Realistically, I get why people think the Pabu folks and Crosshair haven't been told about Tech. Taken within the bounds of the show, it looks like NO processing is going on, so does anyone even know? That seems absurd given the time jump presented in episode 1--which is masterfully handled--but still.

Yet Michelle Ang herself indicated we see none of Omega's processing ('there's not time for it with everything else going on') and the episode reviews for 1-8 confirm is it never addressed. That just makes no sense if they've not already been told.

So, they've been told, and we don't get to see it. But I totally grok why anyone not terminally online would be assuming those conversations haven't happened because the show is making it look like he only just died and word isn't out, when it's been 3-4 whole ass months.

In S3E1 Omega is in no way acting like someone mourning a beloved mentor and brother. She is literally not.

This is utterly unhinged writing if Tech is really dead. It erases the grief over such a loss and acts like 'well we all had to just move on' when the marketing was so, SO heavy handed on THE LOSS and THE SACRIFICE. What loss, what sacrifice? NO ONE IS UPSET ABOUT IT OR PROCESSING.

So. Like. They've been told. But I bet he's on his way back in some manner or another.

As @eriexplosion has pointed out, Kanan Jarrus got an entire episode about how he was definitely not coming back. Echo stepped off screen and Omega and Tech had an emotional arc about it that spanned two episodes. He wasn't even injured he was just off with his bro!

Tech yeets himself to save them and uh here are his goggles 'not all of us made it back' is the sum total of our commentary. ?!

I can totally explain a bit of my thinking behind seeing lwj as autistic and wwx as autistic/adhd!! Before I get into specifics though, let me preface with where I’m coming from. I first saw CQL and then read the EXR translation of the novel. I prefer MDZS to CQL, but also want to acknowledge that because I do not read/speak Mandarin I am inherently experiencing this story second-hand and therefore am probably missing out on a lot of nuances. I am trying to learn Mandarin, but it will be a long time before I am even a little close to fluent lol.

Another preface- obviously not all autistic people present in the same way, and many of the things that I will mention are not solely specific to autistic people either. It’s one of those things where all of it added up together points towards asd, but each one individually would not on its own indicate asd, you know? Also, I will say that many of the things I picked up on for both characters are autistic traits that many autistic people have vs the clinical characteristics (much like most of the case I could make for wwx’s adhd would be adhd traits he has rather than symptoms that would lead to a real-world diagnosis.) Edit: OH! I almost forgot to say, that also all of these traits I’m listing are from a western perspective, and I would LOVE to read more about how autism presents in different cultures and to see conversations between autistc Chinese people specifically, so as to see if these traits are specific to western autistic people or not, but again, I do not speak Mandarin or Cantonese or any other Chinese dialect, so that’s a little inaccessible for me atm.

Ok, SO, for both characters I would list: strong sense of justice, lack of care for society’s opinion (I feel like it could be argued that lwj does to a certain point, but imo he operates more from what he morally considers to be correct and from a place of familial duty vs catering to the opinion of society at large), and then more vaguely, they both seem to be “nerdy” (this doesnt feel like the most accurate term, especially because it's not like being scholarly is specific to their characters, especially in ancient fantasy China- it’s more that their particular hmmm, flavor?? of love of knowledge feels very neurodivergent to me, vs like, being scholarly because it’s the thing that is expected of a Young Master, if that makes any sense at all- like the difference btwn someone getting an engineering degree because it is expected of them vs because they genuinely love engineering), and lastly for both- I would say that they are canonically kinky, and while I can’t cite any statistics, there’s a pretty high correlation between being autistic and being into kink. Obviously, not every person who is not vanilla is autistic, and not every autistic person is into kink…….but there is a high correlation.

For lwj specifically, the things that made me think he might be autistic are his lack of outward emoting combined with his depth and breadth of emotions, how he seems to thrive in and quite enjoy the very structured environment he grew up in, and then the last one off the top of my head (side note, I feel like a week from now I’m going to randomly think of other examples lol) I’m not actually sure IS an example, because I know (thanks to the awesome post from hunxi that you linked to that I had read previously) that his succintness does not equal autism, but I do kind of feel like it is very autistic to Always be so formal and to Always talk in textbook perfect language.

For wwx, I also think he likely has CPTSD! I’m not going to list anything for adhd or cptsd since we both agree on those :) As far as being autistic goes, there is, of course, the high prevalence of adhd/asd comorbidity. For specifc traits- while autism can show up as lack of facial expressions/tone, it can also show up as being overly exuberant and overexpressive. Especially for younger autistic children this can show up as being overly friendly/no boundaries w/ strangers (just?? going home with a random man who says he knew wwx’s parents???), making unusual connections that others do not can be both asd and adhd, his disregard for social status (disregard might be a strong word, and also I feel like this might be one of those things that got lost in translation and if I had read the original text I might have a different opinon, but what I mean here is the way that often autistic people learn certain social rules and try their best to follow them, but often do not pick up on specifics related to social hierarchy that are not spelled out for them- I think jyl’s take down of jin zixun is a great example of the /oppossite/ of what I’m talking about, and is a very neurotypical interaction. An example also of what I mean by disregard for social hierarchy, but from my own life, is how I’ve reflected on past convos w/ my boss only to realize that what I thought was just an interesting conversation about our opinons on a particular subject was actually them trying to tell-me-as-my-boss something they wanted me to do. We ended up doing things the way I wanted to do them because I didn’t realize that they were telling me to do something because they didnt explicitly say so, and because I just don’t pick up on when people are saying something from a social hierarchy pov. Idk if this makes sense or not, so I’m happy to try to expand if you would like me to. I feel like wwx could be described as having alexithymia, which is very common in autistic people, but could also be due to his cptsd. And then, I don’t feel like this is a true point because it is kind of based on headcanon? but wwx feels very demisexual to me, which is much more common for autistic people than it is for allistic people. But him being demi is not canon, just my perception of him (I see him as demisexual gay w/ massive comphet, but I know lots of people see him as bi, which also totally makes sense!!)

Tbh, I’m having a harder time than I thought I would listing wwx specifics. I might go through the book sometime this weekend and see if there are specific moments that pop out at me, but tbh w/ him its more that he Feels very adhd/asd to me?? Idk, I was diagnosed w/ adhd when I was 8, and all 4 of my siblings plus my father have offical adhd diagnoses. I’m 29 now and was only diagnosed as autistic earlier this year.  All of my close friends have always been either adhd, asd, or adhd/asd. There have been multiple people I have met that I’ve suspected were neurodivergent who have later told me they started looking into it and are now seeking formal diagnoses. I mention these things, only to give full context when I say that I have spent a lot of time observing the differences between interacting with neurotypicals and neurodivergents. I mean, obviously, it’s possible that I could just be projecting, but to me, Wwx gives off late-diagnosed/heavy masker autism/adhd combo vibes. Again, maybe I am projecting, but I did try to analyze whether I was or not previously, and determined that since in the past with other favorite characters (who I probably share more similarities in personality with) I did not feel like they were neurodivergent, so I figured that probably I wasn’t? That feels like a very convoluted sentence, but what I mean is that I have not thought that about other characters who have been my fav, so I figured that while I do project in certain areas that this particular area probably wasn’t one of them. Or, to say it in yet another way, since i did not project any of my neurodivergencies on past favorite characters, I figured I probably didn’t start doing so now.

I would love to hear more of your perspective on this, particularly because I worry that I do not have the cultural touchstones to realize when something wwx or lwj is doing is not actually a sign of being neurodivergent. I try my best to research things I don’t know about and to listen to fans who actually do have that cultural understanding, but there’s only so much I can look into on my own when I only speak/read english. And also, I love mdzs and I love talking about both adhd and autism, so I’m glad to talk about these subjects with someone else who also likes all of those topics :) Sorry for sending a book of a response and also I hope you are having a great day!!

wow wow wow anon THANK YOU for doing your research and acknowledging your blind spots you seriously made my day. I wanted to get to this as soon as I made that rant while sharing cyan’s post bc this is specifically an example of a well researched proposition based on actual lived experience and critical thinking.

I almost want to ask you to come forward so we can take this convo elsewhere for a more nuanced discussion bc you’ve already hit upon an issue that’s been holding me back from making a big blathering masterpost on the matter - that the ND experience is so unique and individual, and no one person can dictate someone else’s experience. at the end of the day, if you personally relate to these characters and gain more understanding of yourself and your experiences from them, who am I to take that away from you?

in a public space though I have to make the discussion very broad in order to accurately contextualize these issues, bc in typical autistic fashion I feel morally compelled to Do My Best and Get It Right even as the masses show no inclination of returning the favor, so apologies for the boring backstories I have to get out of the way before we can approach anything resembling new ground.

first from a diagnostic standpoint, while I recognize the traits you listed (and appreciate your clearly nuanced understanding of ND expressions) and would find value in exploring them in a personal context, they are not unique to adhd and/or autism and wouldn’t constitute a basis for diagnosis in a clinical setting. I know that's probably beside the point for this anon, but there's enough edgy teens hoarding labels out there without tacit encouragement from scientists (yes I am technically a scientist, even though my ideologies these days range from conventional to... wildly esoteric, shall we say)

from a cultural standpoint, it’s important for me to emphasize that the concept of neurodivergence is a uniquely western notion. for those unfamiliar, the term 'neurodiversity' was only coined in 1998. I was born in 1991. I existed for a whole 7 years as an autistic person before the idea of being neurodivergent was even a thing. this ND acceptance thing is very, very new - people were not making tiktok confessionals about their adhd diagnosis journeys when I was growing up.

china, like most asian countries, is about 20 years or more behind on just about every social issue compared with western countries. to better illustrate, the experience of being ND in china falls much closer to the conventional experience of disability (i.e. being eugenicized out of existence) than the tentative ND acceptance movement that’s been kickstarted in the past 20 years in the anglosphere.

safe to say, there is no ND coding going on in chinese media. characters are either explicitly ND or they're not. there's no basis for a creator subtly inducing ND-like traits in a character, because there's no such thing as ND awareness in the cultural context of where mdzs was written and consumed. any resemblance is purely accidental, as they say.

as to how this resemblance could exist - I could go into the layers and layers of historical, cultural, social and religious context that make up these characters and the xianxia genre as a whole. for this anon in particular i'm happy to, because they've done the work. please please get in touch in some way where we can have a fully fleshed out chat if you're interested in taking this further, I realize i’ve basically addressed none of the finer points you’ve raised but honestly it’s another level of discussion to be had that cannot be summarized in one blog post haha.

as for those who would scream 'but special interests!!' at a character whose sect was founded by a literal monk - what would be the point?

PS. to comprise a starting point for why it's possible to see ND4ND everywhere in media if you looked hard enough - I refer you to the seminal red oni blue oni trope 💁‍♀️

what do you think is the in-universe/fandom/writers perspective of sam, and how do you think they vary? I was thinking about how i usually hear he is the responsible/intelligent one, which i dont think works really well, especially in later seasons and i dont know if that is the way the rest of the characters view him. And I also started thinking about how theres this general believe (1)

that the writers have over time, forgot sam's personality/way of thinking, which explains why we know more about dean, that we do sam. I don't know if this makes sense lol :p I guess I just think that even though there are different interpretations of the characters in the show, since sam is a lot more private than dean, its easier to read dean (2)

Hiya... this is a weird question, but I will do my best to answer. I... don’t think they really vary how they write Sam. I mean, some episodes deal more specifically with him and his point of view and internal drama than others, but I do agree that we are shown less of that side of Sam then we are of Dean. But I also don’t think this is a new thing.

Dean has almost always been our “audience point of view” character. Or at the very least our “audience emotional touchstone” character. With a few exceptions, like a good chunk of the time he was saddled with the Mark of Cain. But aside from that, yeah... he’s the one we most often see the story through.

Going all the way back to s1, things ~happen to Sam~ and Dean reacts. I think they may have originally been shooting for more of a balance, and maybe did even originally intend Sam to be the audience POV character. After all, he was being pulled back into this underworld of sorts of supernatural monsters and demons and stuff. We-the-audience could’ve so easily had our entry into their world through Sam’s eyes, being pulled from normal citizen into the hunter world through Sam’s adjustment to it all. But it never really worked for me. Sam’s pov was Traumatized™ from the end of the pilot episode, while Dean was already grounded in that world, accepting of it and ready to keep living the hunter life. It proved to be a far more stable pov and emotional engagement to the narrative, you know? Sam kept wanting to run away. Kinda hard to feel attached to the narrative through that sort of emotional standpoint, you know? *I* didn’t want to run away...

But then stuff KEPT happening to Sam-- the weird powers that terrified him, the loss of his connection to the normal world that put him off balance just as much, the realization that there might never be an end to the hunting... which put that burden on Dean as a character to keep pushing forward, and that’s the through-line for the audience to cling to emotionally.

Sam’s fighting against the demon blood powers, Dean keeps him grounded and supports him. John tells Dean that he either has to save Sam or else kill him, and we-the-audience are supposed to suspect there’s something Dark about Sam that we should be at the very least wary of, but Dean sticks by him swearing to save him no matter what. Sam’s kidnapped and killed, and Dean finally does save him, buy trading his own soul for Sam’s. In s4, Sam *is* hiding dark secrets, working behind Dean’s back with Ruby, basically succumbing to drug addiction while Dean tries to protect him from all that.

Sam’s soulless, Dean finds a way to save his soul. Sam’s halluciferating, Dean finds a way to save him again. Dean’s in Purgatory, and Sam hit a dog-- not even trying to do the whole saving thing... again, making it hard to put a pin on how we’re supposed to interact with the guy who keeps wanting to run away from his own story while we’re supposed to be engaging with it.

Sam takes on the trials, Dean supports him through it. Sam’s possessed by an angel, and unaware of the fact, so Dean is our window into that entire mess.

Then the Mark of Cain happens, and Sam goes off the dang rails trying to save Dean from himself... which is the only flip in this script, really, aside from Sam trying to save Dean from Michael now in s14.

The thing with s10 is that I personally had a really hard time trusting Sam’s assessment of Dean’s mental state, simply because he’s never really had a bead on it before. The show attempting to force us to see the emotional beats through Sam’s eyes just... didn’t fly for me. It was a disconnect. I’m much happier with the situation now in s14, because I actually *do* feel like I get Sam’s pov now. At least, more than I ever did back in s10.

I think the notion that Sam is “the responsible/intelligent one” is a fandom oversimplification. Like... I said above, Sam was always the one trying to run away from his own life. I mean, that’s not exactly “responsible” behavior. As for intelligence, there’s lots of different types of intelligence, and Dean is just as “intelligent” as Sam is, but in different ways. They think differently. Heck, I wrote a lot about this back during s11, but the tl;dr of all of it was that they are different people with different emotional coping styles. Sam might be great at research and getting people to open up to him and thinking through problems in a linear, logical fashion, but that doesn’t make him “smarter” than Dean. Dean’s more intuitive, and relies a lot more on his own understanding of the world to make logical leaps to solutions. I also think, for a vast number of reasons not least of which is the fact that Dean had essentially been a “parental” figure to Sam his whole life while Sam had unwittingly fallen into a “child” role because of that, that Dean is the more emotionally intuitive and Sam’s not even been fully aware of just how emotionally demanding he’s been of Dean while not offering Dean the same sort of emotional consideration in return. Because kids just don’t do that for their parents (or they definitely shouldn’t, despite Dean’s heaven memory of doing that for Mary in 5.16, but that’s another post entirely).

Sam understands the world through the lens of his own experience. He assumes that everyone else feels and reacts as he would in those circumstances. Dean, however, understands people. But he’s got a couple of huge blind spots when it comes to Sam, just like we-the-audience do. Not through any fault of his own, but because of how he was parentified and how his entire life to a certain point had been devoted to the cause of protecting Sam.

This is partly why I was THRILLED to hear Sam opening up to Rowena in 13.12. What a fantastic episode. Not only did Sam successfully take on the emotional burden of the narrative with aplomb while Dean was compromised, but he actually had an honest emotional chat with Rowena about trauma he admitted to having kept secret for almost EIGHT YEARS. 

I mean, he did pretty good in 12.11, too, when Dean was losing his memories. He became the “hand-holder” for the audience quite nicely in that episode too, even if some of his shortcomings were put on display. But it took him another YEAR after that to really begin to open up about his actual feelings, you know? Rather than clinging to Dean because he needed him (which is a theme that goes way back, long before his talk with Charlie in 10.18 even about how he’d resigned himself to this life, but only as long as Dean was in it with him), it took him rebelling and “picking a side” in s12 for him to really begin to figure out HIMSELF, instead of just what he is as an adjunct to Dean.

GROWTH!

And now he’s responsibly taking on leadership roles and learning about what Dean went through all those years taking care of him through helping to guide Jack through his own life. So I don’t think it’s so much that the writers have “forgotten” who Sam is, but they’re finally letting him grow up in a lot of ways, like they’ve shown us Dean getting to grow into his own person as well. And I think it’s spectacular.

I’ve written a bunch about the differences in Sam and Dean as characters, and a lot of it is tagged “sam sympathizes and dean empathizes”, and a lot of the parentification of Dean stuff is in the “performing dean” tag-- which also deals with this disconnect of how Sam sees Dean through this hazy lens of performance that was often structured specifically to hide Dean’s personal emotional turmoil beneath a Strong Mask for Sam’s benefit-- but as I’m getting into s11 now on my blog retagging project, there’s probably gonna be more stuff falling into that tag, with the perspective of hindsight. :P

Rreading posts today from various people I learned that Taika Waititi, director of Ragnarok, has no idea why Loki is a tragic character. Loki’s story alone and from his POV is, actually, a tragedy. But to someone who doesn’t really understand the definition of what makes a character, setting, novel, or film a “tragedy” the idea that Loki is a tragic character sounds utterly ridiculous and overdramatic.

So here’s a definition of the tragic character/a tragedy as written by E. B. Greenwood in 1994/95 for the introduction to Anna Karenina for anyone curious as to WHY I call Loki a “tragic character”. I’ve changed some words so that it fits my topic.

“What do I mean by saying that it is, in substance, a tragedy? [...] It has the substance of tragedy in that in it, as Aristotle required, a person neither of superlative goodness nor repellant wickedness (i.e. a character whom we can sympathise with, even love) makes a mistaken choice or set of choices. Aristotle called this hamartia. When this choice leads to a situation from which there is no way out but suffering, we have tragedy. Both Greek and Shakespearean tragedy involve poetic stylisation and elevation and actions out of the ordinary. Loki’s tragedy comes much closer to the type of tragedy described by Tolstoy’s favorite philosopher Schopenhauer in Section 51 of The World as Will and Representation:

Finally, the misfortune can be brought about also by the mere attitude of the persons to one another through their relations. Thus there is no need either of a colossal error, or of an unheard-of accident, or even of a character reaching the bounds of human possibility in wickedness, but characters as they usually are in a moral regard in circumstances that frequently occur, are so situated with regard to one another that their position forces them, knowingly and with their eyes open, to do one another the greatest injury, without any of them being entirely in the wrong. This last kind of tragedy seems to me to be far preferably to the other two; for it shows us the greatest misfortune not as an exception, not as something brought about by rare circumstances or by monstrous characters, but as something that arises easily and spontaneously out of the actions and characters of men as something almost essential to them, and in this way is brought terribly near to us. . . We see the greatest suffering brought about by entanglements whose essence could be assumed even by our own fate, and by actions that perhaps even we might be capable of committing, and so we cannot complain of injustice. Then, shuddering, we feel ourselves already in the midst of hell. In this last kind of tragedy the working out is of the greatest difficulty; for the greatest effect has to be produced in it with the least use of means and occasions for movement, merely by their position and distribution.

When I read all of the above upon purchasing Anna Karenina, I was quite surprised at how fitting it was of Loki’s role and an explanation of why he is a tragic character. Because, in a most ironic turn of events, the god who declares ‘there are no men like him’ is, in fact, utterly and completely like the men he seeks to dominate. He’s relatable, identifiable, lovable; because he’s flawed, and hurting, and desirous of the same emotions all human beings want:

Recognition, adoration, affection, support, protection, love, companionship. 

The reason why I included that excerpt from Schopenhauer is because I think that fits Loki too-- in his universe, the things that happened to him frequently occurred, but they built and built until he snapped beneath the weight of them; something everyone who came to adore Loki recognized and found utterly relatable, to the point of being distressed for Loki. 

He’s not a villain, he never was, he’s just a tragic character. 

And the problem with this is that tragic characters are not absolutely good nor utterly evil, they’re a bit of both and completely relatable from the audience’s point of view. That’s the reason why Marvel couldn’t figure out how to adapt him or develop him, because a tragic character is, always, fated to die.

Hamlet, Anna Karenina, Romeo, Juliet, Loki-- their roles are to bring to the foreground that the typical nature of humans is to destroy themselves for a motive they think in their own minds will help them while meanwhile the reality of it is that guides them toward their eventual end. We are all heroes in our own minds where we tell ourselves how much good we’re doing; but our actions make us deplorable to the people looking on. The Tragic Character role in all forms of writing is to wake up other characters to the realization that they need to change how they act if they want to prevent the same end. 

[Which is what happened in the end of Thor. Thor realized that anger can lead to self-destruction, and Odin learned that not mentioning his love for his sons can lead to their downfall]

The problem is that in order to continue to make Thor and Loki interesting, new and unique storylines would have to be created-- risk would have to be made. Loki would have to keep on being a tragic character and he’d have to die. Which he was going to do in The Dark World. But with Marvel, as with most things in this day and age, Loki’s name goes synonymously with money. He’d been making them money, he generated interest. Look how massive Ragnarok’s box office income [or whatever that’s called?] was on day one alone. 

Yeah, sure, there were people there because their interested had been piqued by the [bad] trailers for the film, and they also came because a large majority of people love Thor-- but who hadn’t been seen living, breathing and walking around for 4 years?

Loki.

People wanted to know what happened to Loki more than Thor-- sucks for Waititi and Hemsworth, but it’s the truth. We’ve been seeing Thor in basically every Avengers film except Captain America: Civil War. We know that he’s alive, how he’s doing, how things are going for him. But no one knew about Loki. Because Loki is the tragic character, the human one in a sea of unhuman, “good” characters (Thor, Odin, Frigga, Sif, Volstagg, Hogun, Fandral, Heimdall), if you will. He’s the one we look to and go “I wonder what he’s thinking” “I wonder how he’s feeling” because as soon as we see it:

“Trust my rage”

“Because I’m the monster parents tell their children about at night?”

“The humans slaughter each other in droves while you idly fret”

We can RELATE to what he’s saying, we GET what he’s saying. Yes, we all think with a grin at one another, Thor really is going on about nothing, wish he’d stop some of our wars. Yes, TRUST RAGE, because when we’re angry the truth comes out ungilt with fancy falsehoods and pretty pretendings. Yes, we all sometimes feel we’ve become what our parents warned us against when we were younger--no wonder it seems as if their love for us has diminished into nothing, they hate what we’ve become.

This is, 100%, a tragic character. People either love them or hate them because they remind us of who we are and what we’re capable of. Murder? Yes. Hatred? Yes. Rage? Yes. Self-doubt? Yes. Fear? Yes. Self-loathing? Yes. The capability to be good or bad or both in turns? Yes.

And the fact that the person who plays this role is someone who studied roles like this (among others) for his higher education? Well, it (quite literally) can’t get any better than that. Not only is Loki a tragic character, but he’s played by an actor who understands the method of performing tragedies, who understands how those characters have to be played out, and who can relate to them at the same time to make that performance dynamite. 

The reason why Ragnarok!Loki is so appalling is because he’s played in the same method as Thor, however not in the role of “Morally Good” character but rather in the role of Touchstone the Jester. He says some clever things amidst his largely joksy lines. But he’s really just there for giggles [also as a foil for the main characters to bounce sage-sounding lines or soliloquies off of], and not much else.

And we, as fans, hate that because that’s not Loki’s role. He isn’t the god of jokes. So I’ve taken to looking at this whole Gagnarok problem as an attempt at erasing the Tragic Character That Is Loki because he’s very difficult to write. It was difficult for Tolstoy to write Anna Karenina in the beginning because of how human the characters were, how easily their actions could very well become his own. There’s a reason it took him some three years to complete that novel: writing Tragic Characters is hard. In the process of creating them, writers have to admit things about themselves that all human beings would rather shove into little dark places in our hearts and ignore.

Or there’s another reason they have to crush his beautiful writing into the garbage chute: 

He’s

a) going to turn up alive and well but just for shits and giggles in A4

or

b) going to turn up alive and well and hatefully backstabbing in A4

I’m voting on the latter instead of the former. I’ll be really pleased, however, if he has a proper Tragic Character ending. As in, he comes back, helps the Avengers out, and then agrees to die anyway to save the “better” characters. Or dies in the process of actually saving one of the “better” characters. Because that crap at the beginning of Infinity War will never please me, I’m sorry. Tom’s acting: lovely. Loki’s role before kicking the bucket: garbage.

Annnnnd I think I’m done for the evening. I hope this made sense-- I’m sick so I’m doped up by the doc to the point of constantly feeling drowsy and half-lucid. If anyone wants to have further conversation on this, reblog the post or message me or ask me.