is a special kind of hell, I think, to be told “you’re taking this too seriously, that’s unhealthy” by people who are taking words created to describe your experiences, not theirs, and misusing them to mean something that you do for fun on a weekend instead of something that’s intrinsic to your being.

Perhaps more importantly, like I’ve said, it’s making it almost impossible to know whether someone who says “I kin [x]” is actually ‘kin or if they’re misusing our words to mean something else entirely. The entire point of words is to communicate ideas, and once you start misusing words to mean something totally different than what they actually mean, that communication falls apart and suddenly we might as well not have those words at all. Especially when the community is small enough and obscure enough that we’re starting to be outnumbered by the misinformation. We’re being run out of our own words, words we created to describe our experiences specifically - because we’re a small community that the wider internet can easily drown out by sheer numbers of people who either don’t know any better or don’t care to learn.

That’s the harm it does - the harm it is doing, right now. That’s why it’s important enough to post about. That’s why it matters - because we’re fighting desperately to hang onto our own words so that others like us can actually find us. Because we’re seeing young nonhumans go “this isn’t a kin, I actually am this” and screaming “No, I’m so sorry that this is what the misinformation has done to you, that’s exactly what otherkin means, you have a place here, please don’t let these non-’kin misusing our words drive you away from the very community you’re looking for and that you belong in.” Because we can’t even communicate effectively about our own experiences anymore except in semi-closed spaces like Discord servers and forums (and the number of Discord servers overrun with KFF people is absurd).

......This got very long. Hopefully it at least explained why it matters so much to me and others a bit better ^^; Thanks for hearing me out, and thank you again for looking into this beyond your initial knee-jerk reaction - I really do appreciate it.

(For further reading, if that text wall didn’t blow you out of the water completely, I recommend my “kin for fun” tag, which has more posts like this in both short and long form.)

an analysis on alice oseman’s writing in radio silence (only radio silence since i’ve yet to read any of her other books) because wow this human can wRITE:

(this will contain spoilers so don’t blame me if i did spoil you<3)

this will just be split up to sections because i have a lot to say and this is how i organize my thoughts best.

The way she writes first person P.O.V;

The entirety of ‘Radio Silence’ is written from the perspective of our main character, Fraces Janvier, speaking from a future stand. The entire story is written in a past tense from the perspective of an older Frances who knows what will end up happening, who knows everything.

From someone who enjoys writing, first person point of view is sO HARD TO WRITE. I was honestly mesmerized by the way Oseman wrote this book. Another thing about the writing is that the first-person point of view, truly made the story feel genuine and real. I don’t know what was Alice Oseman’s age while writing this book but it honestly feels like such a true experience of a 17-18 year old who goes a huge change in her life and doesn’t really know what to do with herself, and then finds something she’s passionate about. Truly passionate. It just really feels genuine and true and so I wanted to point it out.

The way the plot builds up;

I think, one of the main reasons Radio Silence is a comforting and fun book that many people enjoy reading _and _rereading, is because of the way the plot is built. Because the book is written in the point of view of Frances, in first person, she describes the plot of the book like she experienced it. It was getting to know someone from ‘saving his drunk ass in a pub’ to ‘this is my very close friend that I truly cherish and don’t want to lose’. And because of that, the entire feel to the plot up to when the universe city fandom figures out that Frances is Toulouse and through that, that Aled is the person behind the anonymous podcast, is so... organic in a way. 

The way this book is written truly makes you feel like you’re a little speck of dust in the air, looking down at these two absolute nerds slowly become so close. You have fun with them, you laugh with them, you get shocked with them, you feel with them. You feel with Frances throughout the book in its entirety. Feeling with these characters as they slowly build their friendship is what makes the big blow when tumblr (and the internet) find out Aled’s identity. An identity he wanted to keep secret. He needed to keep that secret. Because there he could be anyone he wanted. He didn’t need to think of what X, Y or Z would think about him after he said this or that. It was his space. And through Frances, we learn that. And we learn how much it matters to him. And like Frances, we want Aled to have this space. To have this bubble. 

And as the plot moves forward from that big blow of that tumblr post revealing who Radio is (aka, Aled), we feel with Frances and for her. Because after the action of some anonymous user on the internet, she lost her closest friend at the time. She lost a person she cared so much for. And that is emphasized so well when Aled snaps at Frances outside the pub. When he yells and shouts and says things until Raine takes Frances away. And we feel so bad, with Frances. Because Aled lost his bubble, Frances lost her friend and her safe space, and everyone lost something from the situation. 

This is brilliantly brought to light even more with the ‘Childhood Kisses’ episode, where we finally see Daniel talking. We see how bad and heartbroken he feels, and we feel so bad for him because he doesn’t deserve this. None of the main cast of characters did. 

And so, Alice Oseman made us feel for her characters. From Aled, to Frances, to Daniel, to Crays, to Raine. We feel for the characters because we care for them.

The stakes;

The stakes in Radio Silence are directly tied into my last point — the way that the plot was built up. Because, if we hadn’t seen Frances and Aled build their friendship like we did we would’ve never cared about how Aled snapped at Frances. We wouldn’t have had any connection to him, and I mean yeah, losing a friend is hard, but if we hadn’t seen that the personal level of empathy to both Frances and Aled would’ve been lacked in this situation.

This is also very well seen in both the time Aled was struggling to keep his identity a secret and the time Carol almost took Aled with her on the train from uni (at the very end). We know Aled and we know how important it is for him to 1) have universe city, 2) be able to keep universe city a secret from the world and his mom specifically, and 3) not go “home” with her because that’s dangerous for him. If we hadn’t seen Aled and Frances grow close (as I’ve mentioned before), these situations would have had no emotional affect on the reader because you wouldn’t have known Aled.

Basically Alice did an amazing job, I’m in awe<33

Alice Oseman will have you falling for each and every one of her plot twists;

In the entirety of the book Alice has planted multiple little ‘traps’ for you, the reader. These ‘traps’ are just pieces of information that are never confirmed to be true, but are assumed to be based on what we know from Frances and the story so far.

Examples; the whole ‘who is February Friday ordeal’, wtf is going on with Aled and Daniel’s relationship, what’s going to be Frances and Alex’s relationship status, whether Aled was going home or not, and so much more because she is good with this shit.

Using the correct tone to convey whatever she wants to, Alice Oseman managed to keep the reader at the edge of their seat, making them think “oh this is so obvious! I know this!” thinking they had figured it out when she is ten steps ahead of you the entire time. That’s such a smart way of keeping your readers interested and invested and she did it in a way that didn’t feel annoying or ‘ugh i didn’t get this right as well damn it’ but in a interesting and enticing way because the clues — and the solution — to the actual answer were and are right in front of you the whole time.

More on the tone of the whole book;

This book can pride itself on correct tone usage with its writing. Something I personally love to look for while looking at writing critically is the tone of the writing. Does the writing feel like this or that, specifically in dialogue or first person point of view. Does it actually feel like different characters speaking or thinking or narrating, if it’s one person, is the narrating consistent? And with radio silence I can say it just checked all of the boxes.

With every chapter I can feel the exact tone Fraces would say this in if this was spoken, I can understand exactly why it’s her speaking and when she’s speaking to her mother, or Aled, or Raine or Daniel I know who’s she’s talking to and why. There’s so much personality splattered through their words both while speaking (and in Fraces’s case) while narrating honestly it was so brilliantly done I was just having so much fun the entire time.

A little conclusion since I tend to ramble;

In her book, ‘Radio Silence’, Alice Oseman tackles the first person point of view as if it’s a piece of cake, builds the plot brilliantly in a way that makes you connect to the characters and feel like they’re just chatting and enjoying their time together while actually building a plot so nicely, and when it comes into play it’s so well executed, not out of the blue, just *chef’s kiss*.

Through the first part of her book, Alice creates stakes to further conflicts so well and so smoothly it’s honestly mesmerizing, and plants little traps, tricking you into thinking one thing without confirming it while the answer is right under your nose. It’s just so well done I’m gonna sob smh.

+ the tone usage of the entire book was superb.

Anyways, hope you enjoyed my ramble. Have a good day babes <3

Just wanted to say thank you so much for all the brainworms you have been giving me and my friends for the past few hours about Ayin and all the analyses you've been doing about him.

I have been losing my mind in the middle of the night thinking about all the things you've said, turning it over like crazy and trying to compare it with the gameplay I've had of Lobotomy Corporation and Library of Ruina.

Please do more analysis and share more of your ideas! Please? Please, with cherry on top? Please, I beg of you?

Especially if you have in-depth ideas of analyses for the Sephirah and how it relates to both their own characters and Ayin and Angela.

I thank you greatly in advance!

the implication that i've infected an entire friend group with my brainworms is power that will 100% go to my head i feel amazing. what else is analysis posting except trying to inflict people with the same thoughts bouncing around your skull on repeat

i DO have shit on the sephirah but mostly netzach, because i love netzach, and i in fact found my discord ramble about him (and chesed)

i dont have things on how they relate to A and Angela specifically because I mainly kept thinking abt Reverbaration Ensemble parallels... i have so many thoughs abt Netzach and Bremen.

(but if you want me to talk about, say, a specific core supression, or floor realization... i have a lot of thoughts on floor realizations.)

First off I am so sorry that you seem to think I'm smart because that means i have the perfect opportunity to inflict you with this

okay now we can get to the serious stuff

[transcript:

containment breach:

quick ramble abt lor again but i love the ensemble receptions so much. i'm at chesed's rn, and i know he's been chill the entire game, but him just refusing to comment on jae-hoon's tragedy seems, out of context, a dick move, but also is so important for chesed to do? he recognizes that another's suffering is not related to him, that he can't do anything about it, and that this is fine. The closest i'd describe chesed in lobcorp would be "activist burnout." Due to betraying the lab from garion's pressure, chesed was so consumed by guilt, he just blamed himself for everything and became more callous because it's already his fault, right? There's nothing he can do. But in lor, he knows what his responsibilities are, and allows himself joy where he can find it. I love the ensemble receptions bcuz they are just examplary of each patron libriarian's growth and i iqbfjc (sobs)

GOD this sure is a paragraph

also have to salute netzach for carrying his scene all by himself as the musicians of bremen just (animal noises) :pray:

ykno being online i realize that i'm not quiet at all i am a complete and utter chatterbox /end]

[transcript:

containment breach:

thinking abt netzach's scene where he doesn't talk to bremen, because he can't, but recognizes this who has not only lost themself in their own art but also their own suffering

i just i love netzach so much his entire character arc is abt learning to live with depression and learning to want to live again

so he becomes unable to understand, really, why someone would sacrifice themselves for their own art

when he started out just, similar yet different from bremen, completely submerged in his own misery

musicians of bremen reminds me i still have bremen bon bons at home i should eat those. they r tasty /end]

i wanna specifically dig into this scene more because i love that scene, a lot.

Art as we get to know it in the City is irrevocably tied to violence. Puppets are made of human bodies, music is played on bones and sinews. To the artists of the City, to create art is to make someone suffer. Rewatching Netzach's story bits, Roland describes it as doing nothing but seeking stimulation and being provocative.

Furthermore, there is a direct comparison between art and alcohol. To paraphrase more, the Pianist must've been one hell of a stimulant, like getting hit by a strong booze. A performance some are still hungover from.

Netzach's main struggle was addiction because of depression, and his growing appreciation for art is a continuation of that arc. He says himself that art and alcohol are linked.

However, alcohol is a step down from hard drugs. Netzach hasn't quit, but just that step down shows he learned moderation, which makes me very proud of him.

Moderation is what the other.. let's just call them artists, lack. I said in the screencaps above, initially, Netzach was lost in his own suffering, and the musicians of bremen are lost in their art. And if art is seen as equal to suffering, that just means Netzach and Bremen are more similar than expected. (Especially considering what we see of the musicians previously; they’re always trying to chase the same high they experienced listening to the Pianist by any means necessary. The addiction parallels are not suprising.)

I rewatched most of Netzach's lor scenes, and what rlly gets me is that in his first one, he seems almost the exact same as in lobcorp. He doesn't want to work, he got dragged into this against his will, he feels as if his accomplishments are futile.

But! He eventually invites Roland for drinks. He's not drinking to forget alone anymore, he's doing it as social activity. Furthermore, the more time he spends as Patron Librarian of Arts, the more he grows to appreciate art. Art is tied to suffering, still, but it is an expression of suffering. It does not produce any. Or should not, in any case. He sure wishes it wouldn’t.

So we arrive at his Ensemble Reception. This one makes a rather interesting comparison: art as the pursuit of the light. Let me elaborate.

To quote, “Honestly, I wanna tell people to stop doing the kind of art that requires ‘em to immolate themselves and others. Although, on the other hand... I can kinda see where they’re coming from. Art narrows your vision, after all.

You stop caring about the things around you. That’s how most artists seem to act, I think. And so, you indulge in the craft, not realizing that you’re throwing yourself and your surroundings into the fire you started.”

I pose this: Netzach speaks of his experience as Giovanni. Giovanni was a researcher who, when push came to shove, willingly sacrificed himself to advance the project, in hopes of seeing the light, seeing Carmen, again.

Though he dislikes Bremen’s actions, he does not judge them for it, because he recognized that it would be hypocritical. Even so, what shows that he’s grown is that he.. doesn’t want to see people harm themselves anymore. The focus here isn’t if Bremen hurt other people, which they have, but how much of themselves they’ve given up for their performance. He condemns the act, and not the people.

“If I can see that light once more... If I have to muster up the courage to reach it, I’ll gladly do it. It’s easier said than done, though; you need a lot of fearlessness for it.

And I guess you saw the same kind of light I was so desperate to see, yeah? Even if yours was a twisted creature... [...] Though, I don’t think I can tell you off like the others. At least I can see the reason behind it.”

He even explicitly mentions the light. The funny thing is, both Giovanni and Bremen tried to reach the Seed of Light, and Carmen. It’s tragically hilarious that we know Carmen is the voice the Distortions hear.

Hell, the more I think about it, the more you can just compare the Ensemble as a whole to the Outskirts Lab crew, down to Angelica’s puppet body and Carmen’s desecrated corpse.

“And I know pretty well that we have no right to devilishly pick apart each other’s way of art. I’m not very proud of mine, really...”

Netzach just.. gets it. I can’t remember atm, but I don’t think the other Patron Librarians really draw parallels like that. I’m seeing all the parallels now and I can’t unsee them ever. Bro.

His “art,” his way of protecting the light, is still violent. But he sees that perhaps it didn’t have to be, or rather shouldn’t be. I fucking love Netzach so much. His arc just means a lot to me personally, and I’d wager a lot of people who’ve struggled with mental illness would agree.

I’m not gonna get into Netzach’s floor realization here because this post is already long enough, but like, look at the specific flashback of Angela shown in Netzach’s story bits and contrast it to his arc of learning to want to live, and. Yeah.

@undercat-overdog: For the character ask: Young Griff/Faegon? Or Dany, if you want to talk about her instead!

Why not both? I don’t actually have very strong feelings about Young Griff in general, though >.<

Dany

How I feel about this character

Lol, everyone here already knows how I feel about Daenerys Targaryen. Short answer: I LOVE HER. 

Long answer: Okay, it’s just hard for me to break down why I love Dany so much. I think it boils down to how seamlessly the different aspects of her personality blend together, and what kind of person they create. Dany doesn’t have one side that’s cheerful and protective and another side that can be hot-tempered and stern, they go together. The “Mhysa” aspect of her, the one that protects and nurtures, is not in opposition with her “Mother of Dragons” title, the one that can be fierce and impulsive - she’s the Mother of Dragons because she’s Mhysa! If she turns to violence it always comes from a desire to protect. I’ve seen lots of characters where their “violent” side is played up as a contrast to their “sweet” side, to emphasize how jarringly different these two facades of them are, but that’s not at all the case with Dany. They go together.

Besides that, I just love her as a person? Even after all she’s been through, she’s so lively and sweet and loving! But at the same time she’s a queen and a conqueror and a very competent ruler despite having no formal training, and that dichotomy just gets me. This delicate, friendly girl is the mother of dragons, is working to overturn an entire system of dehumanization and oppression, and is a revolutionary leader with the loyalty, love, and faith of so many people. And I like how there are no “easy” fixes in her arc - she’s doing the best she can, she makes mistakes, she learns from them, but she’s also clearly doing really good? She meets with her people, hears and tries to fix their concerns, she works on irrigation, crops, and trade relations, all while concerning herself with the threat of the Sons of the Harpy, too.

On an out-of-universe level, I’ve honestly never come across a female character quite like her. She has power in her own right, as the heir of the Targaryen dynasty, instead of her ties with a man. She’s a revolutionary leader. She’s the chosen hero of many prophecies. She has a goal of reclaiming her birthright as a ruler. All of those things, in modern fantasy, are typically given to male heroes most of the time. She’s pretty much a female power fantasy. 

All the people I ship romantically with this character

Jon! I used to not really care for Jonerys, and Dany is still my favorite by far, but I’ve grown to like Jon a lot too. I love how their arcs parallel each other, I love how both of them are, like, trying desperately to convince the people around them about basic human rights amidst throngs of protest and upheaval, and that they both defy social norms. They’re the same age, they’re both stubborn, they’re both very intelligent and politically astute, they both have a strong sense of justice.

And pssst I also have a Jon/Dany/Tyrion ot3 bias... Jon and Tyrion are already pretty friendly and I enjoyed their interactions, and I’m absolutely in love with that speech about Dany that Tyrion gave to Faegon, the “I know that she spent her childhood in exile[...]” one. Plus, I was very amused when Tyrion was scoffing about how Dany will bake everyone lemon pies and kiss their wounds all better... and meanwhile there’s Dany, literally out among the sick, taking care of them with her own hands, shaming all the grown men in her entourage into helping her. 

My non-romantic OTP for this character

Honestly, I love all of Dany’s interactions with Team Targaryen, but I have a particular soft spot for Dany and Missandei. That interaction between Dany and Missandei, when Dany tells Missandei she’s always welcome to go back to Naath if she wants, and Missandei says she feels safe with Dany... that always gets me. And Dany calls her “my sweet”!

My unpopular opinion about this character

Not sure if this is unpopular? But... I don’t think Dany’s going to be angry or threatened when she finds out about Faegon. I think she’ll be happy that she has family left! Dany struggles with the burden of being the last Targaryen, as far as she knows, and I think it’s pretty out of character for her to be “threatened by a potential rival”, rather than glad that she may have someone to share the weight with. Dany wants to be queen because she believes it’s her duty to her family. Not because she wants to be a leader, or because she wants power, or anything that would warrant her feeling threatened if she finds out that (supposedly) her brother’s son, whom she believed was brutally murdered as an infant, is still alive. 

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon.

This isn’t necessarily something I wish would happen, but I’d be totally satisfied if Dany went back to Essos after defeating the Others, rather than take up Westeros’ throne. (That said, I’d be totally satisfied if she became ruling queen of Westeros, too.) I for one find Essos much more interesting than Westeros, and I love the thought of Dany continuing her crusade against slavery and working to dismantle it even further. While I do think she’s going to do something to resolve the situation in the coming books (ha, assuming they even come out), I just can’t imagine that it’s possible to deal with something as deep-rooted as slavery in one fell swoop. Even after Dany becomes queen of Meereen and works to abolish it, we can see that the problems and the prejudices remain. I’d love for her to continue having a part in getting rid of that. 

Faegon

How I feel about this character

Hmmm. I’m not very invested in Faegon as a character by himself, so, like I said above, I don’t have strong opinions on him. That said, I don’t think he’s all that bad - clearly spoiled and immature, but he’s just doing what people tell him to do. 

I’m more interested in how he’s very much a foil to Dany. While his training was meant to give him, essentially, a common person’s mindset, so that he could be a good ruler who takes care of his people, he hasn’t actually had the character building that was intended for him during that training, because, at the end of the day, he was fine - there were people who’d come in and protect him if something happened. That contrasts Dany, who’s actually experienced terror, poverty, and helplessness, and has never had anyone to defend her during those times. Faegon hasn’t built the same empathy and compassion as Dany because he hasn’t genuinely experienced the hardships of common people. And I love how GRRM makes that clear in their personalities, even though Dany and Faegon have never actually met. 

All the people I ship romantically with this character

I guess... no one? I do have a slight fondness for the idea of a reverse Targaryen (or at least Valyrian) conqueror trio, where Dany is Aegon and Jon and Faegon are her husbands. But for Dany ot3′s I’d much rather go for Jon/Dany/Tyrion, so...

My non-romantic OTP for this character

I mean... I guess it’s sad how Jon Connington is determined to protect Rhaegar’s son even though he believed he failed Rhaegar himself. Of course, though... Faegon not being actually Aegon... 

My unpopular opinion about this character

Err, nothing really. 

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon.

Hm. I think it would be interesting if Dany and Faegon actually reach a genuine alliance. Of course, given their positions, this is very unlikely if not outright impossible - no way that the people backing Faegon will let that happen. But they’re both some of the few remaining Valyrians in Westeros, so something in me finds the idea appealing. 

Personal Thoughts on Pacific Rim: The Black (2021)

I watched season 1 of Pacific Rim: The Black, which released to Netflix on March 4! I’ll admit I wasn’t expecting much, after disappointments with the movie sequel. But the Pacific Rim franchise means a lot to me, so I wanted to give it a try. I’m very pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed this new show and connected with it in various ways. And given how wild my own life has been lately, it was really nice to get lost in something that validated the importance of different kinds of connections, and to not close down when the going gets tough or hard to explain.

PRTB is a pretty emotional, angsty story, and it’s not afraid to explore that over the full 7 episodes. The stakes are high, involving the loss of friends and family. So the characters have a real investment in what they’re doing and why they’re fighting.

The grittier tone of the show is a deviation from the movies, which maybe some people would like or dislike more. I think the seriousness helps to balance out having (yet again) inexperienced teenage protagonists. But the show does still get some fun scenes and quips in, and our main jaeger has a snarky AI who provides both humor and critical thinking checks for our protagonists, which is nice.

I liked the 2013 movie because it showed all of humanity coming together to fight a common enemy. Here, there’s enemies and allies on both sides of the Kaiju war, and even some who are in-between. This is a stronger nod to reality while decreasing the fun fantasy violence of the 2013 film. I don’t think this is inherently a bad thing for this series to do, because a series has a lot more space/time to fill than a movie, and even the 2013 film showed that there were significant cracks in the so-called “unity” that the Pacific Rim universe outwardly celebrated. In the midst of the 2013 movie’s talk about countries setting aside old rivalries, we still had politicians who didn’t care, criminals capitalizing off pseudoscience and unsanctioned nuclear weapons deals, religious sectors rising up to worship the title enemy, people being forced into dangerous jobs to keep from starving to death, the rich and powerful experiencing minimal lifestyle impact vs. poor people being abandoned to die or surviving through precarious means, and even toxic hero worship and intriguingly, the glorification of violence for entertainment and toy sales. So in this new show, we’re really seeing the movie’s cracks expanded and focused on. It’s even more front and center, given that the rest of humanity sees Australia as a lost battlefront and has deemed so many left behind as worth less than the effort it’d take to rescue them. So maybe a part of me misses the cool concept of human unity from the first movie, but even that movie was trying to tell people that unity is an illusion. Here, it’s just so front and center that it can’t be ignored in favor of robot fights, and I actually liked that immediate boldness.

(review continued under the cut)

Some of the details feel AU or divergent from what I remember of the movies, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing to me, so long as the show itself can be internally consistent. Transformers franchise spent forever trying to created an aligned continuity to no avail, so it’s not a detraction for me if Pacific Rim franchise wants to just flail in its own playground too.

The animation style grew on me as time passed, as it worked well for animating jaegers and Kaiju even if humans seem a bit stilted. It better captured a sense of scale compared to the sequel film, and the jaegers felt actually integrated in the animated physical space (something I really struggled with in Uprising). The sense of scale is not as good as the 2013 film. But then this show has a significantly lower budget and is a very different medium, so it was easy enough for me to accept it for what it is and to be glad that we got anything halfway decent, really.

The pacing could have been better across the different points of conflict, but honestly if no adult questioned or tried to undercut a couple of teenagers piloting the last active jaeger on an entire continent, that would have felt even more jarring and unbelievable to me.

I think Pacific Rim as a franchise has never been about reinventing the wheel when it comes to characters. But I was definitely interested in the topical similarities between the movie’s Mako Mori and the show’s Hayley Travis. They both do things in want to help/prove themselves, which results in an incredible backlash that they have to emotionally work through and overcome. In comparison, Raleigh Becket and Taylor Travis are both fairly static supporters, but when their hope drops out, it’s Mako and Hayley who kick in with other options, more energy. If we get a season 2, I’d be curious to see how the show further differentiates and humanizes these new characters. 

The 2013 movie had main characters who were very significantly traumatized. So having protagonists in the show who are very significantly traumatized as well didn’t feel like a distraction to me but instead just a nod to the franchise and how it’s closely tied with struggles to obtain mental health and connection. I’d be more worried if the teenage protagonists were people who consistently don’t think of consequences or who don’t take an apocalypse or immense power from a jaeger seriously...

PRTB definitely earned its TV-14 rating. It can be gritty and dark at times, but coming out of several TV-MA shows, the way it’s visibly handled on the human side is a nice break and sometimes even more emotionally effective than if extremely gory scenes were shown. I’m a little hesitant to get too emotionally attached to any character for future seasons, though, given this rating.

Some scenes were more personally engaging to me than others, but I’ve watched several shows lately where I couldn’t stand to actually finish them or was checking to see how much more time was left. With PRTB, I kept wanting to see what happened next, and time really flew by with some episodes.

The Kaiju shown are incredibly diverse, with some really cool designs. There’s something in here I’ve been wanting to write a fic about/daydreaming about since 2013 and this show actually does the thing in its own way, so I was personally excited about that.

If this show gets a season 2, I’d love to see our protagonists meeting up with more people from all walks of life and exploring various ways people have survived and maintained or redefined a culture in this post-apocalyptic world.

There’s an element of “connective regret” in this show that really personally spoke to me, given that I’ve lost a lot of people in real life suddenly. Like, you assume people will always be there until suddenly they aren’t, and that fact of life can really destabilize a family or found family. This show doesn’t shy away from trying to validate that stress, or from validating how important healthy connections still are in the face of loss or decoupling from other toxic relationships.

Mental health relapses, trust issues, and survivor’s guilt are also a thing in this show, which I found really interesting, and that was something we really only had time to see in small measure in the 2013 film.

I still have some worldbuilding questions, but honestly I clicked on this show hoping for a good time to lose myself in—and I feel like I received that in this season. So I ended the show feeling like, actually excited to talk about it with other people.

There’s plot twists and characters I want to flail about so bad, but that would involve dropping very significant spoilers here, so maybe I better hold off for now. 

But yeah, if anyone else watches this show, please feel free to reach out and flail with me about it!

talk to me about the lingering effects of Rapunzel's trauma

I love this question! My answer is longgggg

First of all, I’ve touched on a few elements of Rapunzel’s trauma in my fanfic “Blossoming Jealousy”: 

“Like when the handmaidens had tried to brush her choppy cap of hair for her, and she’d cried because that was supposed to be a mother’s job, but her new mother hadn’t even offered--obviously because her hair wasn’t special anymore, so of course the Queen didn’t love her, because if she did why hadn’t she come to do it herself? Or when she’d tied her bedsheets together and rappelled from her bedroom window, giving them both a heart attack, because she’d wanted to visit her friends at the Snuggly Duckling and hadn’t realized that as long as she brought a chaperone, they would freely give their permission for her to roam the kingdom as she wished. Or the night they had tried to make her feel more comfortable by having her favorite: hazelnut soup. Despite the chef’s attempts to replicate the recipe, Rapunzel had cheerfully remarked, “It tastes so much different than Mother’s!” 

Of course there's the dangers of information and sensory overload and dealing with the pressure of succeeding at everything because she’s desperate to be liked and viewed as a “worthy” queen and daughter, especially because she’s already good at so many things (baking, knitting, sewing, paper mache, music, chess, you name it). After all, it’s hard to unlearn the concept of conditional love that Gothel clearly hammered into her brain. 

Social interaction of course, and not just learning the nuances of love languages and sarcasm and the different ways to show you care (as we see in the show’s plotlines about her & Cassandra or Monty). I think the most egregious lingering effect of her trauma in this case would be understanding the grey areas of what makes people good and bad. Yes, Gothel was lying about a lot of things, and the world/other people aren’t all bad. But then again, some of what Gothel said is true--there are some people who existed in the Tangled universe who, had they heard about Rapunzel’s magic hair, would have tried to kidnap her and sell it--Stabbingtons, anyone? Rapunzel tries to see the good in everyone, so this might be hard for her to comprehend at first. Also, Gothel herself was able to manipulate Rapunzel by appearing loving and caring at times--I think Rapunzel would find it overwhelming to study those nuances of human behavior. While there are bad people in the world, some can look like good people and do things that may seem “good” for bad reasons. Granted, I think she does understand the flip side of this concept (that some people might do bad things that hurt people but not necessarily BE bad people) thanks to Eugene being so open about his past as a thief. I think this confusing concept may have contributed to her troubles with Cass, as Cass is definitely a character whose morality runs more grey than black and white. 

On a different topic, I think a lot about how difficult it must be to unlearn what Gothel taught her a parent-child relationship should be, especially since Rapunzel is technically an adult. Her parents want to establish boundaries and rules because they know what is and isn’t safe and understand how the world works, but they also have to restrain themselves from being too controlling or infantilizing her/underestimating her abilities. On Rapunzel’s part, she has to figure out how + when to stand up for herself versus when it’s important to listen to their advice, even when she doesn't understand it or may even disagree. 

After spending her whole life forced into the submissive role to her mother’s dominant one, I think Rapunzel would have a hard time balancing her newfound independence with the fact that she still has a lot to learn. To me, this might look like vacillating between being reckless--because she’s desperate to prove she can handle things on her own (as expressed in the show)--and then slipping back into a codependent dynamic, only with Eugene or Pascal instead of Gothel because they are the most familiar and “safe” to her. Examples of this could be insisting that Eugene explain everything new to her, or not wanting to go anywhere without Pascal present. It could also mean that she naturally seeks out Pascal or Eugene when she’s frightened, stressed, overwhelmed, or confused. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and I do believe both would be amazing at comforting her and want to do so, but I think one challenge for her might be learning how to self-soothe when they aren’t there (either because they’re not present, they don’t know what is going on, or they don’t have the emotional energy to comfort someone else). She also might struggle more with learning to trust other people, like her parents, with those feelings instead of always running to Eugene or Pascal. 

On the subject of Pascal, having him by her side 24/7 and being the only remnant of her previous life could also create some problems. Pascal will always understand her on a level no one else can because of what they’ve experienced, so finding boundaries and managing a shift in how much time they spend together as both of them form new friendships and hobbies could also be a journey in itself. 

Additionally, I believe Rapunzel would have a rougher time figuring out the dynamic between her and Queen Arianna. She’s never had a father figure before, so she has no preconceived notions of what that relationship is supposed to look like. But Arianna is literally replacing the only person she socially interacted with for 18 years straight, so there's bound to be some awkward moments and mistakes there. As I say in my fic,  for Arianna the struggle would be to accept the fact that “to Rapunzel, she had the potential to be a lot of things: Mom, Ma, Mama. But Mother would always be someone else. Someone who had gotten to see her first steps, teach her her colors and shapes, spend birthday after birthday with her. Someone who had danced with her, wiped away her tears, given her advice. Someone who had seen her grow up.” Because of how Rapunzel grew up, I think her natural instinct would be to resort to a “fawn response” and walk on eggshells around Arianna, and even blame herself for things feeling awkward because Gothel always made her feel like everything was her fault. 

Then we have the ol’ classics: nightmares, saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, pushing herself too hard to learn everything perfectly, not wearing shoes even when it would be appropriate. Not having her magic hair might be a trauma in itself too: not only can she actually get hurt now, which definitely takes some getting used to, she also can’t heal anyone she cares about. That sense of helplessness can be quite terrifying, especially for someone as protective and caring as our girl. 

Thanks for the ask! I have a lot of thoughts on Rapunzel and her journey--I would love to expand on it more, so feel free to send more asks if there’s something I didn't touch on! 

I really want Lilith in any post-part 4 threads to be connected to Hecate. There were hints at this direction in Part 4 (Zelda stating needing representatives of each aspect, and then Lilith being the Mother aspect, Adam’s birth being blessed by Hecate, Lucifer saying ‘this is where you’ve been keeping yourself; a Temple of Hecate’, and Lilith pointing out ‘She was the Goddess of Witches and I was the first witch’, and then Lilith praying to her in her darkest moments) and then with the cut scene where they show the eyes of the Hecate statue glowing, showing Hecate would have been a more direct part of Part 5, I feel it just feels naturally and inevitable to have Lilith tied/connected to her too. Especially as stabbing Lucifer, banishing him, could be seen as a metaphor for Lilith cutting ties entirely with her old life.

I’ve been thinking about it a lot, since Part 4 dropped, of how Lilith and Hell and Hecate could be intertwined (especially, as, like I and others have said, when Lilith looks at the throne in episode 8 it’s with the expression of ‘this is a means to an end’ rather than the way she used to look at the throne like it was, to quote Lilith herself, ‘the only thing she ever wanted’), especially as Baby Adam is a really interesting factor I feel had to play a part at some point in the future, as he is an heir to Hell’s Throne, but he was also born in a temple of Hecate under Hecate’s blessing and her direct help. He’s in two worlds as much as Sabrina was. 

We know Lilith can’t give up Hell anymore for the same reason Sabrina claimed to take the throne; to stop demons making the mortal realm into a tenth circle. We need a ruler who doesn’t want to destroy all of the mortal realm. So, she can’t just turn her back on it all, it is, also, Adam’s Kingdom by blood. We all pretty much confirm that Lilith’s intent was to resurrect Adam (as it’s only when she has his soul returned to her that she starts working on getting her powers back. Also the fetish doll is a tool that can be used for soul transference as much as hosting). 

Now, the Hell in the CAOS mythology seems to have been created by Lucifer (or discovered by him? They make it slightly fuzzy on those particular details. But he is definitely the one who built the actual Kingdom) but it doesn’t need him to exist, as proven when he is put in the acheron, and when he is banished by Lilith (I mean the Plague Kings claimed that Lilith ruling it was upsetting the cosmos, but we had no evidence of that at all. What did upset the cosmos was there being two Sabrinas) We’ve also seen that whoever rules Hell effects how it appears (prime example is that, under Sabrina Morningstar, the fashions change and it’s much more party-like and there is a lot of actually edible food) so it is capable of mutating, of changing into something else. 

Lilith has, during her time at the Academy, obviously been influenced (positively) by the presence of Hecate and the support of the coven. The Lilith taking the throne at the end of Part 4 is not the same Lilith who took it at the end of Part 2. Part 2 finale Lilith was all about running Hell exactly as she’d always seen it run, but Part 4 Lilith has seen how a coven changed completely and become more powerful for it, and she’s now experienced support, affection, people welcoming her etc etc. She’s also experienced the love for her son and the grief of losing him. These are all major changing things. This Lilith is, I suspect, not going to be at all inclined to run things how Lucifer did or, even, how Sabrina did. 

Lilith’s identity is tied to her being the first witch. It’s the only title she gives herself in Part 4- not Mother of Demons, not Queen of Hell, just ‘first witch’- and shows how much it is a huge part of who she is. Also, as I said in another post, Lucifer’s curse of humanity would have destroyed/erased the demoness in her, which would not have come back when she took her powers back by drinking his blood. So physically who she is has changed too. The only thing that never changed is the fact she’s a witch (even when Lucifer ‘strips’ her of her Satanic powers, she still has enough of her own powers to summon Caliban, to enter Hell etc) so being a witch is, I feel, going to be a key part of Lilith’s Hell, and that’s another part of how she’d be linked to Hecate. 

So, so far, Lilith’s direct links to Hecate are

1. She’s the first witch and Hecate is the Goddess of Witches 2. Hecate blessed the birth of her son, Adam  3. Adam himself is half a witch.  4. Lilith had sanctuary in a temple of Hecate 5. Lilith’s direct prayers to Hecate stopped her from taking her own life and also led to Marie gifting her Baby Adam’s soul

There’s no escaping the connection. But how do we actively bring Hecate into Hell, if Hell is a realm in its own right, and was created by an angel of the False God? And in my thinking and analysing and theorising, I realised:

 Baby Adam. 

Lilith has baby Adam’s soul. She has it ready for him to be brought back to life. Lilith, we know, can create bodies from scratch. True, we’ve only seen her demons, but odds are she create something that looks normal (after all, her demonic creations were not made with a soul as Adam would be) so Lilith can, relatively easily, create a body for Adam to return to. But a body and a soul, even when joined, still need life. 

Now, I headcanoned that Lilith would craft Adam’s body out of earth, because that’s what she was made of, and that would connect them as Mother and Son, that they’d still be of the same flesh and blood as it were. But to bring Lilith to life, the False God breathed divine energy into her, a breath of divinity moulded earth into flesh and made her into a living, flesh-and-bone woman (unlike Caliban, who, despite appearances, has been shown to be very much still clay). Obviously, the False God isn’t an option....but Hecate is. 

What if Baron Samedi gave Lilith Adam’s soul, Lilith crafted the body, but Hecate is the one who gives him life, just as she did in his natural birth? Especially as the birth meant he was already under Hecate’s blessing? I think, personally, that makes complete sense; it also a nice trinity aspect to Adam’s rebirth which parallels religion and what not. 

But Hecate being the one to breathe Adam to life is a pretty big gift. Huge in fact. And obviously puts Lilith, not in service, but in debt to Hecate . When you do ask things from spirits/deities/etc you do offer something in return. It could be a donation to charity, their favourite food, a new plant to add to your garden or home, something that you say ‘in exchange for your help, I will do this’. In exchange for Hecate’s help with Baby Adam (making him it could be reasoned, even more tied to Hecate than he is to Lucifer), Lilith offers Hell itself, and Hell becomes part of Hecate’s realms. 

Hecate is a psychopomp, she is a guardian and guide between living and death already, she has the keys to all the realms, so Hell would never have been out-of-bounds for her, so the idea of having Hecate honoured in Hell is not impossible, and it would mean that in the absence of Lucifer, something even more divine has taken his place, to give power to the realm and to keep Pandemonium going etc. 

It would mean Lilith (and eventually Adam) would rule the domain, but it would be almost as if it were ‘ruling in honour of’, essentially being regents to Hecate herself I suppose, or, if you want to have parallels to Greendale and Zelda’s coven; Infernal High Priestess. Basically, it would be in the same energy of the likes of Medea (a deliberate choice of reference here, because Lilith already compared herself to her) or Circe; extremely powerful witches, so powerful some say they’re Goddesses themselves, who do, in turn, worship Hecate, but have Kingdoms/Domains of their own over which they rule. 

I just instinctively feel this is the type of Hell and the type of rule Lilith would have post-part 4. It means souls would still go there as they always have, perhaps even using Sabrina M’s suggestion of ‘one soul in, one soul out’, it would still act as an underworld realm, just as Hades is, but now would be powered by a new deity, and the entire ‘house of Morningstar’ thing would, ironically, become irrelevant, allowing Lilith (and Adam) to have cut ties with that name completely. I imagine you would get demons leaving, others staying and enjoying the change, and you would get newcomers; realms are fluid and Hell would be no different in that regard. 

This would also mean that Lilith, Hell and Baby Adam would still be tied to the coven in Greendale due to their shared worship/connection with Hecate, which means the coven and Hell would finally be on the same connected side again as they were in part 1, but in a different and more positive way. It would also have allowed, with any Part 5 storylines, for there to be a reason for the two worlds and characters to interact. 

Breaking Writing Rules Right: "Don't Write Direct Dialogue!"

Over the years, I've done a lot of posts on dialogue, in part because when I went searching for a deeper understanding on the topic, I didn't find a lot of material. One of the recurring things I did find though, was about writing indirect dialogue. And this is absolutely one of the best places to start, when learning how to craft better dialogue. Dialogue should always be saying and doing more than what's on the page.

Almost always, anyway.

Naturally, this means incorporating indirection.

Which plays closely into subtext.

But a few times I've been asked, when is it okay to use direct dialogue? For this post, I have at least four answers.

What's the Rule?

Don't write direct dialogue!

Why it's a Rule

Usually the best dialogue considers what the character doesn't say, and how. In other words, subtext. When subtext happens, the dialogue is bigger than what's on the page--a quality that seems to be key to drawing in readers and writing a great story.

And in reality, most of us do talk indirectly. And we are always revealing more about ourselves than what we say (whether or not we want to). Interestingly, the more powerful emotions we feel, the more indirect we tend to be.

Indirect dialogue also holds more tension. (This again draws us in.)

On the flip side, direct dialogue releases tension, something we rarely want to do.

And when we talk about powerful emotions directly (and disproportionately), they can actually lose power. This is one of the many facets of the "show, don't tell" rule. Talking about powerful emotions directly in dialogue, labels, or in other words, "tells" them, which usually is not as satisfying as showing them so they can be experienced by the reader.

Direct dialogue also means one-dimensional dialogue. What you see (or read), is what you get. This turns the reader into more of a spectator, instead of a participator, in the story (and we want participation).

But a lot of beginning writers write direct dialogue--we probably all did. Writing indirect dialogue is a skill--it takes study and practice (and more practice).

In case anyone isn't quite sure what I mean about direct vs. indirect, here is a quick example:

Direct:

"You're an idiot, Shelly," Jasmine said.

Indirect:

"You wouldn't know this, but I don't do much writing anymore," Jasmine said. "Those days are over. I use what are called 'ghost writers,' Shelly. People I hire to do the writing for me. I like to sit back and brainstorm a few concepts with a glass of champagne. Do you know what 'brainstorming' is?" "Yes," Shelly said. Jasmine simpered. "You're smarter than I was expecting."

In the second example, Jasmine implies she thinks Shelly is an idiot in the way she talks to her (in bold).

I realize this example takes up a lot more space--and sometimes being indirect does.

But, as the story builds upon itself, strengthening context, you can be clearly indirect in less space. For example, if the reader went into the scene knowing that Shelly is a world-renowned writer and that Jasmine is stuck up, then a line like "Do you know what 'brainstorming' is?"--is all we need. (Obviously Shelly knows that, so Jasmine saying that is like slap in the face.)

When to Break the Rule

The majority of dialogue should be indirect. That's just the way it is. But that's not necessarily the same as never being direct. So when is it a good idea to say it like it is?

1. When You Want to Release Tension

Indirect dialogue holds tension.

Direct dialogue does not.

When you move from indirect to direct, it releases tension.

And sometimes that is exactly what you need.

It's the same thing in story structure. You start with your hook and introduction, go to the rising action and climax, and finish it up with the falling action/denouement. Or to put simply: introduce tension, build tension, release tension.

The denouement is all about releasing tension--that's why loose ends are tied up (generally speaking).

Releasing tension isn't bad, and if it is done at the right time, can be highly effective.

And that may not be necessarily during the denouement.

Because, as I talked about in this post, that story structure permeates all parts of story (like a fractal), not just the overall plot. Scenes, conversations, even descriptions, have that structure. This means that some direct dialogue may be just what you need after you've introduced and built up tension.

Consider a conversation where two people in a relationship are arguing over dirty dishes. While they might be fighting about dirty dishes, perhaps the real argument (subtext) is about one partner thinking the other might be cheating. Either context or indirectness introduces that idea. And it builds and builds and builds as the fight goes on and on. But for your plot, you don't plan on carrying this conflict through the entire book, maybe only this scene. So, after the conversation reaches its high point, one partner says to the other, "Just like you've been cheating on me with your secretary!"

The other says, honestly, "I haven't been cheating."

And then perhaps through direct dialogue, the problem is sorted out.

During a denouement, not only are loose ends tied up, but changes and ideas are validated and a "new normal" established. So, here in this example, by now talking about cheating directly, it will validate each person's concerns and they can start a "new normal" (one that doesn't include someone thinking the other is cheating).

You've seen similar dialogue arcs before. Perhaps there is sexual tension between the protagonist and love interest, which builds and builds and builds, until one tells the other directly that they love them. And in most stories, that's when the two starting kissing. Both those things are part of a denouement, even if it's not during the denouement.

So when it's time to let go of tension and start a falling action, direct dialogue may be just what you need.

But, I do want to note, it's also possible to hit that falling action without direct dialogue. Say, in the text, the main character intentionally tells the love interest she loves him, indirectly, but it's clear to both of them exactly what she is confessing, so in a strange way, it's direct and indirect simultaneously. But let's not confuse ourselves too much.

2. When Being Direct Adds Tension

In the above examples, tension is released--but only if having an open discussion about possible infidelity or being in love doesn't lead to new, immediate potential conflicts. Remember, conflicts are problems happening. Tension is the potential for problems/conflicts to happen. If we already know that two characters can't be together because a romance will lead to them losing their jobs, which they both need critically right now, then in some situations, one directly confessing love to the other, introduces more tension. It's similar to the "Yes, but" idea--if you are familiar with that writing term. Yes, the character got what she wanted . . . but now she's going to lose her job, which will create even bigger problems. In other words, it adds tension. But, keep in mind, that to some degree, the prior tension is released, if only a little or temporarily (at least until the end of the scene). Because, say they both want to keep their jobs, so ultimately decide not to see each other. Well, the tension was released during that confession, but in the next scene, we have heightened sexual tension--because each knows the other loves them, but can't act on it. (Leslie Knope and Ben Wyatt's relationship in Parks and Rec is a great example of this sort of thing.) Keep in mind though, however it plays out, the confession still works as a sort of denouement, because it validates and establishing a new normal (either losing jobs or dealing with heightened attraction).

3. When The Character is Direct

Some rare characters are very direct. It's just part of who they are. But that also means they come pre-packaged with their own kind of writing challenges. Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter is a great example of this. She almost always speaks directly. But this is because she has nothing to hide. As Rowling once put it, "She doesn't give a d--- what others think of her." So it's not like she needs much subtext. In one of my ongoing projects, I have a viewpoint character who is similar. Part of me wishes I knew what I was getting into when I started with him, but then part of me is glad, because then I might have picked someone safer. Needless to say, he's been one of the most challenging characters I've tried to write. You see, the thing with having direct characters, is they lack the usual avenues of tension and conflict. If they are direct, and don't care about being direct, then a lot of techniques you have at your disposal with other characters, are gone. (It took me some drafting to figure out how to work through this.) But even if your character is direct, you still need to incorporate tension. We've talked about this a bit in the last section, but for characters like this, you need to look at how being direct causes tension, conflict, and complications. Think about it. If you were direct about everything you thought and felt, and in the way you shared that, what would happen? A nightmare! That's what would happen. This is one of the reasons we as human beings aren't direct in our speech in real life. (And how many children have been labeled rude or hurtful for saying exactly what they think?) This sort of thing happens with Luna, although it's tamed down somewhat in the films. In the books, she's regularly getting in arguments with Hermione. Why? Well, in part because Luna says whatever she thinks and believes and doesn't care how Hermione responds. Her directness leads to people feeling uncomfortable, awkward, and is one of the reasons she's an outcast; translation: complications.

4. When Something is Urgent or Somewhat Unimportant

When characters are in an urgent situation, they are more likely to talk directly. It saves on time. So something like, "Look out! A cliff!" obviously works. It seems like common sense. How many times has a character thought he was about to die, and made a point to confess his guilt, love, or feelings directly, right in that moment? When it looks like your world is falling apart before your own eyes, there might not be much time to be indirect--and there may be a sense of desperation to be direct. Worth noting is that the less we care about something, the more direct we might be. If it's unimportant to me that I ate a hamburger for lunch and you ask what I had, then I'll have no problems sharing that. If I'm supposed to be an a vegan diet, then I might try to dance around the answer. Usually in manuscripts though, we cut way down on the unimportant--things like small talk and basic introductions often get axed, unless there is subtext within. Which then usually makes them important, anyway. Both urgency and importance/unimportance also play into the story's pacing. So that's something to keep in mind.

So is it always bad to write direct dialogue? Nope! But just like "show, don't tell," your story will be better off if the dialogue is more indirect than not. Related Posts: 5 Most Common Mistakes in Dialogue Writing Realistic and Complex Dialogue Kicking "Great" Dialogue up to "Killer" Dialogue Breaking Writing Rules Right: "Only Use 'Said'" Generic Dialogue—Staaaahp (Don't) Tell Me How You Really Feel How to Punctuate Dialogue Writing Callbacks

“Castiel, the self-hating angel of Thursday. You know what every other version of you did after ‘gripping him tight and raising him from perdition?’ They did what they were told. But not you! Not the ‘one off the line with a crack in his chassis.’”

I'm in this tarot study group this year, and as I dive deeper into my tarot practice, it finally occurred to me to apply it where my brain is most occupied these days: Supernatural. And I promise, I’m gonna get back to that quote I started with. But for now, bear with me as I start breaking down the first card in just about every popular tarot deck. Also, bear with me as I reference a lot of other tarot writing--I turned this shit into my homework.

In most tarot decks, the Fool is card #0 numerically. Being card #0, it represents a sort of prologue to the metaphysical journey relayed in each of the tarot’s 22 major arcana cards. The Fool stands as a sort of unsullied, outsider perspective that’s brimming with potential and optimism and opportunity, because they haven’t actually started on their path yet. Everything is still rosy and possible in the Fool’s eyes. They’re not particularly interested in the details of the road before them, they’re just ready to go.

Bakara Wintner describes the Fool as being “a sponge, a blank slate,” and “possessing no knowledge of the world he is about to step into and therefore too uninformed to be afraid.” Which tells us that the Fool is an earnest figure, and an authentic one. There’s no deceit in the Fool’s eyes, and perhaps more importantly, the Fool does not anticipate deceit in the eyes of others. He’s trusting, and he’s honest. I love how Melissa Cynova talks about the Fool, that he “has no agenda, no hidden plans or shenanigans up his sleeve. He is guileless.” She adds, “He’s going to be honest and forthright regardless of the circumstance,” and tell me that doesn’t sound like our favorite angel. Rachel Pollack says that in some early tarot decks, the Fool was actually called “The Fool of God'', and she connects this title with other associations society historically had with fools, pointing out that folks on the fringe were often considered to be graced with a higher wisdom “precisely because they were out of touch” with everyone else. Again, I dare you to tell me that doesn’t sound like our boy, Cas.

When Castiel first shows up in season four, he’s a lot of things. Mysterious. Powerful. Driven. But we learn pretty soon that Cas is about as lost as anyone. That he has questions, doubts. But also that he has faith--in God, in Heaven, in Dean. Faith is a pretty key aspect of the Fool--she doesn’t know what’s going to happen once she starts on her journey, but she’s got faith it’s all going to work out. That’s not a perfect description of Castiel, but there’s overlap. I see in Cas that willingness to jump for the betterment it may bring to the world at large. Cas has set himself on a lot of journeys that may or may not work out how he plans, but what ties them together is that leap of faith. That conviction in his choice, even if he doesn’t have all the answers or know what exactly will happen. Whether he’s disavowing the angels to join Team Free Will; making a run for it after breaking free of Naomi’s mind control, angel tablet in hand; protecting Kelly and Jack because he trusts in the vision Jack presents him from Kelly’s womb. These are all times Cas trusts in something bigger than himself in the hopes things will be better for it. And in my opinion, this trust is one of Cas’ defining qualities.

There’s also a naiveté in Cas that we sometimes see with the Fool. Think of Cas as a human in season nine, figuring out for the first time what it means to taste, to feel, to hunger. Or the handful of times Castiel has decided to be a hunter, unaware of how to do it, unaware of how to lie and manipulate because that’s just not how he sees things. Then there’s Castiel recovering in the mental hospital in season seven, loving wholeheartedly every bee and flower because they’re beautiful, miraculous, pure. I see the Fool in these character moments, I really do. I hear the Fool in this exchange between Castiel and Claire in season ten,

Claire: You’ve changed. The Castiel I met? He was crappy. Like, super stuck-up and a dick, and you just wanted to punch him in his stupid angel face.

Castiel: I don’t think I was that bad.

Claire: You totally were. And now you’re just…I don’t know. Nicer. And kind of a doof. No offense.

Castiel: Yes, well, um…Before, I was very self-assured. I was convinced I was on this righteous path. Now I realize that there is no righteous path. It’s just people trying to do their best in a world where it’s far too easy to do your worst.

Claire: Wow. Deep.

Castiel: Yeah. For a doof.

Maybe this is a Fool who’s seen some shit, sure, but the echo of his earlier faith is there still in the pragmatic assessment of the world as he sees it. This is a Cas that’s been humbled by hubris, who now realizes the world is filled with little Fools making their jumps, not always knowing if it’s soft grass or sharp rocks below them. And I think what kills me the most about this exchange, is that even now, Cas is being played. Claire’s about to ditch him after having this heart-to-heart, and it’s not going to change a thing about how he feels about her. He’s got that faith, y’all. In her as a person, in his love for her as his broken little family. It’s the same kind of faith he’ll have in Jack after leaving with Kelly:

Castiel: I've been so lost. I'm not lost anymore. And I know now that this child must be born with all of his power.

Sam: You can't actually mean that.

Castiel: Yes. I do. I have faith.

This is a very different Castiel than the one who wanted to kill Jesse in season five, the human-demon child antichrist who Cas is determined to kill to prevent the apocalypse. Jesse is only tangentially related to Lucifer, only a mere twelve years old, and Castiel takes considerable convincing to spare him. Seven years later, however, Castiel has experienced enough of the world, grown enough as a person, to be open to something different with Jack, the actual child of the devil. He trusts in a way he didn’t before. 

That quote at the top, that’s another moment--an iconic moment, to be honest--that screams Fool at me. This is Chuck, God himself, telling Cas that he’s always acted in his own accordance. That he’s been a complete outlier to Chuck’s plan. That every other version Chuck created of Castiel followed orders, questioned nothing, and made no wild, reckless, terrifying leaps of faith off the precipice of duty and into some greater unknown. Only Castiel, in his dirty trench coat and in love with the world (with Dean), had the nerve to see what else was out there.

Mary K. Greer, in her tarot workbook, Tarot for Yourself, suggests this question when we think of the Fool: “In what areas of your life are you operating on faith and trust?” This to me is what Castiel asks of us, too. In what ways do we lean into that which we believe? What do we believe in the first place? In what ways do we honor that belief? In what ways do we honor what we love and let that love be that which guides us? Castiel could have just as easily been another card for this project. One half of the Lovers (choice in love!), or the Hanged Man (talk about a shift in worldview). But at the end of the day, when I look at Castiel, beloved angel of Thursday, I see someone earnest and good, ready to discover a world bigger than he ever could have known it would be. And that, to me, is 100% Fool.

AUs/series/prompts

I've thought about doing this for a while and I finally settled down to do it.

I have a lot of AUs and series to write in. So, here is a reasonably definitive list of all the AUs & series I will write in for any tumblr prompts, currently sitting in my inbox or in the future. If you wish to see a fic set in a given AU/series, then ask and I will let you know if that can be done. This includes already requested prompts and new ones. Some can't be written into anything already in existence. Some I just won't do (if you've followed me for any length of time you can guess what I won't do). But here we go.

I smoothed this out some because the post just wasn't reading right on mobile.

Digimon

Breed AUs: 7 of the 12 Chosen Children are part or full Digimon and have Digimon attacks/powers. Five of them are sired by Viral Digimon and have darker personalities waiting to take command in certain situations. Often (but not every time) Ken is Kaiser not because of the Spore but because of his Viral blood/data.

YGO GX

Dead Weight: It's a zombie apocalypse. People die. Sometimes they get back up to eat the ones who aren't dead yet.

Reversal: In this world, Juudai is the incaration of the Darkness of Destruction. He's true evil and bent on world conquest - and doing a very good job of it. There is no Duel Academia. Prompts can be for before Juudai captures Johan or after.

Destructive Flames: A combination of my Reversal AU & Firestarter/Healer AU.

World of Fusion: Many years ago, Brron managed to fuse all twelve dimensions, creating a restructured reality. He also ended up raising Juudai, Johan, and Rune. Ryou is a vampire. There's a war between vampires and zombies.

Extra Spirits: The setting for Royal Hound (one-shot series), Unexpected Ally (Amon meets the spirit Squall), and others to come. Certain folk meet spirits that aren't their partners but their friends.

Hell's Ice: A world where Ryou is the one taken by Kagemaru and Amnael and develops a connection to snow, ice, and cold as he works to become one of the Seven Stars.

Paladin's Quest: Five years after the end of GX, Ryou finally passes away. But that's not the end. He awakens in a new world, and must learn who he now is - a Duel Spirit. But his past life won't let him go.

Bridges: In this AU, Juudai is the Light of Creation (and the Light of Destruction's host), while Johan is the Darkness of Justice. There are also demons that the Cyber duelists hunt.

YGO Zexal

On Dragon Wings: Mizael is a dragon, Vector is a demon (of sorts), the Arclights are cursed, and so much more.

These are series that revolve around a particular character/characters/ship of mine.

Ken x Daisuke/Kaiser x Daisuke

Fight To Remember: Kaiser and Daisuke both have amnesia and must work together to get their memories back.

Stirring Shadows: Ken's dreams become more than dreams and revive the past.

Scars of Victory: Kaiser won. He kept Daisuke as a prize and sealed off the Digital World from the human world for seven years. Now the older surviving Chosen come to avenge their friends but they're up against an experienced ruler and his most obedient slave, and they have very few friends to stand beside them.

Services Rendered: After Daisuke is poisoned, only the Kaiser can help him. And he demands Daisuke himself as the price for doing so.

No Good Choices: Daisuke eats something he shouldn't have and ends up as the Kaiser's captive. And that's just where things begin to go wrong.

Bonds and Bondage: Kaiser decides to just get to the point and Ring V-mon that fateful second day. And it has an unexpected effect on V-mon's partner.

Fragmented Memory: Kaiser wipes Daisuke's memory with Mushrooms of Forgetfulness and takes him as his consort.

Errors of Love: Daisuke trusts the Kaiser. He probably shouldn't. Rated R/M, non-con.

What He Wants: Aged up!AU. Kaiser takes Daisuke, in many ways. Rated R/M, non-con.

Sanguine Bindings: Aged up!AU crossed with vampire AU. Kaiser is the vampire and enslaves Daisuke on their first encounter. Rated R/M, non-con, brainwashing

Purpose of Existence: Aged up!AU & breeds. Kaiser learns something about Daisuke and takes him. But he's not the only one who wants Daisuke.

Take To The Skies: A wings!AU, specifically featuring Ken/Kaiser and Daisuke. Kaiser has captured Daisuke and keeps him as a plaything/pet.

Bitter Bargain: AU where the Kaiser has been fought for years and now that they're in their mid-to-late teens, he blackmails Daisuke for sex.

Walking The Edge: aged up!AU. The Chosen have fought the Kaiser for years, but are unaware of his true identity. Daisuke's been dating Ichijouji Ken for years. Then the Kaiser decides to end the charade.

Yubel x Juudai

The King's Champion: When Juudai's parents are killed in a late night burglary gone wrong, Yubel takes him to the monster worlds to keep him safe. He ends up growing up as Brron's adopted son. But taking Juudai away from Earth ends up causing severe consequences, especially when those who would have been his friends find their way to his world.

Fate's Heart: A set of fics involving soulmate markers/counters in diferent styles.

Past and Future: Yubel tells tales about their past life to Juudai.

Shun & Yuuri

Collars and Keeping: Most people in XYZ are carded in the invasion. A few, however, are claimed by some of the invaders. This includes Yuuri claiming Shun. M/R rating.

Strike Hard, Strike Fast: Yuuri, Dennis, and Sora are vampires. Shun and Ruri are vampire hunters. Yuuri doesn't like Ruri, so when the chance to gain some vengenace via her brother comes up, he takes it.

Confusing: Yuuri enjoys himself toying with Shun's memories.

Dragon & Falcon: Yuuri is a dragon. Shun is a shapeshifting falcon. Yuuri decides he wants to keep Shun, and finds out what a dragon's saliva can do to a shapeshifter. Potential for R/M rated works.

Crossovers

Replacement Vampire: Digimon Adventuer 02/GX: Camula x Ruthven; vampire!Ryou: Vamdemon appears in the world of GX post 02 and meets Camula. After an encounter with Darkness, they end up turning Ryou to take Camula's place in the Seven Stars.

Elemental Ties: Digimon Frontier/GX: Juudai and Kouichi are both Darkness, so have a connection. The same holds true for Kouji and Johan, Manjoume and Junpei, and others.

Scorpion Strike: YGO GX/YGO Zexal: Ryou x Mizael, Shou, amnesiac!Barian!Ryou

General AUs, any fandom

Soulmates: various forms of soulmate identification

Magical AUs: characters have magical powers of varying kinds and/or are magical creatures

Fae AUs: one or more charaacter(s) are fae/elven/etc

Demon/angel AUs: one or more character(s) are a demon/angel (or sometimes a different magical species. Often can cross with magical AUs and/or fae AUs)

Wings!AU: a certain amount/all characters have wings and are flight-capable

Healer/Firestarter AUs: a respectable portion of the population can either heal via magic and have a deep connection to plants; an equal portion can cause/create/control fires. One Healer and one Firestarter (sometimes more, depending) are bonded to one another in a relationship that's not always romantic but is lifelong.

Vampire!AUs: one or more characters is/are a vampire. How they deal with this varies according to the character and the story.

Soulmate-wings!AUs: In this AU, people develop wings either when they meet their soulmate or when they discover their truest passion in life.

Pet Clouds AU: Sparked by a tumblr post, in this world, various characters have pet clouds/thunderclouds/snowclouds that aren't quite sentient like humans but are independently alive like standard pets.

Combos: Any or all of these can be combined. I intend to write a breeds/Healer-Firestarter/soulmates AU one of these days, for example.

Wonder Woman 1984 review

Long, rambly, and spoilery. You’ve been warned. 

I saw WW84. I had thoughts. Let's talk about it. 

I want to preface with the fact that it's amazing that we have another female-led superhero film! I loved Patti Jenkins' work with the first Wonder Woman (and this one too) and I'm so glad she's back for this one. There's obviously a lot to pick through, but first, a couple reminders.

No film will ever be "perfect."

Not every film is made specifically for you. 

It is okay to vibe or disvibe with something. But that does not make it trash. 

Also, please, keep in mind, what I'm expressing are my opinions. I'm entitled to mine as you are entitled to yours. I hope you have a lovely time on the internet, and I hope you wish the same for everyone you interact with. 

Oh, and spoilers obviously. 

Okay, with all that out of the way, let's dig in. 

My overall experience with the film is positive! I had a great time watching it, it got me emotional, and I definitely want to watch it again. That said, I don't think it's better than the first one (although that would have been quite a feat), and that's ok. It's a continuation of a story we've already started, and it doesn't need to outshine the first. 

Okay, after all the hyping up and disclaiming I've done, let's dig into what I didn't like about the film. 

Number one is pacing. The storyline felt very erratic to me? Part of that, I feel, is because we have three (four?) main characters, and we jump between them pretty abruptly. 

Number two is the themes. Now I do like the themes of WW84 (truth and sacrifice), I just don't think they were worked into the film as cohesively as I would have liked? 

Number three is perceived character changes to Diana. And really, some of this is kinda circumstantial, I just thought it deserved its own bullet point. You'll see what I mean. 

So, on Pacing.

We jump between Diana (and Steve), Barbara, and Maxwell pretty frequently. And before I talk about that, I have to talk about my view on the characters. 

a. Now, I love the Mandalorian, but I was not personally invested in Maxwell's arc at all. Again, this is my take, and I know people disagree. Many people feel like Pedro Pascal carried the film on his shoulders. That's cool. He's a great actor. I'm glad he was in it. I just kinda checked out of every scene he was in (when he wasn't with his kid) because I wasn't invested in him. He played a sleazeball on purpose, and it worked. I was sleazed. So the movie kinda dragged for me whenever the camera panned to him. 

b. I loved the focus on Barbara. I don't know Cheetah from the comics, so this is from a movie-only perspective. But I know one of the criticisms of the first film was that Diana didn't really talk to women after she left Themyscira (even though there was a perfectly good villainess sitting right there for her to converse with and have morality debates/fights with! Even Steve Trevor got to talk to Dr Poison!), so I thought it was great that 1) they set up a villainess for her to fight and 2) it was a villainess that she knew, she had talked to, she had formed a relationship with. It honestly surprised me that Barbara was helpful for so long (bc I had seen the trailer and got spoiled that she would become a villain), but I love that she genuinely did want to help Diana, up until she hit her hard limit (giving up her powers). Now, that being said, the Nerd Girl Makeover has been done a thousand times. I knew what her vague trajectory would be from the second she appeared on screen with frizzy hair. I did like that her motivation was not solely "pretty people are mean to me, and I want revenge and/or for this hot guy to like me," but specifically, "I want to be like this really cool girl" and then "I don’t want to be like anyone else; I want to be the best/number one" for myself." But I felt like the absolute inattention that she was shown at the beginning and the absolute worship Diana and later Barbara would get was ... highly exaggerated? And I know this was another criticism of the first film, that yeah "Diana did so well in the real world because SHE'S HOT and that's actually not empowering to women" or something. But like. Watching that part made me uncomfortable instead of seen. Pandered to, instead of impacted. Showing how looks change how society treats you is important, but not to this caricaturized degree. 

c. (and d?) And lastly, Diana and Steve. Or more accurately, Diana and Steve's soul or memories or ??? that has been transplanted into some random man's body with absolutely no one's consent (I don't believe that Diana "consented" when making the wish, because she didn't know 1. That it would even work or 2. HOW it would work.). So ... Yeah. The first problem with this (chronologically, not by importance) is that it's really unclear what's going on? Some rando is reciting Steve's lines from the first film, then all of a sudden he turns into Chris Pine? (Fun fact: my aunt actually recognized the actor from Hallmark 😂 Could you imagine being the guy who gets replaced by Chris Pine for half the movie? Like "yeah, I played Steve Trevor, but they had Chris Pine do all the important parts" 😂😂😂). So, Diana and Steve finally figure out that he's inhabiting some engineer's body because of the wish she made. And then they bang. Or do they bang before they figure it out? Either way, yikes 😬. Not a good look. 

To be clear, the yikes part is that Steve is inhabiting Engineer Dude's body without their consent (without his own either tho so that part's not really his fault), but then he chooses to do things sexually with that body that Engineer Dude didn't consent to (because he's like, literally not home. Whether he's been subsumed into Chris Pine or taken out or dormant or whatever). Oh, and then like, probably doing death-defying stunts with his body is also yikes. I'm not really sure what the rules around body possession are. Cuz you know. 

Anyway, that is a huge issue that is literally not addressed. At all. 

Again, I think they may have been trying to address some criticisms from the first film about Diana "getting rid of the dreaded V-card so quickly in Wonder Woman and then pining after Chris Pine (lol) for the rest of her long life" and how that sets back female sexuality and stuff. Which I get. They actually lampshaded it in WW84, how Chris Pine wants her to move on because "the world deserves her." Which I know what they were going for in the scene, but I feel like they didn't flesh out the journey from Hippolyta's "the world doesn't deserve you Diana" to Steve's "the world deserves you (to date them)" enough. But I digress. 

I'm gonna talk a little bit more about the possession and that "the world deserves/doesn't deserve you" line in my Themes section, but honestly? From the previews, I assumed that Chris Pine was revived from the dead via time travel or something. Body possession was NOT in the the trailers. I think the Dreamstone could have created a body for him out of nothing. Or like "time-traveled" him into the future. So like. Why didn't they? Why introduce body possession at all? So they could make fun of the dude's clothes? 

Okay, back to the pacing part of the pacing section. These three (four?) characters have completely different things going on in their lives (I actually forgot to talk about Maxwell, but he wants to "be the best," and he's gonna do it by giving people what they think they want (maybe) and then taking from them whatever he wants. Yeah idk). And all three do interact at the beginning (brownie points) even if the attempted seduction of Barbara by Maxwell makes me want to throw up. But the themes aren't worked in as cohesively as I would have liked, and the tone changes were jarring, as the film switched between them all. 

Another facet of the movie is that the Dreamstone is kind of a mystery. And that was a deliberate Choice™, not a mistake. We're guessing at what the rock is doing and how and why and by who and all that stuff, and that's on purpose, but that makes for a confusing experience. Their approach is to throw something confusing at you and then explain it later. Which is great for worldbuilding. But not always for the Movie-Watching Experience™. So to recap, we're switching tracks and characters with their own separate stories while also setting up several confusing plot points that take a while to unravel. This all contributes to the Experience™, good or bad. 

Honestly, I wonder how much Covid affected this movie? My dad felt like a lot of scenes probably got cut for various reasons, and it probably affected the flow of the movie. If so, it could have affected thematic coherence, too. Speaking of... 

So, Themes. 

The themes that I got out of this film were Truth and Sacrifice. Maybe I missed some; I'm not an experienced Media Critic™. But these are the ones I noticed. 

And actually, these themes are really strong. Universally applicable, and used in all three character arcs. It's just tied in a bit ... erratically?

So working backward, knowing that the Dreamstone is giving you a lie, you need to renounce your wish and accept the Truth™. This is echoed in Diana's flashback, where she needed to accept that she didn't win. 

Working backward again, Sacrifice was a big part of the story for all three characters because Diana was willing to sacrifice her power to keep Steve, but he wanted her to sacrifice him so she could save the world. Barbara was willing to sacrifice her "humanity" or "empathy" or whatever she lost for the power and influence she got by emulating Diana, and she was unwilling to sacrifice that to save the world. Maxwell was willing to sacrifice time with his son to "become the best," but he did sacrifice that to save his son's life. 

And then, full circle, he confessed to his son that he wasn't the best, he's actually a filthy liar. Which, yes, kudos for the themes, be honest with your children, but you can still sanitize it a bit. That speech alone would have traumatized the kid. 

Speaking of speeches, Antiope's speech confused me in a similar way? Like, she stops Diana from "winning" the tournament after cheating, and goes on this weird rambly rant which goes from "accept that you're not a winner" to "cheating is bad and so is lying." Which yes, cheating is bad, but it's weird that she wouldn't have been disqualified at this point for not shooting that last target? Like, did she need to be tackled? Idk, I felt like they came up with the line they wanted Antiope to say first, and then just made her say it. (And also, in other stories, Diana would have been praised for being "clever" and "never giving up without a fight." So like, I needed a bit more preparation for which take they were going for, because the anti-cheating spiel felt jarring to me.) 

And again, I wonder if this is a response to a criticism of this first film. (Warning: WW17 rant gearing up) 

When Diana has her big motivational flashback during her fight with Ares, she thinks about Steve, this dude she just met a week ago, saying he loved her. When she could have been thinking about literally any of the women who had raised her. I personally think it would have been cool to hear some of Antiope's words at that point. Since they set up Hippolyta and Antiope to have conflicting ideas over whether Diana should fulfill her humanity-saving destiny, it might have been cool to see her saying something about humans and how they need her or how she should help them or something. They could even have done the whole thing with not being able to hear Steve's last words, but with Antiope since she dies earlier in the film and doesn't finish speaking. I also think it would have been cool for them to expand Hippolyta's earlier line about "They don't deserve you, Diana," here to like "They need you, Diana," or something. And then Steve's line in WW84 could have been something like "They're with you, Diana," or "They could get to know you, Diana," and her character arc could have been about actually living among society and maybe getting to know these humans that she's saved so many times (which they kind of alluded to when she and Barbara had their little date at the beginning of the film). But I digress. 

So, yeah, I found both of these speeches to be ... Not great? Like I can tell what they're going for and how they tie into the themes, but they're so heavy-handed and they don't actually fit in too well to the moment they happen in. Like as soon as the speech starts, you realize that they started going meta on you. The character isn't really speaking to the other character, they're speaking to us, and they're telling us how this scene ties into the greater themes of the film. 

Oh and they have this great quote from Antiope "greatness is not what you think" and then Maxwell's son wishes for him to be "great." And they do nothing with it :(

As promised, I want to talk about the body possession a little bit more. So again, one of the recurring themes is Truth™. Which is a great choice for Wonder Woman, what with her Lasso of Truth. 

But it's tied in a bit haphazardly. They force it into a conversation about cheating in a flashback at the beginning of the film. And then they talk about how you need to accept the Truth™ in order to defeat the Dreamstone. I already talked about the cheating, and how the "accept that you're not a winner" was kind of a weird path to take to get your point across to a ten year old girl. 

But the Dreamstone. Oh, the Dreamstone. I said before that the movie is a mystery. It shows you things but doesn't explain them. Well, this is a bit of a problem. Because they never actually explain that the Dreamstone is giving you lies. To my eyes, the Dreamstone is changing reality. Steve is back, Barbara is powerful, and Maxwell is doing whatever he wants with the powers of the Dreamstone. THIS DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A LIE TO ME. THERE IS NO "TRUTH" TO ACCEPT, JUST YOUR NEW REALITY. And that made the film less thematically strong (to my eyes, anyway. Other people probably picked up on stuff I didn't). But I feel like this might have been an easy fix? Like you already have Chris Pine in someone else's body (oh! So that's why they chose body possession! Because he's a Lie™! ... Still don't like it) I still think he should have manifested his own body or something but whatever. Barbara's appearance hardly changed at first. If they had people reacting to her as if she was hot when she really looked the same as she always does, then I would have bought your "but the Dreamstone only gives you lies." Instead, Barbara gained the power to walk in heels and then hotness and then the literal power of a God™ (a la Diana) which makes me think the Dreamstone is changing reality. Not bringing lies. 

Oh, also, they could have had Diana's Lasso of Truth stop working for her. I thought that's what they were going for at first, but it turns out that Diana is just losing her powers. They also started with "the Dreamstone will give you what you want most," but then Maxwell started using it to clear traffic? Which by the way, is NOT an illusion. That is reality-bending. 

There were just so many ways to make it obvious that "the Dreamstone is giving you lies," but they didn't use them. Or at the very least, they didn't commit. I felt like they used a little bit of "be careful what you wish for" (mostly on randos that Maxwell is duping), a little bit of "what are you willing to sacrifice," and a little of "you can have what you want, but it won't be real." All of which are valid ways to take a Dreamstone kind of story, but if they wanted to rely so heavily on Truth™ as the main theme, then I feel like more of the wishes should have been showcasing that. Instead, it felt like a jumble of all the kinds of messages we're used to seeing with Wish-Granting Objects, with no emphasis on specifically the "it's all a lie" part. 

Ugh, I'm actually mad now, because I'm trying to think of a story I've heard where this magical thing is granting wishes but they're Explicitly Not Real. Like all the money gets turned back to leaves or whatever (kinda like Cinderella's pumpkin lol). Oh, Aladdin does this, too, because yeah Genie is granting wishes and changing reality, but not permanently? Like, almost all of the stuff he uses magic to do dissolves as soon as we're looking away from it or gets fixed by the end of the movie? And the film is very very clear on the fact that Aladdin is not factually a Prince. 

But this film doesn't do that. They make it seem like the Dreamstone can change reality, then berate the characters for not Accepting the Truth™ about themselves. Maybe if they had made a bigger deal out of Steve coming back in someone else's body, it would have been 1) less confusing, 2) less icky (provided they don't do the sex in Engineer Dude's body), and 3) more thematically coherent. 

Lastly, Diana's perceived character changes. 

This one is probably the most subjective. Diana, as a character, in the first film was very morally grounded and motivated. The Diana in this film felt ... different. Again. Subjective. And also circumstantial. 

Diana is still morally grounded in this film. But she's also willing to sacrifice the world to keep Steve Trevor around. Which feels like a jarring change from her characterization in the first film. She was so idealistic and optimistic in that first film, I couldn't imagine her making that choice. It just felt like such a tone change for her character. How did we go from "Who will I be if I stay?" to "Why, for once, can't I just have this one thing, Steve? ... I can't give you up. I can't. So I won't."

Also, her motivation in this film seemed to center around her loss of Steve Trevor and wanting him, and less around "save the world." Which, to be fair, I'm all for women being selfish in film. Give me women of all motivations and desires. I don't want Diana to be Perfect™. I just want her to be consistent. And I didn't think this characterization was as consistent as I expected. Was her life so terrible without Steve (even though they only knew each other for a short time)? Not to say this couldn't be a valid take on Diana (reminder: I haven't read any comics, so maybe it's not in character at all 🤷‍♀️), but if that's what they were going for, they should have developed the journey from naive idealist to jaded romantic more in order to justify this character change. 

Also, the body possession thing. She's really okay with her boyfriend possessing somebody else's body. I did like the "All I See Is You" line, since it's romantic, but up until that point, we as viewers aren't really sure why Chris Pine and Hallmark Dude are both playing this guy. Then we find out in a romantic line that Chris Pine is just Wonder Woman's view of him. He still looks like Engineer Dude because he is Engineer Dude. At first, I thought that they used a different guy for the first meeting because Diana didn't recognize him. That this was her perception of him until she realized who it was. (I thought this was supported by Chris Pine's more rugged look in this film. But actually they were probably matching him to the body he was inhabiting, since the character really didn't look like himself). Leverage does a similar thing in the Rashomon Job. All the characters saw each other at the same event, but they didn't know each other back then, so they had different actors play their parts until it's slowly revealed that actually the random people at the event were the characters we know and love. It's great. Anyway, that's not what they're going for here, and the ambiguous framing along with Diana and Steve's chemistry is supposed to make you forget that he is possessing someone else’s body! Against their will! (Again, Steve and Diana didn't consent to the initial possession either, but they absolutely consented to what they did together. Engineer Dude did not.) 

Yikes  😬

I will say, she didn't kill innocents this time. One of my critiques of the first movie was that she was so willing to kill Germans. And I get it, Nazis are usually an "acceptable" target in American media. But as a character, she believed that they were innocents who had been manipulated by Ares. And yet, she was slaughtering them en masse. But, in this movie, they're really careful to make sure that she's nonlethal. 

And yeah, that's it.

Asteria was of course awesome. That bonus credit scene was 👌

I'm glad they got Linda Hemming back for costuming after the disaster of Justice League. Unfortunately, being set in the 80's, the outfits are not quite so modest as the first movie. But the important thing was the lack of male gaze in those shots.

The movie definitely hit me in my emotions. I cried three times: first during the tournament, watching the Amazon's being awesome. Then during Diana and Steve's fight, and when Steve convinced Diana to let him go. 😭

As I said, I definitely plan on rewatching. It makes me sad to see how much negative press that the movie is getting when it's one of so few female-led blockbusters. A lot of people are comparing it to the original or to the comics or TV show, when those are just not valuable comparisons. Comic books and TV shows are completely different mediums. And a successful sequel CONTINUES a story, instead of rehashing it. And also, not all films are created specifically for YOU. A lot of the 80's references went over my head, but that's ok. They weren't for me. I don't begrudge their existence just because I don't vibe with them. 

Again, no film is perfect! I think I talked through a lot of its weaknesses pretty thoroughly, but I still think it's a strong film, and I want it to succeed. 

Anyhoo, I hope you had fun watching the movie (even though it's not perfect) and I hope you had fun reading my commentary. 

(Fun fact: I actually ran out of space in my notes app and had to stretch it across two notes)

it does matter, actually, that goro akechi is a minor. not because this somehow exonerates him morally, or because this somehow makes him not responsible for his actions, but because persona 5 is invested in children as a source of hope for a better future. 

once i saw someone complain that people will defend akechi’s murders on the grounds that he’s a child/minor and how they felt that this doesnt excuse multiple counts of murder. and i was like, ok, well, im not sure anyone was excusing him, but alright, sure. and i’ve seen a few rebuttals to that, one of which is that shido and the other adults in akechi’s life had a responsibility to support akechi in such a way that it didn’t come to murder, and of course it’s on shido to just not be a massive dick who endorses fascism and murders in the first place. and i was like ok, well, this seems a little patronizing and dismissive of akechi’s agency and autonomy, but alright, sure.

in a very roundabout way of explaining my first two sentences, there’s one thing that bothers me lately, and it’s selim bradley from fullmetal alchemist: brotherhood. 

for those of us not familiar with fma:b, selim, or pride, is the oldest homunculus/artificial human in the show and the second-oldest villain, despite the fact that he looks about eight years old. of the seven homunculus named after deadly sins, selim/pride is the only one to survive the show--with an asterisk, which is that selim gets the “homunculus” part of him erased by the end of the show. with the “pride” aspect of him gone, selim is mortal, without any special powers, without memories of any of his amoral acts, and is generally just a happy, normal child.

which is a weird exception to fma:b’s general rule in which every other homunculus dies. even fan favorites like greed and envy don’t live, despite the fact that greed and envy are far more sympathetic as characters. selim kills multiple people on-screen, shows zero remorse whatsoever, and is an active helper in all the other mass-murders that the homunculi engineer. selim’s not an innocent in any way. also, he’s like, 200 years old? 300? he’s very old. biologically, mentally, emotionally, selim is not a child.

but fma:b goes out of its way to make sure that selim gets a second chance at a future, just because his body looks like a child’s. cut another way, he gets an exception from a large number of terrible crimes, up to an including participation in genocide, just because he looks like a child. 

fma:b reminded me that, outside of tumblr’s purity politics over children, and especially so in japan, children are socially constructed in a very specific way, beyond biological age and legal majority cutoffs. 

yes, biological age is a thing. yes, legal majority is a thing. i’m not saying that being a child isn’t a biological thing--it is, obviously. but what i’m saying is that there’s a difference between, say, the sex assigned to you at birth and your gender presentation, to use an analogy. there is a such thing as biological age, but the societal status of being a child of a related but separate thing. and this status of being considered a child is a societal construct.

the social construction goes like this, insofar as i’m aware: children should be good and silent and dutiful and work hard and go to school and listen to their elders, and their elders in turn should do everything they can to guide the children to the right path and build a good society for these children to inherit. (if we want more details on this, please see the entire history of filial piety in asia.)

so that’s a social contract right there baked into the social construct of childhood: children don’t have power, but adults have an obligation to make sure they don’t need power, and to make sure that the future and their children’s futures look bright. 

children represent the future, essentially. they’re the next generation. they’re simultaneously without legal rights as adults and in a very vulnerable position, for sure, but they’re also simultaneously considered the country’s most precious capital: quite literally the people who will inherit and lead the country next.

which, personally, i think puts a whole new spin on the phantom thieves in general. they’re not just kids who’re being rowdy or kids telling abusive shitty adults theyre being abusive and shitty--or, they’re kids doing those things, but they’re not just kids doing those things. they’re kids who’ve been specifically let down by adults who did not fulfill their social obligation to them. they’re kids who’ve been abandoned and neglected by the very adults who should have been paving the way forward for them, as society has asked those adults to do, because those adults have instead chosen to line their own pockets and cover their own asses. 

so the kids said: alright, well, then i’ll take power for myself, and i’ll make my own future. (which is where we get a lot of those promo slogans of “steal back your future” and junk like that.)

sae’s comments about how adults should do their part to fix the world for the kids is just a resolidifying of the way the world “should” work, and we could talk about her comments on the matter, but actually i wanna talk about yoshida.

i especially want to talk about yoshida because yoshida and shido are the two politicians we see the most of, and both of them spend a lot of time reciting political rhetoric to speak to the hearts of the general japanese populace. we all know the way that shido thinks of japan: a large vehicle that one person is in control of, and the masses just compose the throne upon which the ruler sits.

we also already know that yoshida’s a Real G, but it’s worth really close-reading some of his lines. he speaks a lot about apathy, the lack of caring for each other in society--a general willingness to disregard your fellow man, to not uphold one’s social obligation to each other. but he also talks a lot about the “youth”--which is not really uncommon for a politician, obviously, since politicians are always talking about “the children” and “the kids” and “the next generation” and “those damn millennials” and all that shit. 

yoshida instead gives us these fun lines:

A world where the young exist only to be exploited... is a world that must be changed!

And while our society appears to be prosperous, many of our young people are quietly suffering. They lack jobs, security, savings... The next generation will lead us into the future and yet they have no plan for how to arrive there.

Passing on the societal ills we have created to the next generation... is not right!

...the current administration refuses to discuss their plans for the future... Can we really accept such an utter lack of transparency?!

If you make a promise, you must keep it. If you make a mistake, you must atone for it. These are basic human principles that we have all learned from the youngest of ages... 

yoshida’s entire thing about how the adults have let the children down isn’t just him saying shit--he’s commenting directly on the fact that the social contract has been broken, and he’s putting the blame on the administration for not upholding their responsibility to secure a future for the children, especially since the children are the future of the country. 

this is partly why he doesn’t blame the phantom thieves for acting the way that they do; rather, he seems them as a logical reaction to the injustice that’s occurred as a result of the society that the adults have left for them:

I bet [the Phantom Thieves] are a group of young people. Young people who have experienced cruelty and injustice... They bravely face the societal ills that plague our world without thinking of the consequences.

(i think also in part he admires the fact that they’re anonymous and don’t benefit personally from their actions, which is exactly the opposite of what he did as a young politician. he also doesn’t throw the real embezzlement culprit under the bus to exonerate himself presumably for the same principle of desiring selfless public service instead of personal gain.)

in both the early parts of the s link and later on when yoshida starts talking with matsushita more extensively, akira’s important because he’s young--he represents the young demographic that yoshida and matsushita are discussing the future of. akira demonstrating support for yoshida in a public way means a lot because he’s a minor. matsushita asks akira for his opinions on the phantom thieves and other issues because akira is a minor. akira’s opinion is supposed to be heard and valued by adults, who should take his opinions into consideration and do their best to not let him down. 

this is tied into the general thread of yoshida being a person who was self-admittedly just as corrupt as everyone else, who was blinded by glamor and fame and money, who got caught up in political scandal. yoshida’s general acceptance of his mistakes as a human being and politician ties over to his general belief that it’s not that the youth are rebellious no-good teens, but that the youth have been let down by politicians like who he used to be. he blames himself, and because he is not too different from the rest of the older generation and politicians in general, he implicates a lot of the older generation and politicians as also blame-worthy.

his quest for redemption and atonement dovetails neatly with his views on the broken societal contract. taken together, yoshida’s s link implies to us the idea that the entire general older generation in japan more or less owes the children of japan a formal apology, and the older generation better get on their redemption arc and start being the vanguard of the change for children:

The reason [the Phantom Thieves are] causing a stir is because they are addressing the world’s problems. Setting aside whether their actions are right or wrong... there is one thing I can safely say about the Phantom Thieves. A belief with conviction... has the ability to move a person’s heart.

I’m sure you are all aware that I am “No-Good Tora,” the one accused of embezzlement. However, because I was accused like that, I was able to understand the suffering of the weak. Why am I in politics? In the past, it was merely for personal gain. But why do the Phantom Thieves continue to change hearts? I believe they do it for the world and its people. And in choosing to do justice for others, they had no choice but to disguise themselves. No matter what the world says, I fully support them. 

I’m just an average citizen. However, I will continue to voice my beliefs. I may not be able to become a Diet member this election... and I may not be able to effect change during my lifetime... but I’ve made my peace with that. I will be happy as long as I can be a meaningful stepping stone for the future of our youth!

okay. so that was a lot of close reading about yoshida. why did we do this exercise, tumblr user akechicrimes. 

there’s two takeaways from this. the first is the one that yoshida has already talked about extensively, which is that the phantom thieves are just but not because Fuck Cops and Fuck Capitalism and Fuck Anime Jeff Bezos. the phantom thieves are just because the people who are supposed to be upholding society aren’t doing their fucking jobs. the phantom thieves are specifically saying: we’ve been let down by society, so apparently we have to do everything our goddamn selves around here.

(which also ties in neatly to the general “fuck cops” vibe of persona 5 which, i would like to say, is very specifically “the cops are not doing their jobs.” the TV station scene where akira speaks back to akechi is, if i’m remembering this right, maybe the ONLY time we really hear “akira’s” opinion on the morality of his own activities, which is fascinating because he just does these things without ever justifying himself to the player--anyway, his three options are: (1) They’re justice itself, (2) They’re necessary, and (3) They do more than the cops. so akira can’t ever at any point say that the phantom thieves are bad, but his most interesting and detailed answer is to point out that the cops aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do, so who can really blame the phantom thieves for doing what the cops aren’t?)

the second takeaway is that yes, goro akechi does get more leniency because he’s a minor. 

yes. seriously. this isn’t a matter of excusing what he did, or downplaying the fact that he committing murder. i’m not saying that he wasn’t old enough to make decisions (although i would never say that he was old enough to make decisions, because he was 14/15 when he got wrapped up in shido’s conspiracy). i’m also not saying that akechi, somehow for some reason, didn’t volunteer himself willingly, because all the evidence points to the fact that he did (although of course “free will” is also highly circumspect considering his living conditions at the time and the fact that shido makes it clear that he was able to manipulate akechi without ever infringing on akechi’s sense of autonomy). i’m not even saying that akechi was driven to the point of murder and had no other choice (although i think that might also be true as well).

what i am saying is that under the construction of childhood as japan’s future and japan’s hope, akechi is considered a valuable member of society, and is therefore worth saving.

or at least he should be.

akechi says that he’s an unwanted child, but “unwanted child,” according to yoshida’s rhetoric (and a lot of japan’s general rhetoric of children as hope for the future) is an oxymoron. (or at least it would be an oxymoron if japan weren’t so fucking hypocritical.) you can’t not want the future of the country. you can’t not want hope for a good future. the very idea that a child could be not wanted or not valuable doesn’t make any sense, because children are the future--in some ways, whether you like it or not, that child is going to inherit the earth when you’re dead.

the kind of person who’d not want those things is--well, shido. (this is why i used yoshida; yoshida and shido are two polar opposite politicians.) shido quite literally does not want a good future for anyone in the country and quite literally does not want akechi and quite literally does not see akechi, one of the very young-person citizens that shido is supposed to be serving, as useful or valuable in any way unless akechi is directly promoting shido’s fame and popularity. shido being akechi’s father is just a very neat and nice way of literalizing the ways that shido, as an adult, has let down akechi as a child--the ways that shido quite literally owed akechi something to make akechi’s life and future better, and instead did everything awful.

there should not ever be a thing like “unwanted child.” that in and of itself, from the start of akechi’s life, was nonsensical. and to the extent that shido being akechi’s father is allegorical of the ways that shido is a terrible patriarch for japan, i would say that akechi, as an unwanted foster child, is just another allegory for the ways that children nowadays are treated as misbehaving, lazy good-for-nothings who have to work themselves into the dirt to be given half the salary and half the praise. akechi, as an unwanted child, is just the personification and representative of an apparently unwanted generation. 

what i’m getting at is that akechi’s status as a minor (and yes he’s a minor even if he’s eighteen; age of majority in japan is twenty)--akechi’s status as a minor is a critical part of why akechi gets a shot at a redemption arc. so yes, actually, the other villains or palace-rulers don’t get redemption arcs because they are adults, who had a societal obligation to do better by their peers and by the children of japan. yes, actually, akechi’s informal “trial” in the hands of fandom is to be tried as a minor and not as an adult. yes, i know kamoshida didn’t kill anyone and akechi’s literal crimes are more morally repugnant, but yes, unfortunately, being a minor does actually exonerate him on the morality spectrum to a degree. 

being a child matters in the larger scheme of persona 5′s logic of who owes who, who’s responsible for who, and why we should not be apathetic. adults owe children a better future. adults have been letting children down. adults owe every single phantom thief, including akechi, an apology, a better future, and health and happiness; and they owe that to japan’s future not as a matter of exchange or morals, but simple social obligation. adults are supposed to take care of the kids--full stop. 

”okay but @ tumblr user akechicrimes?? akechi KILLED people.”

yeah, i know. i said “being a minor does actually exonerate him on the morality spectrum to a degree.” 

what degree? no idea. that’s up to you to decide. if you want to play in the black-grey-white morality scale that only goes two ways, you’re welcome to continue to ask “what degree.” we can argue that being a minor somehow reels akechi back from the “black” end of the spectrum into the “grey” or “white” parts. 

but (if i may be permitted to go completely off the shits into things that might make people pissed off at me for saying) i implore you to consider that this two-way scale of morality is not the line of thought that persona 5 is pursuing. 

this, again, ties back into the social construction of a child. i’ve said “a child is representative of the country’s future” so many times i think it’s lost meaning, so let me dice it a different way: a child is socially constructed as representative of potential and hope. a child is socially constructed as the capacity for things to get better. in persona terms, a child is the fool at the start of their journey, all futures contained in one present, a vast multitude of could-be’s. 

for a game very concerned with japan’s general societal ruin, children are not just in the position of having been let down by adults, but are--as the phantom thieves demonstrate--representative of better futures regardless of how terrible circumstances look in the current day. they are a source of believing one day this sad, depressing story might actually end with “and then they lived happily ever after.”

if i may go even more completely off the shits, take a look at this heckler from yoshida’s s link, which is the one that akira speaks back to in the middle of yoshida’s speech:

...I’ve been wrong this whole time. Even though someone has failed in the past, it doesn’t mean that person can’t try again.

this is to say, redemption arcs insofar as persona 5 (and also persona 5 royal, i think) is concerned is not a question of necessarily addressing the wrongs that have occurred. yoshida sets the bar pretty high in that yoshida does not ask for forgiveness for what he’s done, and instead simply accepts his actions and their consequences without attempting to lessen the blow. he embraces what he’s done in all its awfulness. 

but because akechi is a a minor, and because akechi as a minor is getting wrapped up in persona 5′s train of thought about kids as the hopeful futures of japan, akechi is at the very least owed a chance to do better. as a minor, japan is societally contracte to give him the space to have the potential to be better and do better. nobody is obligated to forgive him, and indeed neither royal nor akechi ever seem to entertain this as a valid possibility. forgive, forget, reconciliation, retribution, and resolution seem to be all off the table, as if the very idea would minimize haru or futaba’s losses. the very conceit of the dreamworld in P5R wants to shoot down the very idea that the past can ever, to any degree, be fixed, remedied, or even emotionally resolved. akechi will have always killed wakaba and okumura and this fact will always be awful--full stop.

nevertheless, despite the fact that the past cannot be changed, akechi is still a minor. rather than attempting to resolve the issues of the past, akechi is still owed the space to become a beacon of potential change for the better in the future--which is also known as hope. 

i’ve said this in other posts elsewhere, but persona games are like, obsessed with hope. they fucking adore that shit. why not? even in difficult times, even when things are terrible and you’re going through misery, if you at least have hope that one day things will be better, that life will change, that the new generation will step up to the plate and make the story have a happy ending, pain becomes easier to bear. and why not? persona games cover a breadth of difficult topics. 

especially in a game like P5, which talks at length about modern day japan’s ailments, what good is it if the player walks away with a defeatist attitude that the future will be terrible? 

if reality is malleable like morgana says, isn’t the first step to have hope that this is true?

this post has gone on a lot longer than i thought it would. but in any event. that’s why it is valid to say that akechi being a minor “exonerates” him to a degree. 

also selim bradley lives because fma:b concurs that children are a hope for a better future and fma:b is particularly invested in this line of thought because it’s a story about edward transitioning from a child to a young adult who is learning about the ways that the world works and is also still just childlike enough to propose that the world shouldn’t have to work in the bloody, awful way that it does. selim is representative that all children should be given as many chances as possible to do and be better because they are representative of potential. if that wasn’t clear. lmao.