(...) Silver had terrible hard work getting up the knoll. What with the steepness of the incline, the thick tree stumps, and the soft sand, he and his crutch were as helpless as a ship in stays. But he stuck to it like a man in silence, and at last arrived before the captain, whom he saluted in the handsomest style. He was tricked out in his best; an immense blue coat, thick with brass buttons, hung as low as to his knees, and a fine laced hat was set on the back of his head. “Here you are, my man,” said the captain, raising his head. “You had better sit down.” “You ain’t a-going to let me inside, cap’n?” complained Long John. “It’s a main cold morning, to be sure, sir, to sit outside upon the sand.” “Why, Silver,” said the captain, “if you had pleased to be an honest man, you might have been sitting in your galley. It’s your own doing. You’re either my ship’s cook—and then you were treated handsome—or Cap’n Silver, a common mutineer and pirate, and then you can go hang!” “Well, well, cap’n,” returned the sea-cook, sitting down as he was bidden on the sand, “you’ll have to give me a hand up again, that’s all.” (...) Silver’s face was a picture; his eyes started in his head with wrath. He shook the fire out of his pipe. “Give me a hand up!” he cried. “Not I,” returned the captain. “Who’ll give me a hand up?” he roared. Not a man among us moved. Growling the foulest imprecations, he crawled along the sand till he got hold of the porch and could hoist himself again upon his crutch. Then he spat into the spring. “There!” he cried. “That’s what I think of ye. Before an hour’s out, I’ll stove in your old block house like a rum puncheon. Laugh, by thunder, laugh! Before an hour’s out, ye’ll laugh upon the other side. Them that die’ll be the lucky ones.” And with a dreadful oath he stumbled off, ploughed down the sand, was helped across the stockade, after four or five failures, by the man with the flag of truce, and disappeared in an instant afterwards among the trees.

It's always tempting to debate bigots about their bigotry, but honestly the best thing you can do is often to directly help those affected by said bigotry.

Bigotry doesn't exist to be debated. People who are bigots do not care about debate - they care about humiliating their opponents. You cannot outsmart somebody who doesn't give a flying fuck about their position being incorrect. You will be playing a completely different game by trying to debate somebody out of their bigotry.

The best thing you can do is to show up for the marginalized. Check in on them, talk to them, and engage with them as people. Ask them if they would like help and then respect their answer to the best of your capabilities. Oftentimes, that will be sufficient enough and will go a long way.

Disney's Wish

Look, Disney's Wish has been universally panned across the internet, and for good reason.

It’s just…kind of okay.

 When we sit down to watch a Disney film—you know, from the company that dominated the animation industry from 1989 to (arguably) the mid 2010’s and defined the medium of animation for decades—we expect something magnificent. Now, I could sit here and tell you everything that I thought was wrong with Wish, but if you’re reading this review, then I imagine that you’ve already heard the most popular gripes from other users across the web. So, let me focus in:

The biggest problem with Wish—in fact, the only problem with Wish—is Magnifico.

Whoa, that’s crazy! There’re so many things about Wish that could’ve been better! The original concept was stronger! The music was bad--

I hear you, I do. But stay with me here, okay? Take my hand. I studied under artists from the Disney renaissance. I teach an adapted model of Disney’s story pipeline at a University level. I spent a ridiculous amount of time getting degrees in this, and I am about to dissect this character and the narrative to a stupid degree.

First, we need to understand that a good story doesn’t start and end with what we see on the screen. Characters aren’t just fictional people; when used well, characters are tools the author uses (or in this case, the director) to convey their message to the audience. Each character’s struggle should in some way engage with the story’s message, and consequently, the story’s theme. Similarly, when we look at our protagonist and our antagonist, we should see their characters and their journeys reflected in one-another.

So, what went wrong between Asha & Magnifico in terms of narrative structure?

Act I

In Wish, we’re introduced to our hero not long into the runtime—Asha. She’s ambitious, caring, and community-oriented; in fact, Asha is truly introduced to the audience through her love of Rosas (in “Welcome to Rosas”).  She’s surrounded by a colorful cast of friends who act as servants in the palace, furthering her connection with the idea of community but also telling us that she’s not of status, and then she makes her way to meet Magnifico for her chance to become his next apprentice.

Quick aside: I'm not going to harp on Asha as a character in the context of Disney's overall canon. Almost every review I've seen covers her as a new addition to Disney's ever-growing repertoire of "Cute Quirky Heroines", and I think to be fair to Asha as an actor in the narrative, it serves her best to be weighed within the context of the story she's part of.

As Asha heads upstairs for her interview, we're introduced to the man of the hour: Magnifico. He lives in a tower high above the population of Rosas, immediately showing us how he differs from Asha; he’s disconnected from his community. He lives above them. He has status. While the broader context of the narrative wants us to believe that this also represents a sense of superiority, I would argue that isn’t what Magnifico’s introduction conveys; he's isolated.

Despite this distance, he does connect with Asha in “At All Costs”. For a moment, their goals and values align. In fact, they align so well that Magnifico sees Asha as someone who cares as much about Rosas as he does, and almost offers her the position.

… Until she asks him to grant Saba’s wish.

This is framed by the narrative as a misstep. The resonance between their ideals snaps immediately, and Magnifico says something along the line of “Wow. Most people wait at least a year before asking for something.”

This disappointment isn't played as coming from a place of power or superiority. He was excited by the idea of working with someone who had the same values as he did, who viewed Rosas in the same way he does, and then learns that Asha’s motivations at least partially stem from a place of personal gain.

Well, wait, is that really Asha's goal?

While it's not wholistically her goal, it's very explicitly stated & implied that getting Saba's wish granted is at least a part of it. The audience learns (through Asha's conversation with her friends before the interview) that every apprentice Magnifico has ever had gets not only their wish granted, but the wishes of their family, too!  Asha doesn’t deny that this is a perk that she’s interested in, and I don't think this is a bad thing.

So, Is Asha’s commitment to Saba selfless, or selfish? I’m sure the director wanted it to seem selfless, wherein she believes her family member has waited long enough and deserves his wish granted, but we can’t ignore the broader context of Asha essentially trying to… skip the line.

Then, we get our first point of tension. Magnifico reveals his “true colors” in snapping at Asha, telling her that he “decides what people deserve”. This is supposed to be the great motivator, it’s meant to incite anger in the audience—after all, no one gets to decide what you deserve, right? But unfortunately for the integrity of the film and the audience's suspension of disbelief, at least part of Magnifico’s argument is a little too sound to ignore:

Some wishes are too vague and dangerous to grant. Now, there’s visual irony here; he says this after looking at a 100 old man playing the lute. The idea that something so innocuous could be dangerous is absurd, and the audience is meant to agree.

... But we’ve also seen plenty of other wishes that might be chaotic—flying on a rocket to space, anyone? The use of the word vague is important, too—this implies wording matters, and that a wish can be misinterpreted or evolve into something that is dangerous even if the original intent was innocuous. His reasoning for people forgetting their wish (protecting them from the sadness of being unable to attain their dreams) is much weaker, but still justifiable (in the way an antagonist’s flawed views can be justified). The film even introduces a facet of Magnifico’s backstory that implies he has personal experience with the grief of losing a dream (in the destruction of his home), but that thread is never touched on again.

              What is the audience supposed to take from this encounter? If we’re looking at the director’s intent, I’d argue that we’ve been introduced to a well-meaning young girl and a king who’s locked away everyone’s greatest aspiration because he believes he deserves to have the power to decide who gets to be happy.

              But what are we shown? Our heroine, backed by her friends, strives to be Magnifico’s apprentice because she loves the city but also would really like to see her family's wishes granted. When this request is denied and she loses the opportunity to be his apprentice, she deems Magnifico’s judgement unfair & thus begins her journey to free the dreams of Rosas’ people.

              In fairness, Magnifico doesn’t exhibit sound judgement or kindness through this act of the film. He’s shown to be fickle, and once his composure cracks, he can be vindictive and sharp. He's not a good guy, but I'd argue he's not outright evil. He's just got the makings of a good villain, and those spikes of volatility do give us a foundation to work off of as he spirals, but as we’ll discuss in a bit, the foreshadowing established here isn’t used to the ends it implies.

              While I was watching this film, I was sure Magnifico was going to be a redeemable villain. He can’t connect with people because he's sure they value what he provides more than they value him (as seen in “At All Costs” and the aftermath), and Asha’s asking for more was going to be framed as a mistake. His flaw was keeping his people too safe and never giving them the chance to sink or swim, and he's too far removed from his citizens to see that he is appreciated. Asha does identify this, and the culmination of her journey is giving people the right to choose their path, but the way Magnifico becomes the “true” villain and his motivations for doing so are strangely divorced from what we’re shown in Act I.  

Act II:

His song, “This is the Thanks I Get!?” furthers the idea that Magnifico’s ire—and tipping point—is the fact that he thinks the people he’s built a kingdom for still want more. Over the course of this 3:14 song, we suddenly learn that Magnifico sends other people to help his community and doesn’t personally get involved (we never see this outside of this song), and that he’s incredibly vain/narcissistic (he's definitely a narcissist). I think feeling under-appreciated is actually a very strong motivation for Magnifico as a character-turning-villain, and it works very well. It’s justified based on what we’ve seen on screen so far: he feels under-appreciated (even though he’s decidedly not—the town adores him), he snaps and acts irrationally under stress (as seen with his outburst with Asha), and he’s frustrated that people seem to want more from him (again, as seen with his conversation with Asha in Act I).

              But then… he opens the book.

Ah, the book. As an object on screen, we know that it's filled with ancient and evil magic, well-known to be cursed by every relevant character in the film, and kept well-secured under lock and key. But what does it stand for in the context of the narrative's structure? A quick path to power? We're never told that it has any redeeming qualities; Magnifico himself doesn't seem to know what he's looking for when he opens it. It feels... convenient.

I think it's also worth noting that he only turns to the book when he's alone; once again, the idea of connection and community rears it's ugly head! Earlier in the film, Amaya-- his wife-- is present and turns him away from taking that path. In her absence, he makes the wrong choice.

This decision could make sense; it contains powerful magic, and if it were framed in such a way that the people of Rosas were losing faith in Magnifico’s magic, as if what he can do might not be enough anymore after what they felt from Star, going for the book that we know contains spells that go above and beyond what he can already do would be logical. Along the lines of, “If they’re not happy with what I do for them, fine. I, ever the “martyr”, will do the unthinkable for you, because you want more.”

            It would keeps with the idea that Magnifico believes he's still trying to help people, but his motivation has taken his self-imposed pity party and turned it into resentment and spite.

 But, that’s not the case. Instead he talks about reversing that “light”, which has had no real negative or tangible consequences on Rosas. Everyone had a warm feeling for a few seconds. Again, it’s meant to paint him as a vain control freak, but… he hasn’t lost any power. The citizens of Rosas even assume the great showing of magic was Magnifico.

Act III

              Then, we get to the consequences of opening the book (and perhaps my biggest qualm with this film). The book is established as being cursed. Magnifico knows it, Asha knows it, and Amaya—who is introduced as loyal-- knows it. The characters understand his behavior is a direct result of the book, and search for a way to save him. This is only the focus of the film for a few seconds, but if you think about it, the fact that his own wife cannot find a way to free him of the curse he’s been put under is unbelievably tragic. Worse still, upon discovering there is no way to reverse the curse, Magnifico—the king who built the city & “protected it” in his own flawed way for what seems to be centuries—is thrown out by his wife. You know, the wife who's stood loyal at his side for years?

              It’s played for laughs, but there’s something unsettling about a character who’s clearly and explicitly under the influence of a malevolent entity being left… unsaved. If you follow the idea of Magnifico being disconnected from community being a driving force behind his arc, the end of the film sees him in a worse situation he was in at the start: truly, fully alone.

              They bring in so many opportunities for Magnifico to be sympathetic and act as a foil for Asha; he’s jaded, she’s not. He’s overly cautious (even paranoid), she’s a risk-taker. He turns to power/magic at his lowest point, Asha turns to her friends at her lowest point. Because this dichotomy isn’t present, and Magnifico—who should be redeemable—isn’t, the film is so much weaker than it could’ve been. The lack of a strong core dynamic between the protagonist and antagonist echoes through every facet of the film from the music to the characterization to the pacing, and I believe if Magnifico had been more consistent, the film would’ve greatly improved across the board.

I mean, come on! Imagine if at the end of the film, Asha—who, if you remember, did resonate with Magnifico’s values at the start of the film—recognizes that he's twisted his original ideals and urges him to see the value in the people he’s helped, in their ingenuity, in their gratitude, & that what he was able to do before was enough. Going further, asking what his wish is or was—likely something he’s never been asked— and showing empathy! We’d come full circle to the start of the film where Asha asks him to grant her wish.

Pushing that further, if Magnifico’s wish is to see Rosas flourish or to be a good/beloved king, he'd have the the opportunity to see the value in failing and how pursuing the dream is its own complex and valuable journey, and how not even he is perfect.

 The curse and the book (which, for the purposes of this adjustment, would need to be established as representing the idea of stepping on others to further your own goals/the fast way to success), then serve as the final antagonist, that same curse taking root in the people of Rosas who’ve had their dreams destroyed, and Asha works with the community to quell it. Asha’s learned her lesson, so has Magnifico, and the true source of evil in the film—the book—is handled independently. Magnifico steps back from his role as King, Amaya still ends up as Queen, and Asha takes her place as the new wish-granter.

This route could even give us the true “Disney villain” everyone’s craving; giving the book sentience and having it lure Magnifico in during “This is the Thanks I Get!?” leaves it as its own chaotic evil entity.

All in all, Magnifico's introduction paved a road to redemption that the rest of the film aggressively refused to deliver on, instead doubling down on weaker motivations that seem to appear out of thin air. Once the audience thinks, hey, that bad guy might have a point, the protagonist has to do a little more heavy lifting to convince us they're wrong.

Look at the big-bad-greats from Disney's library. There isn't a point in the Lion King where we pause and think, "Wait a second, maybe Scar should be the guy who rules the Pridelands." Ursula from the Little Mermaid, though motivated by her banishment from King Triton's Seas, never seems to be the right gal for the throne. Maybe Maleficent doesn't get invited to the princess's birthday party, but we don't watch her curse a baby and think, Yeah, go curse that baby, that's a reasonable response to getting left out.

What do they all have in common? Their motivation is simple, their goal is clear, and they don't care who they hurt in pursuit of what they want.

Magnifico simply doesn't fall into that category. He's motivated by the idea of losing power, which is never a clear or impactful threat. His goal at the start seems to be to protect Rosas, then it turns into protecting his own power, and then-- once he's corrupted-- he wants to capture Star. The problem is, there's no objective to put this power toward. Power for power's sake is useless. Scar craves power because he feels robbed of status. Ursula believes the throne is rightfully hers. Maleficent wanted to make a statement. Magnifico... well, I'm not really sure.

yet another question because i like your analyses ... what do you consider to be vertin's love language? what's her favourite to give and what's her favourite to receive. also can i ask the same for sonetto and schneider

The way my brain works is it latches into certain personality traits or in game events and then tries to find context in game to deepen these ideas/theories. A lot of these ideas end up getting exaggerated and honestly a new piece of in-game lore could change how I feel about them. Ngl, I started getting self-indulgent with this one. With that little disclaimer out of the way, here we go!

Vertin as the giver: The Provider

She can be over the top with her grand displays of affection, but Vertin will love you like she is going to lose you. Due to the Storm, she very well might.

Physical touch! Especially holding hands or touching people's hair. this post has all evidence your honor.

Providing for / fulfilling desires. Will spoil her loved ones rotten.

Your happiness is her happiness, but that also means your dissatisfaction/sadness/anger is her failure.

Will support your ideas, dreams, and from time to time, your mischief.

Will compliment and praise you. Cheesy but endearing.

Doesn't like mornings, but will always wake up with you.

If you say you lie about not wanting food (she can tell), she'll order more than she can eat by herself and ask you for "help". She always orders food with the intention of sharing

Wants to take you on trips and try new things together.

Attentive to your reactions and body language. It seems like she can read your mind at times, which makes things easier. Unfortunately, you can't read hers...

Vertin as the recipient: Comfortable as a Lover, Uncertain as the Loved.

In her mind, she is the one who is supposed to be providing for you so when someone does “too much” for her, she feels like she's taking advantage of them or letting them down in some way

Will hardly ask for anything aside from occasional favors. However, she'll always accept gifts no matter how bizarre or dangerous. Give her a rock and she'll treasure it in her room. Ugly shirt as a gag gift? She'll definitely wear it.

Likes to be involved and engaged in activities alongside you. Invite her to do things you're interested in/hobbies 

Unlike Smoltin, the Timekeeper doesn't share many of her interests. She's too busy accomodating the needs of others. Ask her to play the piano or that you'd like to see her paintings. This will create an opportunity for her to open up about things she likes under the guise of doing a service for you. Really, it'll benefit both parties. NOTE: rejecting these aspects of her or dismissing her when she tries to share something with you is a big no-no. She'll stop trying to open up. (Smoltin would keep trying, but the Timekeeper will respect your perceived disinterest)

While she can "read your mind", confirming your thoughts wouldn't hurt. Let her know you enjoy doing things together or if anything is bothering you. You opening up to her is a huge deal for her! She wants to do everything she can for you and having your trust means a lot to her.

Ironically, Vertin will never tell you “everything” and that's something you have to accept. It's not even a trust thing, but due to the way she perceives time. She values her time with you and doesn't want to ruin these precious moments with negativity since time is so fleeting. She'd rather stay positive in case that day happens to be your last day together.

If an argument does occur, Vertin is the one who gets banished to the couch. However, she usually offers on her own when she knows what's coming. Even when arguing, she still wants her loved one to be as cozy as possible. She won't allow them sleep on the couch. She doesn't like arguing and will try to make things better as soon as possible.

Sonetto as the giver: The Guard Dog

Loyalty and protectiveness (comes with possessiveness) . Will sacrifice herself for her loved ones.

Nurturing; despite people thinking she's always going to obey, Sonetto will tug on the leash if anything endangers her loved ones; including her loved ones themselves. Expect a “debate” (it's not really a debate because she won't budge until you yield) on why you need to take care of yourself or else she'll do it for you.

Clingy; Just wants to be close. Doesn't like being separated

Learning about you; she wants to be part of your life not just a bystander in it. Your favorite foods, colors, etc. She wants to know everything!

Putting up with a lot. She will follow you to hell and back. She won't approve a bad decision, but will stick around because she doesn't want you to get hurt.

Will learn new skills just to help you. If she can't do something for you now, she'll work to become someone who can in the future.

Sonetto as the Recipient: The Puppy

Wants physical intimacy but is sometimes uncertain on how to initiate. Hugs, hand-holding, kisses, she wants it all. Will initiate once she feels more confident.

Verbal praise! Let her know she's done well or compliment her.

Reaffirmation. Tell her you like her to remove doubts (you'd be surprised how powerful telling a loved one “I love you” is. Propaganda to tell an important person in your life you love them because you'll never know when the last day you can say it will come.)

Encourage her to embrace her curiosity and explore the world with her. Be patient with her as she figures things out. Even better, be proud of her.

Helping her with her crosswords in the newspaper is great for bonding time. Also likes to have meals together

Won't steal your food but she makes puppy eyes at you without realizing. Food will be shared both ways.

She likes poetry and books the most but she's happy to receive anything from her beloved.

Big doggy, but little spoon. This is one is purely self-indulgence because big doggies alway act like cuddly puppies. Puppnetto is Canon.

Will never banish her loved ones to the couch. She doesn't stay mad long enough for that and will want to cuddle even if she's angry. Her puppy eyes make her immune to banishment as well.

Schneider as the giver: Bloody Valentine

Will kill for you and die for you 

Will never keep her hands of the person she loves. PDA is imminent.

Flirty, playful, but likes to have serious and deeper conversations from time to time. This is a sign she likes you.

Clingy, but will disappear on you randomly to see if you chase her. Will reward you with lots of attention once you find her.

Will always choose her loved ones above all else

Schneider as the recipient: Wants The Love she Never Had

While she was the backbone for her family, she is a spoiled brat with her beloved. Attention, thoughtful gifts & gestures, and everything else she didn't have as a child (or had to earn herself) are expected.

Schneider values Stability and Loyalty in her partners. Despite her tough talk, she spent a majority of her life providing shelter for her family and dragging them out of poverty at her own expense. She wants someone who will stick beside her through thick and thin, despite the chaos in her life. NOTE: Sometimes she'll do something crazy just to see how her loved one would react

While she likes to tease and menace her loved ones, she will always remind them how much she loves them. She is someone who will prove it too.

Doesn't like to listen. She must be persuaded.

Dates to public places are fine, but when she's really into someone she'd rather spend more time alone with them.

Wants 6 kids, a dog, a cat, and a bird. She had 11 sisters! She's being reasonable here.

Is the one who keeps the bed and banishes people to the couch if she's mad. However, her loved ones will wake up in the middle of the night to find her sleeping against them on the couch. She loves you even when she can't stand you putting pineapple on pizza.

When it comes to food, what's yours is her's. Food thief! But, she'll be more than happy to feed you the same food she just nicked off your plate.

Long, rambling, general post (with some detours into Austen + SW):

I find the academic obsession with novelty (at least in my field) rather irritating and in some ways actively harmful. But I've been thinking about it as I work on my dissertation, and there is an underlying concept I do find important.

Over here, I'm pretty content to scream my opinions at no one in particular, and have fun if people end up (courteously) answering back. But while there are commonalities between fandom meta practices and academia, a major difference (again, at least in my field) is that in academia, you essentially have to familiarize yourself with the wider community and discourse, and engage with it.

In literature, at least, it's important that you're not just reaching interpretations in a functional vacuum—interpretations that may well have been reached and argued thoroughly and well before. If you've got something fresh to contribute to the overall conversation, okay—maybe you basically agree with another interpretation but feel it could be expanded upon or there are some nuances that got missed. But the conversation doesn't particularly benefit from people just echoing the exact some interpretations over and over without adding or modifying them at all.

To put it another way, not everyone needs to (or should) cover every interpretation they agree with. This is not exactly literary criticism's reputation, but it's fundamentally social. Not everyone needs to do everything. Different people can and should cover different ground, and the general discussion benefits from this.

But this post isn't really about academia.

I think there's some real value in this idea that not everyone needs to be seen to repeat every correct take, or every take they agree with. Sometimes you're not really equipped to add anything. Sometimes you're not the best judge of a particular issue because it's not in your ballpark. Sometimes the ground has been so thoroughly covered in wider social discourse that you don't really need to add to it.

And I think this is especially important when it comes to the Internet firehose. People essentially repeating the same thing over and over and over without adding anything significant is a major way that ideas—including mistaken ideas—spread so quickly. Sometimes it's fairly inane jokes that become inescapable for an OP or within a fandom or whatever (book Isildur fans unite!). Sometimes it's mistaken or irrelevant corrections that someone/some people get bombarded with because no one bothers to check if the corrections have been made already. Sometimes it's the same reply ad nauseam, which quickly becomes intensely irritating while adding nothing. Sometimes it's worse than that—wrongheaded or exaggerated attacks on someone's character that get launched at the person incessantly, or active disinformation.

But basically, I think it's worth considering the shape of the overall discussion when you're considering what you specifically are going to contribute to it, if anything. Sometimes this is very serious. Sometimes it's a minimal consideration for others and for your impact on the general atmosphere in a fandom or some other social context.

For instance: back in 2005, when the Keira Knightley/Matthew Macfadyen Pride and Prejudice came out, my part of Austen fandom was having absolute conniptions over it. Some of this was over literally any adaptation of P&P ever being made after the 1995 mini-series (especially anyone else ever playing Darcy). Some of this was over claims that the 2005 P&P was generally more Brontë than Austen. Some of it had to do with particular contractions, or certain depictions of characters, jokes, aesthetics, dialogue, etc. I remember very serious articles about how it was a flash in the pan that would soon disappear from cultural consciousness (lol).

I actually share a number of the criticisms, as it happens! But I thought (and still think) that the collective outrage was ... excessive, at best. So I mostly didn't talk about my personal gripes because they already seemed to disproportionately dominate the conversation (to me, etc), and I didn't want to add to it. But it interests me that people have sometimes assumed that not personally adding to the griping about it means that I love it (and often, that I need to be corrected from doing so!). The same thing happens with particular ships or dynamics I don't like but don't want to add to discourse about.

I've definitely erred in the other direction. I used to talk quite a bit more about my criticisms of the Star Wars prequels, for instance, which I later regretted despite still having those criticisms. The fandom rage was just so over the top and everything covered so exhaustively and excessively by others that it (very belatedly) started to feel like adding to it was kind of like kicking a dog.

On the flipside, sometimes the firehose is pointed the opposite way from my personal opinion, and even if that opinion is just a mousy little cheep amidst the roar of approval/disapproval, voicing it seems more appropriate to me than joining a stampede of disproportionate hatred. Or sometimes the general discourse is pretty mixed and you just have to exercise judgment about your role in it (I've definitely gone for "I see a lot of debate on this point and hell with it, I get a place in the ring, too").

But in any case, I think that the pressure to be seen to have a take all the time and the assumptions made about people if they don't individually weigh in on ... basically everything is really misguided. We're social creatures! Sometimes ground has already been thoroughly covered. Sometimes it's been covered far too much. And I think stopping to think of what we're really adding, even when we're not plodding through reviews of the literature in academia, can be worth attempting.

You want Tuvok asks?? Okay, I'll send some from time to time now lol

Can I have some uhhh Tuvok & Kes mentoring relationship analysis and maybe hcs?

Personally, I think... we all know Kes sees parts of her father in Tuvok etc right but hc that Tuvok also sees parts of Asil in Kes? Anyway, your turn. Don't worry about writing "too much", no such thing when it comes to you!!

YEAAAH TUVOK ASK!!! I hide it well so few people know this but I actually like Tuvok quite a bit so this ask was very much welcome, thank you!! <3

KES!!!! Tuvok's one true daughter (other than Asil, his actual one true daughter) in my mind!!!! I wish more of the show actually showed their mentorship. Like him and Kes on an away mission or there being a 'student becomes the teacher' moment as her powers grow. I imagine a scene where Kes teaches a patient who's in pain a breathing technique to calm him down as she bandages him up and revealing that Tuvok taught her that technique! I also like the thought of aliens mistaking them for being the same species due to their pointed ears and telepathic abilities. The Kes-Tuvok dynamic also provides more opportunities to learn about their families and upbringings and values since they both seem like fairly introspective people. I can imagine Kes earnestly wanting to learn about and engage with Vulcan culture. That's a similarity between her and Neelix, a fascination with others, but Kes is calmer and Tuvok would be more open to talking with her about it because he knows she's not gonna make a big fuss, hehehe~ I would put a scene in the Elogium episode where she talked to Tuvok about it and he mentioned (obliquely) the pon farr and tried to comfort her. (She promises to keep this a secret - it's not to be spoken about!) There'd also be some little tidbits about his kids...hate that the only thing we really know about them is that there are four, Sek studies music and they were "well behaved" as children. And that last bit might be an exaggeration on Tuvok's part. I wish Kes was just in general more part of the crew. She's really only ever seen in sickbay even though she was introduced as very adventurous and curious and wanting to "peer into every crack in the universe". I can imagine a scene where Kes is doing something dangerous and Tuvok's watching her and Janeway's like "haha it's nervewracking, sitting back and doing nothing isn't it?" and Tuvok's like "I have no nerves to 'wrack', captain but this experience is....familiar." <- Sometimes you have to watch your kids fuck around so they can find out Episode where Kes & Tuvok are able to telepathically communicate despite being in completely different areas of the ship and so are able to coordinate and fight back against some invading aliens. I'd add a continuing subplot between Harry & Kes where they are like the unofficial/official proteges of Janeway and Tuvok respectively and playfully tease each other or argue about it. Secretly competitive A+ students though they're motivated by different things. Kes by her curiosity and Harry by a desire to prove himself.

I can imagine them having a moment where they talk about the weirdness of aging differently from everyone else. <- Episode where Kes is frustrated with everyone treating her like a kid. Tuvok doesn't experience this of course but I do wonder about a Vulcan's view on aging while surrounded by people who are both significantly younger than you but also your peers? This conversation veers quickly into death and loss. Kes who will die naturally long before anyone else and Tuvok who will die naturally long after everyone else. Scene where Kes tries to get the doctor to meditate (comedy) Scene where Kes learns how to telepathically shift the air so that she can hover above the ground. (comedy, it's not very useful except if they need to scout something she can slowly 'fly' high enough to see it but it takes SO much energy.) I can imagine Tuvok seeing a lot of his own children in Kes. I imagine having to teach your children how to use their telepathic powers is a near lifelong process for a Vulcan which he relives in his formal mentorship with Kes. Kes tells Janeway that Tuvok is "devoted to" T'Pel which makes me imagine him talking to Kes about her...showing how close they are, that he trusts her with that information and feels comfortable talking about his family to her...or that Kes is observant enough to pick up on the devotion he feels even though he doesn't divulge much. Waaa. Headcanon that Tuvok keeps a candle burning for Kes even several years after her departure and thinks about her often, the same way he thinks of his family. Headcanon that very occasionally Tuvok will be able to 'feel' Kes' presence. (Usually when he's alone) He attempts at times to communicate with her if she is 'around' long enough but whatever he gets in return he is not able to parse. He wonders if he ever will be. He's grateful that she tries regardless. One time he feels it when with Neelix is able to perform a sort of double telepathic telephone where Neelix can receive the message as well: He is similarly unable to parse it but he cries tears of joy anyway. Tuvok doesn't understand why but Neelix says it's ok so fine. Tuvok is the only person besides the doctor who Kes can talk about her weird medical dead people surgery stuff with!! (He isn't particularly eager but he's not gonna turn her away). There's awkwardness between them after the Tuvix situation (Because Tuvix was attracted to her) but they clear it up (Tuvok is not attracted to her) and everything's fine again. Kes teaches Tuvok how to sew. Tuvok later uses this to mend Naomi's flotter doll and also create a parachute during some sort of death defying stunt he has to pull along with the rest of the crew. Kes has medical papers published in Voyager's database which are widely circulated upon reaching the alpha quadrant and are used frequently by Tom when he has to do a medical thing because Kes created 'Tom Notes' which are just simplifying a bunch of the medical jargon in many of Voyager's papers. She called them 'Tom Notes' bc he's the only nurse and definitely not to poke fun <3 <- She's mischievous as she is helpful! Tuvok has seen her snacking on bugs multiple times as they tend to the plants in the airponics bay and he does think it's weird but he doesn't comment on it so she thinks he hasn't seen v_v

Header originally made by @thatsgoodsquishy0

Hello everyone! I am pleased to share a great event we had in our Comrade Coe's Spouses discord server for Valetine's Day!

This server is full of wonderful creatives who all share one thing in common, our love for Starfield. Okay...maybe two and our love for the bisexual single dad space cowboy! We love to support each other in our creative endeavors and to showcase this this post is going to have all the pieces from our Valetine's Day Art Trade!

Each person who signed up was randomly paired with another. We had a channel to fill out a small form of what they preferred, what they were willing to create, and their do's and don'ts in receiving other creations! We allowed about 8 weeks for people to discuss, plan, and create their own masterpieces!

Our server is always open for incoming members and there are only a few things that you need to know before requesting to join.

You must be over 21

You must love or at least appreciate Starfield

And you are joining for a good time, some creative vibes, and with an open mind!

Just tap or click on the link embedded in the server's name above for more information on how to join!

banner made by @bearlytolerant

Everything you will see below is crafted by a member of our server! There will be links to their Tumblr and ao3 links to check more of their work out!

Please feel free to show their blogs some love and their fics on ao3 as well! You can also check out their other works under the tag The Coemancer Crew. One of the core values of our community is supporting each other's creative pieces and we hope you all would love to participate in doing the same!

@atonalginger's

Anton x Sam Astral Haze

@thatsgoodsquishy0's

From Death; A Life

You almost died. Sam's grateful you're alive.

“Wait until Constellation hears about this,” you say, accompanied by a shaky laugh. “I wonder if they’ll even believe us.” He shakes his head. “They should, they don’t have to. We were there. We survived. You survived. That’s all that matters in my book.” His realism brings your gaze to the table, though a swirl of gratitude rises in the back of your mouth, coming out in a weak smile. This was nice. Peaceful, but not enough. There was still untouched territory to discuss. You lift your head, eyes soft and sincere. Unsure. “I wouldn’t be here without your help, Sam.” A pink flush spreads across his cheeks as he smiles. Averting his gaze, his pupils dart across the wall, and you notice they focus on nothing in particular. He shuts his eyes, and you suspected he was replaying the evening. You cock your head, curious. If you could pry open the contents of Sam Coe’s brain, you would, and you would soak up everything about that man, a fact you hadn’t truly believed until tonight.

@fangbangerghoul's

Crimson Slut

@bearlytolerant's

Paint It Crimson

Delgado is tired of Ghoul not resting so he takes matters into his own hands. His attempt means trying to teach her a new hobby.

She chuckles and he chooses not to engage any longer. He’s been toyed with enough. Even if that’s what they do. Argue and bicker. Pull their claws and bare their fangs until eventually he walks away with enough of his pride beaten down, dragging his ego behind him a little broken and worse for wear. It happens often enough that he can’t say he always comes out the winner. But he is weary of the game today. He wants to be nice. Try to be nice. He is determined to be nice. Another step and he reaches around her head and tugs at the blindfold. The knot unravels. Unfurls. He removes it in one smooth motion, tossing it to the floor. Then he thumbs her chin, tilting her head up to get a good glimpse of her. He gazes into her citrine eyes. The warm glow from his hanging lamp, hovering over the tall snake tongued leaves of the sansevieria in the corner of the room, reflects off her irises and they glimmer and shine just like a gemstone. Thoughts waxing poetic, he blinks them away before he speaks them aloud. “I wanted to surprise you.” He releases her chin.

@silurisanguine's

So coy

@eridanidreams's

Twisted Towards the Light

Seren and Sam run into a little bit more excitement than they expected when taking down Tawny Adams...

Sam leaned against the wall. "We having fun yet?" He was breathing a little harder than usual; she gave him a quick once-over, but his suit seemed intact. He caught her look and gave her the grin she'd come to love. "I know you like what you see," he purred, "but maybe look a little less like you want to rip my suit right off until we're done? Mercs might get the wrong idea." Seren couldn't help but laugh. "Arse," she growled. "And a fine one," he agreed. "Though yours," he eyed her up and down, "might be even finer. Pity that your suit hides it, or we could do a real close comparison. Hands-on, even." "Focus, Sam," she reminded him, hitting the 'cycle' button. "Bad guys that way." "I am focused," he said, sounding innocent as the day was long. (In the case of this misbegotten little moon, that was only 4.5 UT hours, so… not all that innocent.) "I'm just a busy man. I have to work in all that quality time of thinking about me and you."

I like when you post about scriptures, but I'm wondering how you respond when people use the clobber passages? They seem so clear and specific and anti-queer

Many people pull a verse from the scriptures and use it as proof for their viewpoint. When they do this with the clobber verses it puts the onus on the marginalized person to argue the verse was mistranslated or there's historical context that needs to be considered, and so on. That kind of interaction cedes power because the assumption is the other person is correct unless we can prove why it should be interpreted another way.

This kind of approach ignores that these verses are part of a long story arc. For example, in Deuteronomy it says men with damaged testicles can't worship with everyone else or be included in the temple, presumably this is referencing people who were made eunuchs in Egypt. Some people will pull out this chestnut and claim that any trans person who's had bottom surgery can't go to the temple or even be allowed to be baptized and join this church.

But to use the verse in Deuteronomy that way is to ignore that Isaiah later wrote that eunuchs would be welcomed and honored. It ignores the story of Daniel. It ignores what Jesus said about eunuchs and marriage. It ignores the eunuch who was the first gentile convert to Christianity. Seeing the story of the eunuchs across the Bible is important as they go from being excluded to being included. To only use the verse in Deuteronomy is to teach the wrong lesson.

When we look at the scriptures as a whole, there is an arc towards more inclusion, more justice, more room at the table. Whatever scriptures people pull out to condemn whole groups of folks doesn't stand up when we read the scriptures as a whole.

The scriptures are a record of people trying to make sense of what is happening in their lives. They are trying to make sense of their place in the world and what it means to be in relationship with the Divine and what it means to be in community with others. The scriptures include a lot of messiness and complications.

We can learn from their wrestle with these important questions. We can learn from how their answers evolved. We can engage in the same wrestle today.

What does it mean for me as a a queer individual to be in a relationship with God? What does it mean to live ethically under capitalism? What does it mean to be part of an empire (the United States)? What does it mean to be a good neighbor? What does it mean to live our faith in a world that has people of many faiths and of no faith? What does it mean to be in relationship with others in my religious community?

There are all sorts of ways in which scripture stories can continue to speak to us today. When I read the story of someone who was an outsider and then Jesus does not treat them as an outsider, I can relate with that. I don't feel incompatible with God, but there are some issues of compatibility when it comes to my church because I'm queer.

I think when people who are marginalized read the scriptures they will pull different messages compared to those who read from a place of comfort and privilege. Liberation theology, Black theology, womanist theology, and queer theology are all closer to the heart of texts which talk about being dominated by empires or being in exile.

This was a long answer to say when someone pulls out a particular verse as a weapon against me, I know when looking at the whole there is a beautiful story of growing acceptance and God values the marginalized

Everything hits the spot except for sand. I mean doesn't he have enough to care for. Hell his primary caretaker is someone who needs to be cared for and he cares for himself. Isn't that difficult enuf. The urge to fix something that's broken, that has potential to be beautiful, i understand. But why love him...sand is confident. Then where does his need for acknowledgement stem from. So many options and he still falls for messy selfish problematic ray? I mean other than that face and an occasionally entertaining mouth he has nothing going for him. Ok fine the money and sex. And sand has definitely refused the former, the later I bet isn't all that happening at the moment. So it begs the question why. If they do get together what's in it for sand? Or is it the overall love is love stuff. But that means sand is one of the only person in this messy story that is actually in love. Not sure if i'm supposed to say ew or aww...

You raise an interesting question here, which is Why does Sand like Ray anyway? I think this question is so important because I imagine it's the same one Sand has been asking himself this whole time.

You're right, Sand has lived his whole life having to support both himself and his mother. Ray isn't particularly special—he doesn't make exceptions for Sand the way Sand does for him, and he certainly doesn't always treat Sand the way he deserves.

I think there are ultimately two parts to this answer of why Sand cares about Ray. Firstly, even though it's difficult being in a caretaker position, Sand has grown so accustomed to it that those responsibilities have become a part of who he is. He sees himself as a helper and provider, as someone others can turn to when they're in need. I’d argue he gets fulfillment from knowing that he's taking care of others well. His mom is grateful to him, and I believe he savors the thought that she's okay largely due to his efforts. The term ‘savior’ might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I don't think it's too far off. As you say, fixing something that's broken is a thrill in and of itself, so I imagine that factors in as well.

If Sand sees himself as a natural caretaker, then Ray is the prime example of someone in need of caretaking. Ray is reckless and immature in a lot of ways, not all of which are his fault. Even before Sand learns part of Ray's backstory, he consistently helps him and indulges him. Part of it is Sand's instinct to help people, but I think it's also due to intrigue. Additionally, while Ray has a lot of flaws, he's shown that he can admit his faults. (He's also incredibly thankful, which I think Sand values even more than his apologies.)

The second reason Sand gravitates towards Ray is because of their genuine chemistry. For how cruel Ray acts towards Sand later (I'm referring specifically to their fights, though Ray is notably drunk/high both times they've had a real argument), Ray is quite flirtatious and friendly towards him in general, if a bit pushy. It's implied in episodes 2 and 3 that they spend a lot of time talking and enjoying each other's company. I imagine a lot of Sand and Ray's relationship development happens offscreen, when they're just hanging out. Ironically, those quiet moments are some of the most important when it comes to growing feelings.

I get frustrated when Sand and Ray's relationship gets reduced to "Sand is a pushover and Ray is just using him," because to me that's discounting all of the actual relationship building they've done. Not to say Ray has not used Sand in some ways (then again, Sand also used Ray to get his revenge on Top), but for Ray to be strictly using Sand, I don't think he would show such active engagement with Sand's own interests. The clothing store, the record store, the concert, the club—those are all places that Ray went with Sand because he wanted to get a better sense of his life. He wouldn’t dedicate such time to doing what Sand wanted if his sole intention was to have Sand take care of him/offer his companionship.

You could argue that Ray goes along with Sand to convince him that he cares without actually caring, but there are signs suggesting Ray has been paying close attention (more recently, someone pointed out how Ray recognized the Freddie Mercury costumes in Ep8, while he didn't even know who Queen was in Ep4). To sum it up: I think Ray cares too much about learning who Sand is for him be a mere distraction. At first, this argument made sense to me, but not so much now.

We see Sand grappling with this question of why do I care?" a lot in Eps 5. In Sand's monologue in the intro and conclusion, he sounds almost perplexed, like he can't believe he's really carved out a 25th hour in his day for someone like Ray. We see Ray through Sand's eyes there, and it's clear Sand has this pull towards him that he can't quite define.

That's the other tricky part about this whole "What makes him care?" discussion…it can be hard to articulate what draws us to people. Their aura, their personality, the way they look at us, their sense of humor—all of these could have some role to play here, but I don't think Sand could boil down his interest in Ray to a single answer. The two of them just click. Add some deep discussions and a few fun dates, and the feelings develop naturally from there.

If I were to condense all of these argurents down, I'd say that Sand's care for Ray developed out of an inclination to help someone in need, someone he recognized as being a victim. Sand's smart; he noticed early that there's more to Ray's drinking than a college kid's bad habits. That inclination to help morphed into intrigue, and from there he got caught up in the thrill of being with Ray, enjoying his company the same way Ray enjoys his. As the audience, we've seen the worst parts of Ray, but I think it's easy to forget that Sand and Ray have had a lot of friendly interactions behind the scenes. We don't necessarily have to see those scenes to know how deep their impact is on the relationshug.

idk if you've seen that person on twitter arguing that the starbucks union is a 'reactionary union of bourgeois service work' and isn't proletarian, but one of the arguments they're making in support of this is to call upon marx's distinction between productive and unproductive labor. would you say the assessment of barista work as unproductive is accurate? and more importantly, does marx's conception of 'proletariat' have anything to do with the distinction between productive and unproductive labor?

ironically, baristas are more straightforwardly productive in a marxian sense than amazon workers are because the former's job is to actually make things for sale whereas amazon employees are simply working for a retailer to move ready-made goods. if you were to dismiss starbucks employees as providing a "service" on these grounds it would necessarily apply just as much to a factory worker from within the pages of marxs capital because at that point labor which produces commodities wouldve been defined that loosely. but this also isn't to say that amazon workers aren't productive for simply moving things around (to appeal to marx, since that's what all of this is about, he even says transportation of goods is a productive labor at the beginning of v2) or that "services" are somehow unimportant.

i always have to repeat this point but it can't be said enough: these are not moral categories. to be a productive labor isn't a "good" thing. to be unproductive does not make you the enemy. this is not what these terms are intended to capture and whenever anyone tries to get you to imagine unproductive workers as the villain while citing the authority of marx they are only showcasing their own ignorance. even worse, if your problem with unproductive labor is that it is parasitic on the social surplus generated by productive labor, you are not even taking the perspective of the productive laborers you cherish so much, you are looking at the system from the perspective of capital itself.

as for marxs conception of the proletariat, he uses it in a couple of different ways so it's not an unambiguous category in his work which we can pluck out of its context and apply anywhere. there's a technical definition of the working/wage-laboring class, there's a kind of sociological notion of the proletariat which is the class of people who have nothing to sell but their labor-power, etc. these things obviously overlap, but they are not the same thing. and where proletarian labor meets productive labor, we'd have to be terminologically careful to know what we're talking about.

in theories of surplus value (and, later, the results manuscript) marx talks about how two people can do the same exact thing but the simple relationship between themselves and a capital determines whether or not what they're doing is productive. to be clear, their commodities are hypothetically the same and even the labor-process itself might as well be identical, but the only difference is that one sells their activity for the enrichment of a capital and the other sells it for personal enrichment. marx gives the example of a "literary proletarian" at a university who is a productive laborer while milton's paradise lost is the result of unproductive because it was written "as a silkworm produces silk, as the activation of his own nature". for another example from the same section:

"A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker. If she sells her song for money, she is to that extent a wage-labourer or merchant. But if the same singer is engaged by an entrepreneur who makes her sing to make money, then she becomes a productive worker, since she produces capital directly." (v1 p1044, penguin)

so here we have singers and university professors as productive laborers, two professions which im sure these people would argue are even more (petit-)bourgeois than a barista. this does not fit their worldview because they don't know what the words mean or why it ought to matter. the university professor is explicitly proletarian, and the singer -- even before she is approached by an entrepreneur -- is potentially understood to be a wage-laborer, which meets at least one of marx's understandings of what it means to be "proletarian" even if she is not productive for capital.

my thoughts and values align with yours re: STIs and risk AND i keep coming up against resistance to the recent discussions as a high-risk person still living almost entirely isolated amidst the ongoing pandemic. and when i take a second to breathe and think, i realize these are not conflicting at all. the friction isn't that i view illness morally or that i think we should avoid all risk. it's that the majority of folks without question take precautions to reduce STI exposure but the majority of people no longer consider doing the so minorly inconvenient precautions to reduce the spread of covid, which i would argue is much riskier than STIs at this point. and it's so exhausting because then i have to, based on my risk analysis of covid, take way more precautions because no one else is looking out for me. community care and harm reduction are my biggest driving values and i grieve how absent they are around me. i just wanted to share in case others are feeling similarly while reading this discussion. you rock and i so hope i get to engage in a beautiful public kinky scene some day.

Hey, thanks so much for sharing and walking us through your thought process.

What I might add is that individual people might not seemingly put much effort into COVID mitigation anymore because they have next to zero institutional support in doing so. Many of my disabled friends have to work in areas with a high risk of COVID exposure: waiting tables, stocking grocery store shelves, working as home health aids or phlebotomists, or teaching in schools. Some of them are high risk themselves, but because they have no choice but to work in areas where their life is put on the line, they have very high stress decompression needs and feel already resigned to their disposability in society, and so they do also go out to bars with their friends or hold parties or visit clubs.

I also know people who are able to socially distance quite strictly, test regularly, are vaccinated and boosted, but who intentionally make plans to visit cruising spaces or gay orgies very rarely so that they can remain relatively safe COVID wise but also not kill themselves out of despair (I'm not being hyperbolic here, that's exactly what some people have told me are the competing risks they face when they balance COVID exposure against isolation. And I know that many high risk populations face these same severe negative mental health outcomes too -- in fact, I know high risk people who choose to go out in public at times in order to remain sane, but who have to sit with the fact that it could be a mortal danger to do so).

I also think about how the queer community came together in the fight against AIDS to make condoms available, to educate one another about safer sex practices or harm reductionist practices, to engage in sex together in risk mitigating ways (such as gloved fisting) and how they pushed for the government to make drug treatment available to them. I see a lot of queer and disabled advocacy groups doing similar work today to spread accurate data on COVID as best they can, promote masking, organize solely outdoor events, encourage vaccination, and remind people of the stakes.

And I see such a massive gap between the ways in which risk mitigation was made possible through such community efforts, and how catastrophically the government fails us regarding COVID. We are not given free tests anymore. Vaccines aren't free anymore either. It is no longer a state of emergency. Many of us have been forced back into in-person work at our jobs. Our unemployment benefits have been cut. Student loan payments are roaring back into action. Disability benefits and medicare's expansion is rolling back. We no longer have accurate testing and tracing data. Masks are no longer required.

If a person wants to behave responsibly regarding COVID, how are they even supposed to? They can wear a mask in public and not experience in-person community to the extend they might like or need. But they can't actually prevent themselves from getting or spreading the virus because they've been forced back to work. I understand many people do not even take these small steps to reduce harm and that it is dismaying and outrageous. And I think you have ever right to feel outraged by it. But I also think individual behavior flows from social support and institutional pressure, and nearly all of that is heading in the wrong direction right now.

And I think about how collective the push for better government interventions regarding AIDS was, and how much the push regarding COVID instead is focused on targeting individual people for the actions they've made within a very unsupportive context. It was not beneficial to view individuals who had bareback sex or shot heroin as the origin of HIV, and I don't think it's helpful to understand COVID as a phenomenon of individuals failing to mask now.

Granted, it took HIV activism YEARS to get to the point of ACT UP. And we're not so many years deep into COVID yet comparatively. Personally when I look at all these facts in context I see a population that largely did take COVID seriously for a time, but who, due to a mix of institutional failure, mass misinformation, risk resignation, and despair, no longer do so in their behavior.

I don't believe in moralizing emotions and I think from your perspective you're affected by all these factors PLUS the massive risk of developing Long Covid symptoms or worse. And I know you know and live all this shit already so forgive me for preaching to the choir. But I do want to gently push back against the idea that most people don't care about COVID the way they care about STI's. I believe our discourse on both has been horrifically poisoned by individualism, capitalism, and institutional failure.

Some articles I have written on the subject:

Time to try to make literally everyone disgruntled with my rotbtd Hogwarts house headcanons >:]

Merida- Gryffindor or Hufflepuff

Her movie is literally called Brave. I feel no need to justify Gryffindor. I'd argue Hufflepuff for her loyalty and the fact she doesn't actually dislike work, just boredom. Caring for her horse, refining her archery skills, those take work! She does not shy away from them! She just prefers manual labor to more restrictive types of work, like running a kingdom, and even then when she gets the hang of it she's dedicated to making ruling work- her way, not according to tradition, but she doesn't have a problem with the work itself.

Rapunzel- Slytherin

Her entire core story is built on pursuing dreams/ambitions, and she continues to push others to do the same and do the same herself throughout the series. She's clever, she's ambitious, she just also happens to be mostly nice.

Hiccup- Hufflepuff

Hiccup isn't a genius, he's just imaginative, smarter than most of the people around him, and experienced with blacksmithing. He straight-up says he's been Gobber's apprentice since he was a kid- he's had a lot of time to hone his understanding of inventing and smithing over time, which makes him less prodigy and more practiced. He's plenty intelligent, but he's more humble and hardworking than effortlessly brilliant. That's a thread in the first movie that I thought the sequels were lesser for lacking. He's loyal, he's kind, he's innately peaceful (i.e. he was taught to kill dragons but when faced with the opportunity found commonalities with Toothless instead, plus the whole second movie debacle), and he's unafraid of toil.

Jack- Ravenclaw

Oh my gosh, this boy is the ADHDest Ravenclaw. He thinks quick on his feet, almost exclusively fights by constantly moving and maneuvering rather than by sheer force (save for when moved upon by strong emotion), is first and foremost observant in unfamiliar circumstances (i.e. the North Pole), and is constantly curious and seeking emotional and intellectual engagement. He's mentally flexible and plenty witty. He's the type of guy who would answer the Ravenclaw riddle door like he's on Jeopardy, or spend hours sitting outside it telling riddles back and forth. Heck, he would gather other Ravenclaws and have the door be a Jeopardy-style judge. Also, you'll notice he had no interest in becoming a Guardian until he sees his memories, and his motivation isn't helping them at first, it's getting his memories back. He sticks around at first because he wants to learn what's going on. He's driven by curiosity and introspection, and later by personal values, but not really ambition.

"What seduction techniques are most likely to be effective when it comes to your OC? Are there some things guaranteed to get them going?" for all ROs

I need some intel on how to woo them all👀👀

*rubs hands*

From this ask game!

Seduction Techniques Likely to be Effective

J is a little confusing honestly I see them being really into someone who presents themself as vert structured, organized and thoughtful. But at the same time J is really into huge chaotic morons.

Overall J is really into direct communication. Having someone express interest openly and honestly can be effective in capturing their attention. Showing that their partner can be counted on and that they take commitments seriously can be attractive to J too.

Things Guaranteed to Get Them Going

They're really really into spunk, J likes bantering and arguing their point and would love someone who isn't a yes-man. Someone who admires their achievements and is equally ambitious can also intrigue them.

Likely to be Immune To

As I said J doesn't really like people who agree with them all the time. Empty compliments or insincere flattery might not work well with them.

Seduction Techniques Likely to be Effective

Uma values deep emotional connections! They want someone to share heartfelt conversations with and who shows genuine interest in their feelings and thoughts. Someone to create a strong bond with.

Would also really appreciate someone who'd entertain their artistic side (doesn't even have to be good at any art, just being there with Uma and enjoying their time together). They also like it when their partner suggests spontaneous adventures like a road trip to an interesting destination or trying a new, exciting activity together. They find the thrill of new experiences very enticing.

Things Guaranteed to Get Them Going

Just someone who entertains their bratty side honestly 😭

Likely to be Immune To

While Uma is receptive to emotional connection and artistic expression, they are less likely to respond to manipulative or aggressive tactics. Pushiness, insincere compliments, and attempts to rush them into a relationship are likely to turn them off.

Seduction Techniques Likely to be Effective

Statler's no 1 priority with people is building a strong emotional connection. They are drawn to authenticity, vulnerability, and deep conversations. Someone to engage in meaningful conversations about their passions and interests, share personal stories and open up emotionally, someone who shows genuine interest in their thoughts and feelings...

Romanticism and things considered corny are also something Statler is really into too.

Things Guaranteed to Get Them Going

Statler loves loves loves being praised as long as it's sincere. They want an affective partner who provides them a safe space to open.

Likely to be Immune To

While Statler is generally open to connecting with others, they are less responsive to purely physical or superficial advances. They don't like flattery that feels insincere or overly focused on their appearance.

Seduction Techniques Likely to be Effective

Wanda loves engaging in exciting and adventurous experiences, such as spontaneous road trips, outdoor adventures, or trying new activities. She's also really into playful banter, humor, and light teasing. Wanda enjoys interactions that are fun and light-hearted and very flirty playfulness.

I think that because of her situation Wanda would be wooed by someone who is either very responsible or really good with kids. If it's BOTH she's whipping out the ring.

Things Guaranteed to Get Them Going

Wanda is really into someone who wants to explore and try new things. Being with a person she can rely on and have fun with at the same time!

Likely to be Immune To

While Wanda is generally open to fun and exciting experiences, she might be immune to overly manipulative or insincere tactics. If someone comes across as too calculated or disingenuous, her authenticity radar may go off, and she could become disinterested.

Seduction Techniques Likely to be Effective

Things Guaranteed to Get Them Going

Kai has serious commitment issues and that shows. They really value someone who takes things slow, gives them lots of space and respects their independence. Kai wants a friend first and really values an emotional and intellectual connection. They want to understand and be understood.

Other than that I think Kai would really be into someone who isn't that serious and leans towards more playful interactions.

Kai is really driven by their curiosity so if they find someone really intriguing they will unconsciously (eventually) up. They're very rational/pragmatic so probably someone sensitive/idealistic.

Likely to be Immune To

Kai is immune to romantic gestures lol. Being very clingy and needy early in a relationship would probably give them the ick. Feeling like they're being pressured would also trigger said commitment issues.

Seduction Techniques Likely to be Effective

A seduced Travis means you're masochistic and that you've really stimulated his curiosity. Outwardly, Travis wants to have an intellectual connection with their partner and wants to view said person as competent.

That being said if MC is weird x1000 Travis will feel the need to figure them out lol. Like J, he's a bit of a certified moronsexual.

Things Guaranteed to Get Them Going

Surprisingly Travis is really into someone that (within ofc the limits of respect and consent) takes the initiative. They like it when people are honest with their feelings toward him bc otherwise he's not going to figure it out.

Likely to be Immune To

Travis is more likely to be drawn to mental and emotional connections rather than superficial tactics. If someone tries to manipulate or use clichéd tactics, he may be quick to recognize insincerity and lose interest.

I wanna talk about a real problem in marginalized communities, but especially the disabled community.

The conflation of "privilege" with "oppression".

Here's two examples that I'm directly pulling from experience.

I am not intellectually disabled. I have fluctuating cognitive disabilities, but I have privilege over people with intellectual disabilities.

I also have significantly disabling chronic illness to the point where at times I have not been able to engage with hobbies due to being too sick. Disabled people who are less sick and more able to pursue activities they enjoy have privilege over me.

It's something that's not neat and simple, either. An intellectually disabled person who is able to engage with hobbies vs me? We would essentially both have privilege over each other on different axes. You can't then determine that one of us is ultimately generally more privileged than the other, because that's not how it works. Like if you have privilege x and they have privilege y, it isn't x-y=positive or negative privilege. You can't "solve" that equation because x and y aren't variables that can be substituted for number values.

So, first taking the example of hobbies - a recent controversial post we made that invited harassment. People were quick to tell us what our own experience was and that we weren't experiencing ableism - because they had had the privilege of never experiencing it. That was lateral ableism, and not okay.

Note: There may be people who DIDN'T have that privilege who were also saying the same - though everyone I saw talking about this specifically mentioned their ability to do hobbies, and that was who the main part of my response was directed at. However, I even specifically responded briefly to any people who were doing that - much more gently - to basically say that if they were being assimilationist out of fear that they didn't have to be, and to remind them that they aren't bad if they can't have hobbies.

On the other hand, way back when I first started this blog, I talked about reclaiming the r slur as someone who had significant trauma from being called it as a kid. I talked about how the reason I was called it was specifically because of my social issues due to my developmental disorders while being a gifted kid.

To make it clear - I was called the r slur for not understanding social cues and rules as a "smart" kid, because that's one of the things it meant to them. They weren't insulting my intellectual intelligence, but rather my social ability - at most, you could argue they were insulting my social intelligence - which having a low amount of WAS actually a feature of my disabilities.

I also spoke about how I wasn't reclaiming it to continue treating it as a bad thing, to insult even just myself, but rather to say "so what if I am? that's not bad". Y'know, the whole point of reclaiming.

I was told what my own experience was and that I was experiencing misdirected ableism because they were actually insulting traits I didn't have and therefore they were actually hurting intellectually disabled people but not me. Not because they had the privilege not to experience what I did - but because me having privilege was treated as the right to tell me I had never experienced the ableism they had.

They were treated not just as the experts on ableism against intellectual disabilities - which they are, of course - but also the experts on ableism against people who specifically DON'T have intellectual disabilities when it takes the same or similar forms as ableism against intellectual disabilities.

We all know that bigots don't wait to find out your correct identity before attacking you. We all know that there are identities commonly mistaken for others, that can set you up for repeated abuse over an identity you don't have. But what we refuse to acknowledge is that there are types of bigotry that can manifest identically in some ways for two different identities - and that anyone who experiences that bigotry is an expert on it and deserves to have a place in the conversation about it.

Someone with intellectual disabilities fundamentally cannot know that people without intellectual disabilities DON'T face the same kind of ableism on the basis of other disabilities that person DOES have because they have not ever lived that experience, just as, say, I couldn't say that an intellectually disabled person never faces specific kinds of ableism I face due to being a wheelchair user, because I am not intellectually disabled.

What I can say: "I face these types of ableism because of these disabilities and this is how they manifest."

What I can't say, because it is erasure and lateral ableism no matter my relative privilege: "You don't face this type of ableism for [disability I don't have] because it's exclusive to [disability I have] and any ableism that manifests that way is actually an attack on me."

Fundamentally, you cannot say that someone with a different disability DOESN'T face a specific type of ableism because you are not an authority on the experience of that disability. You are an expert on the experience of your disability. You cannot claim exclusive experiences because to do so, you would have to experience the disabilities you don't have while also not experiencing the ones you do. You would have to verify experiences that you simply don't have - in multiple places and contexts and presentations and as multiple people.

Oh wait, there's a simpler way to do that.

Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.

(Plaintext: Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.)

It's not ableist to say "no, you aren't the only disability that faces this ableism" or "no, it isn't targeted at you when it's aimed at me" or "actually, bigots also use [slur] to mean [definition specifically attacking my disability]". It is however ableist to tell people that because they have an axis of privilege over you, they can't talk about their own oppression on an entirely different axis because you've decided that experiencing similar oppression means you're the only person who experiences said oppression.

Or to put it more simply: Experiencing a type of ableism does NOT give you the right to speak over others when they say they experience it too for different reasons. Having something bad happen to you as a group does not give you proof that you're the ONLY group it happens to.

"X is caused by y, therefore x is ONLY caused by y" is quite literally a logical fallacy. It's called fallacy of the single cause (at least it's a nice obvious name, honestly).

This is the same discourse as cripplepunk. In fact, it's the primary motivator behind most slur discourse, and the reason why I'd honestly rather have blanket permission issued within oppressed groups I'm in* for everyone to reclaim in good faith** any slur that affects that group.

**What does "reclaim in good faith" mean? It means reclaiming only for self-usage, and only for self-usage specifically in a positive way - so no "ugh, I'm such a useless cripple", for example. True reclamation does require use of it against you/your disability in the first place, however, part of not being a cop about it is assuming that anyone who uses it in a positive sense for self-labeling has in fact experienced that. In short, it involves believing people about the oppression they explicitly say or imply through their reclamation that they've experienced.

*Note: I am specifically NOT a person of color or a member of an oppressed ethnoreligion/ethnicity, and recognize that dynamics of racial and ethnic oppression may be unique in some ways. However in disabled, queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces I do occupy, these are my feelings.

It is lateral ableism to tell another disabled person that they haven't experienced a type of ableism or didn't experience it due to their ACTUAL disability and therefore have no right to reclaim what was used to hurt them.

It is ableism to say "the bullet meant to shoot you, that hit you, was designed in part to hurt me, and therefore any time someone is shot with it, it was actually an attack on me. Hand over the bullet and never keep it or use it as you please again or you're basically shooting me with a different bullet." (For those that struggle with metaphors, the bullets are ableism.)

It's ducks saying that deer have no right to reclaim shotgun shells. Yes, slugs are more common than buckshot, but there's literally a type of the same exact kind of ammo designed for use on the deer too. In just the same way, some slurs and other forms of ableism are more typically used against one group but even have a (sometimes identical) variant specifically designed for use against other groups. "Mental cripple" and "retard" for sociodevelopmental disabilities are prime examples of this.

This is a wider problem in marginalized communities. "If you have any privilege at all, ever, you need to sit down and shut up about your own experiences. Only our least privileged members are the experts on any of our experiences. They make the rules about which of your own experiences you're allowed to talk about and what you're allowed to say about them." What's important to note, is that this is coming as much from the members with said privilege as the ones without.

And yes, this is an EXTREMELY insular community issue, but it's not mutually exclusive to the fact that large portions of the community DON'T listen to the less privileged ones about their own experiences! Just like the hobbies example (which, I know people may dismiss or cry 'false equivalence', but I want to again note that it primarily affects bedbound people who are too sick to do things they enjoy, and therefore less privileged by any metric).

I specifically referenced that example because it's exactly more privileged members speaking over less privileged members about the less privileged members' OWN experiences.

In fact, I'd say it's in fact a RESPONSE to that kind of being spoken over. It's an extreme pendulum swing in the other direction - "you need to shut up and LISTEN to us about our experiences". Which, if it stopped there, would be perfect! It's the part that follows it - "therefore, if we experience something, we're the ONLY people who are allowed to talk about it and the only people who even experience it".

I've seen time and time again, too, that even if you conclusively prove you experience something, the goalposts just get moved.

"Well, you experience it but not systemically."

"Okay, but you experienced it less."

"It didn't hurt you as much because it was meant to hurt me instead."

"Well, you're probably reclaiming it as an insult." (despite no proof of such, or even proof to the contrary)

"Well, if you experienced it systemically and it did hurt you and you experienced it just as much, it's actually because of [other identity that we begrudgingly acknowledge is affected] and not [identity that you say actually caused you to experience it] and it therefore isn't even [same type of bigotry] but [completely different type] instead."

"Well, even if you experienced it systemically as much as I did, it still hurts me more because it's about my identity and not yours, even though you were the one literally being attacked with it."

And if all that fails it's "no, that's not why you experienced it" or "no, you didn't experience that".

All examples I touched on earlier in this post, but still important to talk about specifically.

The person being hurt by a type of ableism, including slurs, is the person who they are being used against, period. It doesn't matter if they have "the right" disability. It doesn't matter what group the slurs or ableism is primarily used against. The bigots are TRYING to hurt the person they are specifically using the bigotry against, and that person is the one who ends up hurt by it. Full stop, no argument.

And if someone is hurt by a word, especially repeatedly, they have a right to reclaim it. Period.

At the end of the day, does this matter all that much? It's just community microaggressions, right?

Here's my feelings on it: I'm never going to let petty infighting get in the way of fighting for total disabled liberation. Just because some individuals are guilty of lateral ableism doesn't mean I won't fight for a world in which they face no ableism. It would be ableist of me to leave them behind over something like this. Not to mention, there's no need for anyone to be considered an authority on ableism in a world where there is none.

That being said, it is still a minor hurdle on the way to disabled liberation. If we police our own community and shut down discussions of ableism, how can we effectively fight for our right to not be policed or shut down by abled people? We're demonstrating that it's acceptable behavior.

You can argue all you want that abled people should recognize that it's different and they don't have a voice in the conversation - but what about those who are explicitly telling abled people that it's okay to shut down THESE disabled people talking about THEIR experiences because they're privileged invaders in the conversation and abled people should use their privilege over us to act as an even higher authority and stop us?

What about the conflicting messages of "abled people use your power over these disabled people to force them not to talk about the ableism they experience, but not these OTHER disabled people doing the same thing".

It's one thing to make a blanket statement to say "hey, if someone is actually attacking the validity of a disabled (or any marginalized) identity or talking over them about their own experiences, then shut that down". Saying a given marginalized identity doesn't exist or is inherently harmful is always bad. Talking over someone on their OWN experiences, when they are simply talking about things they've directly experienced, is always bad. I don't think it's the end of the world to say "use your privilege to shut down ableism" to abled people.

The problem is telling abled people that someone TALKING about their own legitimate experiences is bad and it's okay to shut it down. Abled people should not ever be given permission to do so - whether using their own judgment or just doing so on the word of disabled people.

Even besides that, though, it's still ableism, and lateral ableism is also a barrier in the way of total disabled liberation. It is an active threat to unity, to our ability to organize and demand change. We can fight to remove it from our communities while still focusing our energy primarily outward on fighting for liberation within the larger abled world.

Finally, it's an issue because it creates more hierarchies to solve existing ones. It says "instead of addressing the actual ableism, we're just going to flip it so you're the one experiencing it instead". It's like the so-called "feminists" that just want a matriarchy. It's not about creating a safer environment, it's about being the one to perpetrate the harm currently being done to you.

So, in cases where neither group has any real systemic power over each other, it doesn't even do that - it simply creates an environment where the original harm continues to be perpetuated while another new harm occurs. It devolves into a petty slap fight, distracting from actual liberation while also causing both parties to be hurt. That's not acceptable praxis. It's not praxis at all.

Even with the harm being small in scale, it's still not okay. Two injustices don't make a justice, just as two wrongs don't make a right.

This is very much something we need to address - in disabled spaces being my focus here - but also in queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces. And all of stems from the idea that "privilege" is the same as having the power to oppress someone. It's the idea that if you have an axis of privilege over another person with the same overall marginalized identity as you, that you are equivalent to being nonmarginalized compared to them and therefore disagreeing with them in any way about your OWN marginalized experiences is bigotry.

Functionally, it's that you're a bigoted privileged invader of marginalized spaces if you dare to have an opinion on a shared type of oppression. And speaking as a transfemmasc person, mayyyyyybe we should actually kill that rhetoric forever.

One of the many things I love about creating content and interacting with other content in this online niche (tumblr gaylor/kaylor space specifically) is because we are all openly discussing the many possibilities of how to interpret the details of certain songs and Easter eggs etc. We are all sure or damn near sure Taylor is absolutely sapphic, but on just about every other point we engage in thought experiments, literary exercises, etc, to explore many different theories. Most of us don’t insist that our viewpoint is the correct one, even if we have theories we are convinced of, there is no moral judgement or social waylaying of someone being convinced of a different theory. Because we are all self aware enough to understand that none of us really know. We just know that something gay is going on and that sifting through the primary sources is endlessly fascinating and eye-opening and simply beautiful to witness.

(I get the impression this is not the way it is on other platforms for gaylor content, which is why I don’t even bother with them.)

The fact that anyone would be surprised by a number of individuals holding a couple of ideas or opinions in common, while also tolerating and even relishing in variations in the finer details of those convictions, is such an indictment of modern (mostly online) discourse in general. We are so used to seeing people as belonging to distinct factions that each encourage strict in-group intellectual compliance instead of critical thought and genuine engagement with the set of ideas they espouse.

As a slightly older gaylor/kaylor please let me have an “elder” moment and heed you all to recognize the value in the way this little tiny niche community interacts with each other and take this model of civil and thoughtful engagement into your wider lives wherever possible.

It’s so important and wonderful to have strong values and a strong point of view, but you can only form one by engaging with all kinds of people and perspectives. You can entertain a thought or an idea without believing in it, and in fact doing so will make your own opinion that much more well-informed and strengthen your arguments when the disagreement really does matter.

*steps off my soap box*

I seriously love that I found this little corner of the internet where we can all get excited about discussing something we all find so enthralling 💗

A big part of what makes that engagement fun is hearing what other people think about this or that song or outfit, and reading long essays arguing for one thing, but also seeing that that op likes and reblogs essays arguing something completely different for the same song! Not only does it speak to the layers in Taylor’s writing, but it also makes no damn difference which exact person any one song is about. As long as everyone is respectful and chill, it’s way more fun to know that we don’t know.

k, hear me out! You know how Dottore has (h̶a̶d̶) segments/clones of himself at various points in his life??

Let's say the reader is a segment of him when he was a kid.. and is used to spy on the traveler (though I guess the traveler doesn't know its a clone💀)

This was a tough one, I'm not gonna lie. I've redone it a couple of times, and I'm still not sure if I like it. But the idea is great, don't get me wrong. It was just hard to fit it in a relatively short format. Lumine is the traveler here, because flip-a-coin said so.

Genre: Angst/Whump

Characters: Lumine, Dottore

TW: Graphic descriptions of disease and body decay.

You were born exactly fifteen years ago.

Well, born is the wrong term here. You were separated from Dottore's body, and contorted into an exact copy of him. You looked the same, talked the same, knew the same, walked the same.

Yet your mind was a separate one. Nobody knows if that was an oversight from the other you, or if it was intended. That meant you didn't share the same personality or values. Dottore, young as he was back then, wasn't the best person to argue with about worldview. A few careless words could mean being on the wrong side of the observation room.

So you swallowed all of your worries and pretended to be him. You worked together, but you got the short end of the stick most of the time. While Dottore would engage in actually interesting experiments and activities, you were his 'gofer'. The amount of trips to the kitchen, public institutions and libraries were far too many to count. It was a dull, but not a bad way to live.

Over the years, something became painfully obvious, though.

Dottore made a mistake. A grievous mistake. Not lethal for him, of course. But for you.

You aged. Faster than him, in fact. Something went wrong during the soul fragmentation process, which caused rapid growth of your body. When he became one of the Harbingers at a fairly young age, you were already taller than him. Your physical appearance didn't go along with the development, so despite measuring a whole two meters in height, you still had his teen features. That proved to be an interesting development in your other self's eyes. It meant that people couldn't recognize you as another version of him.

That opened a whole new world of possibilities, namely espionage. Suddenly, from carrying around books or coffee, you became a field agent for the Fatui. With Dottore's skills and a whole new identity, you could easily infiltrate any enemy organization and strike from behind. Luckily for you, Dottore's ego extended to his other versions, meaning that all of the dirty work was left up to the skirmishers to carry out.

Still, it was hard to live like this. Constantly gaining people's trust, meddling with their affairs and vanishing without a trace, only to do it again. You took many names and lived under many covers, never able to settle down and have some well-deserved rest. You were happy, however. Happy that Dottore had a use for you, that he saw value in your existence.

You were so stupid to think that would last.

When Dottore learned how to change the appearance of his other clones, your skills became... obsolete. What's more - you were now a threat. Unlike the other segments, you had a separate, free mind to you, and since you knew far too much about the Fatui's inner workings, you were dangerous.

Yet the other you felt a certain... nostalgia towards you. You were the first of his masterpieces, possibly the greatest of them all. So Dottore wanted to use you for all of your worth.

As soon as a certain short, blond haired girl and her flying companion made themselves known by foiling Childe's plan, it was obvious someone had to keep tabs on her all the time. Someone expandable, but loyal.

And so, you became her shadow.

You slowly learnt her routine, her connections, friends, beliefs and skills. Even though Lumine wasn't really aware of your existence, you knew more about her than even Paimon. Despite your hard attempts at remaining hidden, a slip up occurred some day, and you came face to face with her. Smooth talking and quick thinking were both in your job description, so you managed to save face. Lumine was still very young, and gullible enough to believe you were just passing by, despite having seen you around multiple times already. Seeing a prime opportunity in this new development, you asked her to join on her travels. And she agreed.

For some time, it felt like an entirely different world. A world without the need to torture, betray, steal and lie. You helped her with her issues, using your skill and knowledge to aid her quest of finding her brother. And you used it in the name of good. You two helped almost everyone you came across. Whether it was saving an abducted family member, recovering stolen goods or just helping someone prepare a gift, sweet Lumine never refused anyone, no matter how trivial or mundane the work was. As a derivative of a psychopath, you didn't get it at first, especially that you knew what she was capable of. Why in the world would she go around saving kittens or entertaining one of the Harbinger's siblings when she could overcome gods? But the answer made itself more and more clear with every smile you helped her put on someone's face.

She did it because... because it felt good.

It felt good to do good things.

Good to build, not destroy.

Your fondness for the traveler was getting more and more obvious with each report sent to your creator. When you stated in one of Lumine's wound descriptions that "luckily for us, she made a full recovery", it was clear that your loyalty was not as crystal clear as before. That angered Primo Dottore. How could he create something so traitorous?

When the order to cut her throat when she slept, you refused for the first time. So the next time you met eye to eye, The good Doctor presented you with a small syringe. He told you it was your usual anti-aging solution, and you took it without question, as always.

The effects of that substance he gave you weren't immediately obvious.

It started slow, with cracking skin, joint aches and stomach pains. Over time, you found more and more of your hair on your brush. A month passed, and you started coughing. The wounds, no matter how small or insignificant, didn't heal up properly anymore. Gradual muscular dystrophy lowered your combat abilities, forcing Lumine to protect you from danger. Fever kicked in as the many wounds became infected. Wiping puss from them soon became too bothersome, as it returned moments later, its supply seemingly endless. By the end of the second month, your skin was shriveled and pale.

Your cells started falling off along all of your tracts, leading to bloody secretions. Lumine, already disheartened by your state, was on the verge of tears when you stained the sink crimson for the first time. She seeked help from everyone she knew - Kokomi, Zhongli, Barbara, Ei, Miko, Baizhu... None of them could help keep her best friend from falling apart before her eyes. They could only provide temporary relief, drag out the inevitable.

Weeks passed, and you were reduced to a bandaged up, incomplete skeleton. Your left arm fell off when you hit it on the door, and your right knee collapsed, unable to hold you upright. Everything hurts. You couldn't drink, eat or sleep. Despite all of the abuse, your body refused to give up, refused to finally keel over and die. You still had something to do.

With the last ounces of your strength, you revealed Lumine the truth. The truth about your name, your origin, your work. You confessed to as many horrible deeds you committed as you could recall, hoping to drive her away. To make her despise you. To make her not care. Not cry every night.

She didn't leave your side until the end. Why? Because she knew you. You didn't want to murder, to lie, to rob and betray. You never asked for this life. It was forced upon you by a Harbinger with the  ambition to rule over life and death.

Lumine's mind was filled with fond memories of you. Your laughter still resonated in her mind, but she just couldn't get herself to recall your face. Because every time she thought of it, only the noseless, toothless and wide-eyed cadaver would greet her. She couldn't force the image of someone she cared for, liked, loved so much reduced to this.

She came to her senses only months after your funeral, and took up her quest again. This time, alone, and with a far different attitude.

She spared Childe. She spared Scaramouche.

But whoever faced her in Fontaine would not be so lucky.

Thanks for reading!