Everything is meant... Or is it?

First I would like to preface this by saying that I'm splitting this off because I've been kicking it around as its own thing, but was inspired to actually post it based on the meta @ineffablebookgirl did and the thoughts from @skeetlebeetle on the paintball scene.

So, is everything meant?

This is a question I've thought about a lot with all the meta I've consumed and posted. There are a lot of analyses that go on based on tiny details, micro expressions, so on and so forth. There are different interpretations one could make about different scenes and different characters. Throughout this I've asked myself: does it really count if the author/creator didn't intend for it to be this way?

It doesn't help that Neil Gaiman is a lot like the God he and Terry Pratchett wrote:

“Are you saying,” said Crowley, “that He planned it this way all along? From the very beginning?”

Aziraphale conscientiously wiped the top of the bottle and passed it back.

“Could have,” he said. “Could have. One could always ask Him, I suppose.”

“From what I remember,” replied Crowley, thoughtfully, “—and we were never actually on what you might call speaking terms—He wasn’t exactly one for a straight answer. In fact, in fact, He’d never answer at all. He’d just smile, as if He knew something that you didn’t.”

“And of course that’s true,” said the angel. “Otherwise, what’d be the point?”

There are times where Neil will clarify something, or confirm or deny something, but mostly I've seen him take the stance of, "Isn't that the beauty of art? Everyone can interpret things in different ways."

He doesn't clamor to correct people on their interpretation of his work, and that's something I've found very admirable and will certainly be taking with me as I put my work out in the world. It allows us, the fans of this media, to enjoy it to the fullest extent. It lets us take from it what we need, and that's truly a beautiful thing.

"Yes, but, how could it mean anything if that's not what was meant when it was written? How do we know we've gotten it right?" -- does that sound familiar? Because that reminds me of a certain angel who has spent the better part of six thousand years collecting Bibles and books of prophecy and everything else, seemingly in search of The Answer. In search of what it all means, in spite of its ineffability.

And as we can see throughout the story, the common thread seems to be: it doesn't matter what it means, it doesn't matter what it's meant to be. We can take from it what we wish, and our choices are our own, and our own choices are the ones that really matter. That's part of the beauty of being human.

Really, the conclusion I've come to, is that I suppose I don't mind if things were meant, or if they were beautiful moments of accidental serendipity.

It's truly admirable when an author can tie together all of these amazing details, on purpose. However, as I've discovered through my OWN writing, it's sometimes even more amazing when these details fall perfectly into place, all on their own. Those are the moments I sit back, look at what I've written, and go, "Holy shit, that is AWESOME!"

It's just like life, and it's just like Good Omens -- maybe it's written, maybe it's not. You don't need to see the story for it to happen, you don't need to be told what decision to make in order to be happy with it. That's why Anathema burned the second book at the end. To hell with the answers or what is meant, she can create her own answers and find her own meaning.

I feel like it can seem less impressive if something happens by accident rather than the author intending for it to happen. I would actually propose that it is MORE impressive.

What is the difference between intelligence and artificial intelligence? Sentient and non-sentient? The non-sentient AI does what we tell it to do. Sentience is when it takes on a life of its own. In that way, by facilitating these accidental moments of poetic meaning, I feel like the creator has imparted into their work a little bit of the magic that makes us who we are. They've harnessed the spirit of life well enough that it got away from them through their work, and created something utterly lifelike.

I've thought about this particularly when it comes to people speculating about neurodivergency. People recognize a lot of ADHD traits in Crowley, and a lot of autistic traits in Aziraphale. I'm actually not sure if Neil and Terry intended that (Neil has responded to the question in a similar way as sexuality, in that he acknowledged they behave like neurodivergent humans in some ways, but they're not human, so he wouldn't call them that -- but I haven't seen a yes/no on whether it was intended).

Regardless, even if it's not, I find that incredibly impressive. It means the creator has done a good enough job of creating a whole character that they can consistently embody this aspect of human psychology, without it being seen as pandering or like the author took a neurodivergent checklist and tried to cram it all in there. It's quite an impressive feat, considering the human brain is, well --

I suppose the point of all this is, life is utterly beautiful and so is art, especially when art mimicks life, and especially when it does so by accident. I love seeing all the meta going around, and I love when creators are able to let this sort of stuff just be. It's my favorite part of this fandom in particular, because I've been scared out of a lot of other ones because I enjoyed it the "wrong way", according to the fandom's interpretation or the creator's own rigidity.

I think the other point is that we all have the power of this kind of creation, especially if we take a page from Crowley's book. We can wall our characters and plotlines in the Garden of Eden where everything is meticulously perfect, but if we let them eat the apple and grant these things the freedom to take on a life of their own, even if it seems disastrous at first, our creations could go on to create things we never saw coming. If we let ourselves explore our stories freely, and we let our audience explore freely, we can see our own creations transform into wonderful things we never imagined.

And then, maybe, one day, you can reflect on this when someone asks you, "Did you mean for this to happen?"

Then, once you're done autographing their treasured copy of your book that they've dropped in the tub at least once and taped together with yellow tape, you can just sort of look at them and smile, as if you know something they don't.

ive probably said it before but i'll say it again, the correct interpretations of bilbo's and thorin's sexual history is that bilbo was THE whore of the shire (in secret) but has had a dry spell since the age of like 35 because thats when he developed early-onset-grandpa syndrome, and thorin was a virgin til the day he died

one of the best parts of ao3 comment sections is that if you try hard enough you can turn them into a book club

thoughts on Astarion and asexuality

by a certified asexual ✌

yes, Astarion confirmed during Act II that he's only ever used sex as a tool (for as long as he's been a vampire anyway, which we learn later has been more than 80% of his life so far), either for his master because he was forced to or (more recently) for himself - to seek protection and trust, from you. he literally compares it to something disgusting to force himself through. but does that mean he's asexual?

yes, he talks about sex feeling "tainted" to him after he used it so much to lure Cazador's victims (and apparently, not just because it usually worked, but because he had to..? he doesn't specify, but lbr i wouldn't put it past the bastard to make it a rule of some kind, especially if he picked up on Astarion disliking it), but he also talks about being less disgusted by (quote) "beautiful" people (though he also conceded that in the sum of it all, that barely even mattered).

and he jokes about it being "almost [...] a challenge" to not have sex for a while (though it's unclear whether he thinks the player wouldn't be able to hold out, since it's supposed to be on his (Astarion's) terms?), and by the end of the romance arc, you can choose to have sex with him again and he'll enjoy it. all in all, it mostly really sounds like he's deeply traumatized (i mean duh, but yk, also sexually traumatized) and just needs a while to work through that (if you don't give him that time he'll go through with it once more but then break up with you, fyi)) and not like he actually doesn't enjoy sex, never has never will.

i know he was not written as asexual.

[ and yes i also know that asexuality doesn't mean having no desire for / feeling disgusted by sex, i know. but the day ace rep is portrayed any differently in media is still ages away, so i'm working with "character intentionally written as ace = character written as not enjoying sex" here. ]

But.

is it so wrong to feel elated at the thought that he could be? to interpret him that way? especially when he says "I don't think I want you to think of me in terms of sex. I don't know if I want anyone to." (and says the second part so softly, eyes downcast, utterly devoid of theatrics or feigned nonchalance - almost like he's surprising himself with that thought, and voicing it openly). I felt that so much. upon you inquiring further, he snaps almost defensively that he wants to be seen as a person, which i know, i know, easily works back into the trauma narrative of him not being seen as a living (well yk) being that has feelings. it clearly doesn't necessarily mean he dislikes being seen as a sexual being, just that he's more than that and is sick and tired of being reduced to it.

but something still jumped in me at that line. 'please don't look at me and think of sex' is a frequent thought in my mind, and looking at me and thinking of seduction is a joke and a half - i don't dress it behave it or talk it, ever. but nonetheless, the... fear, almost? is still there. (and maybe the very reason i take care not to send any contradictory signals, but that's a topic for a whole 'nother post - this isn't about me).

i just. do i think Astarion was intentionally written as asexual? no. do i think he should be, and that there's something wrong with seeing him or preferring him as allo? absolutely not either! but i believe just as much that it's valid to read him or prefer him as ace. and yk, obv everything is valid, canon is your sandbox and your headcanons are your own - but in this case, it's really, really close to being in the text. he resonates with a lot of us, one way or another, and i think that's beautiful.

Ya ever take a little gander at the fandom surrounding a work once you've digested it just to think...huh. y'all had a very different experience with this than I did.

this isn't like comics-fandom specific by any means, but one thing i do think about semi-regularly is that like. some people are so insistent on stuff being "for fun" so that they can justify never actually thinking about what they're doing, and that's... idk man. in a world where we are inundated with propaganda and bullshit all the time, media literacy, critical thinking, and reading comprehension skills are pretty important. and yeah like no one can have their brain running at max capacity 24/7 but you still gotta like... put in SOME critical thinking. otherwise you just get people being like SO WHAT if this comic is really racist??? you can't ask me to think critically about how it portrays characters of color!!!!! im just here for fun!!!!!! and it's just like. dude.

ok i’m watching millennium again and after reading @randomfoggytiger’s analysis placing the IVF arc between the unnatural and biogenesis, that scene where frank says to mulder “they claimed i was an unfit father… that i was obsessed with conspiracy, that my work meant more to me than my daughter…” just hits different, like mulder was totally ready to give scully a baby because that’s what she wanted, but this scene placed into an immediate post-ivf context now becomes even more of a turning point for mulder, because he’s being asked to confront the question he must have asked himself a million times while they were trying to conceive (do i deserve this? do i have the right to bring a child into the world? can i be a good father? is that something i can balance with my life’s work?), but now it’s been stripped of consequences because he can no longer have children (if scully can’t he can’t either because he only wants them with her), and yet he still feels compelled to change the outcome, to end up in a better/different place than frank has, hence why he chooses to kiss scully at the end of the episode and kick off the season of secret sex

So I know the quality sucks and we don't get any better quality to compare, but I just wanted to point out that, yes. Baby Carlo has freckles. Very few of them. But you can see the ones he had since he was a wee young lad standing out in his painting.

Go ahead and go into the game and stand in front of the portrait. Compare their faces. I'll wait c:

Here's a full/clean version of his portrait if you want to stare at it

So anyways like I was saying before--

it’s still on my mind, so i need to discuss it more and like here’s the thing. like i said, i think the idea that the narrative is slut shaming boston is a valid interpretation. if you are viewing this show through the lens of “what lessons are they trying to teach us?” and watch the show and see boston, the slut, in his last frame sad and alone, i can completely understand why you would think “this show is saying that sleeping around and being promiscuous is bad.” i get that! i understand it, i can see how you get to that conclusion.

but it’s like every single argument i see for it is so inherently flawed?? like it’s not even just the person who said that the other couples are heteronormative, it’s everyone that’s claiming boston had no backstory, or that mew was painted as the hero, that he was seen as actually above boston, that nick is also shaming him and saying he doesn’t love boston and boston needs to change for him. and none of those things are backed by the actual text!! they’re all highly skewed interpretations of canon that if you go back and actually look for come out wrong every time!

and the thing that gets me the most is that again, EVERYONE seems to forget that NICK ALSO GOT AN UNHAPPY ENDING! yeah sure, he got the last word and was the one to walk away, but do you seriously watch that last scene and think “yeah nick is so happy and not at all heartbroken over this situation.” and he’s not even MENTIONED in the last scene, unlike boston who is mentioned to be in new york where we can assume he’s happy. like if the narrative is punishing boston, it’s also punishing nick, which i haven’t seen a single person arguing for. because we all know that’s not the case! and i understand the urge to protect boston and being sad about his ending, believe me, but the idea that he’s actively being slutshamed and that the narrative is working against him personally just isn’t backed by the text.

i love the "do it again" thing because there are people who are like 'they only kissed because its the human thing to do, its a human way to show love, crowley just wanted to make a point' but if aziraphale wanted it done again then that means that its not just a human thing to want to do, they want to do it, or at the least aziraphale wants it done to him by crowley.

so anyway that hurts my soul good evening good omens tumblr

Bad time of it, all things considered (Patreon)

I’m just realizing that because I watched HOTD after s1 aired, I never actually got to see the amount of Alicent hate first-hand. Now that the fandom has sort of come alive again because of the trailer it makes me want to rip my hair out whenever I see certain alicent takes

Not her posting your comment and tagging it as "hetfem" 🙄

If you're an 'activist' and you're confronted with a gap between the theory and the material reality/lived experience, you have two options:

You can amend the theory to better reflected the material reality/lived experience (e.g. recognising the problems with the theory and coming up with new theories to describe what we're seeing), or

You can amend the lived experience/material reality to better support the theory (e.g. take whatever examples prove the theory and just ignore everything else).

Radblr, like post-modern tumblr, prefers the latter - to pick and choose examples from lived experience/material reality that will support the theory and just ignore everything else.

I firmly believe that male heterosexuality is privileged over female heterosexuality (and, because y'all are illiterate, that saying 'male heterosexuality is privileged over female heterosexuality' does not mean that female heterosexuality is discriminated against for the same reasons and to the same extent as female homosexuality and female bisexuality).

Some people: Kaeya’s bio father is an abusive monster who abandoned his son in order to achieve his own selfish goals. He is an evil man who deserves everything awful that might happen to him. 

Other people: Kaeya’s bio father did the right thing and leaving Kaeya in Mondstadt was the only way to give him a halfway-decent life. He is a better father than he is given credit for and should not be as hated as he is. 

Me: Kaeya’s bio father is integral to the general ‘war is hell and bad choices can reverberate across time’ thing that Genshin seems to be going for. He made unethical choices, but mostly because the ONLY OPTIONS HE HAD WERE UNETHICAL. If our understanding of the Alberich’s role in Khaenri’ah is accurate, General Alberich (my name for him until stated otherwise) was suddenly in charge of a hopeless and dead kingdom which begged to be saved. Assuming that there was a reason Kaeya specifically was chosen for this mission, General Alberich was forced into a position where he needed to choose between the lives/future of every Khaenri’an vs the life and future of his young son. Abandoning either is an awful thing to do and a horrible decision, but the bad decisions of Celestia and Rhinedottir have led to a scenario where General Alberich can only make bad decisions. In the end, he chose to prioritize his people and made his young son into a spy. We do not know the process for this, but knowing how much Hoyoverse loves to torment people (especially Khaenri’ans) we can assume that this process was horrific for Kaeya and could definitely be considered abuse. General Alberich is effectively making his son into a child soldier for a war that the majority of people never wanted or asked for, and one Kaeya was likely far too young to understand. At least, until he was forced to grow up far too quickly in order to fulfill his duty. General Alberich likely loathed everything about what was happening and even in his last moments with his son he asks for forgiveness. He knows that what he is doing is wrong, but to turn back now is to both abandon his subjects and make everything that happened to Kaeya in order to turn him into a child spy be for nothing. So yeah, General Alberich is a terrible person who made horrible choices. But war and the bad actions of others have created a situation where he has nothing BUT horrible choices and where being a terrible person is the only thing he can be. And that’s without considering how the curse/abyssal corruption could impact the scenario. 

Barbie is really good but I do wish folks would have more nuanced conversations about it bc I do think that its message is distinctly imperfect

My favorite interaction with an Eve stan has to be with this one guy I met back when I was in tdt who always said that the only canon MVs were the ones that had Hitotsume in them and if he wasn’t there then it didn’t count as canon which annoyed me so I told them that if we followed that logic then Hakugin is canon bc Hitotsume appears in it and that made them so mad they never spoke to me again