♱ the ring, the great dark, and proximity to God by ethel cain ♱

CROWLEY SSR THOUGHTS

there is zero basis for this, but I can't get this thought of my head

I don't know why I decided to draw it this way

Anatomy of Alastors demonic forms

[ cw: violence mention / death mention / ]

Will never stop thinking about how Leo, all alone in an endless void and being beaten again and again and again by the only other living thing around, still finds comfort in that space. The situation he was in was completely hopeless, and in any other circumstances he would not have escaped, at least not fast enough to save him from permanent (or even fatal) damage, be it physical or mental.

And yet, despite the bleakness of his situation, despite the agony and helplessness, all he needs is one glance at a crumbled photograph, one glance to remember his family, and that’s enough of a reason for him to smile.

Maybe that’s why his powers center around manipulating space - because no matter how much space is between them, no matter how dire his own situation may be, just the thought of his family, alive and okay, is enough to give Leo hope.

so about the header that proceeded today's statement:

Viability as agent: Low

Viability as subject: None

Viability as catalyst: Medium

i didn't know what to think of this part of the entry at first, but the longer the statement went on... was the institute in this universe trying to manufacture avatars?

the dice can't do anything without someone to use them, they can't be an "agent" by themselves, but might be capable of manipulation, so in that aspect their viability is "low."

the dice could be a "subject" in the sense that they could use further studying, but the statement itself was a very thorough investigation of their workings, so in that aspect their viability is "none."

the dice seem to influence their holder to roll them, or at least find more victims to roll them, and could therefore be described as a "catalyst" for someone's becoming. but, as seen in the statement, their owner can give the dice to someone else (albeit not without consequences), so in that aspect their viability is only "medium."

so what about the line following all this, what does "Recommend referral to Catalytics for Enrichment applicability assessment" mean? if we go by this interpretation, i'd say it could mean the institute wanted to find a way to make the dice even more potent as an artifact, maybe even remove that pesky ability for their owner to reject them.

imho all of this this brings a whole new level of context to the events of episode seven, of unknown violent agents going after an influx of objects that seemed straight out of artifact storage. was that the nature of the titular "magnus protocol" first mentioned in episode four, the one that involved the starkwall group? containing or destroying potential artifacts before the institute could get their hands on them?

it also makes their "gifted kids program," and sam's link to it as one of the kids being studied, all the more horrifying to think about. was it not just avatars in general they were after, but child avatars specifically? no wonder gertrude got so defensive over the possibility of sam and celia dragging gerry back into the institute's business last episode, we all picked up on her clearly knowing more than she's letting on but now we might know the shape of that information a bit better.

and one final bit of food for thought... this statement had a lot of familiar themes, didn't it? free will or the illusion of it, gambling and not-so-random chance, the statement giver being done in by one final hit from what feels like a bit of an addition... all hallmarks of a certain mother of puppets. doesn't it seem fitting that "chester" would use this kind of statement to warn sam about what harm pursuing the magnus institute could bring to him, considering the one his voice might draw from? and doesn't it seem so painfully ironic that his warning seems to have only driven sam further into that web?

red son rising

Orange peel theory but make it moicy

Aka criticizing the methodology yet still reaping the rewards lol

in this shot the candle is positioned higher up in the shot than mirabel, showcasing how she feels this candle is worth more than she is. This is also foreshadowing for the moment she quite literally values this candle more than her own life!

my favorite theory rn is that hobie killed the cop captain that was a part of his "canon event".

i think i finally understand the exact reasoning behind how both will and mike's sexualities are presented, and how those presentations flatter each other.

will is barely queercoded from a subtextual perspective because there's no need to queercode him. the writers verbally establish in season one episode one that people percieve this kid as gay, so you're immediately guided to see him through the same lens, at least subconsciously. people continue to refer to him as gay and he continues to "act" gay, and most of the audience is able to see this for what it is very easily without the need for heavy symbolism. will being gay is simply treated as a fact from the start by both the characters around him and the writers themselves, for better or for worse.

MIKE, on the other hand, is so heavily queercoded it's barely even funny. he's the one with the queer imagery, the blocking, the set design, the lighting. he's never explicitly referred to as queer, it isn't so much as suggested verbally, but the sheer amount of incredibly blatant subtextual material that surrounds him is insane. none of the characters within the show have the slightest clue that mike is gay. there's a good chance that mike himself doesn't know, or has only begun to realize very recently. even the writers do their damn best to make it appear like they themselves don't know. still, the fact remains that he is, it just isn't expressed in a way that the homophobic masses both within and outside the show are capable of picking up on. when he comes out it will be a shock to the characters and the majority heterosexual audience, but not to the queer people who pick up instinctually on the signalling. basically, you only know mike is gay if you have a genuinely functioning gaydar.

in this way they're so strongly representative of two very different gay experiences, both of which are important and both of which are treated respectfully by the writers, despite the setting.

will is the kid who never really gets the luxury of choosing whether to come out to people, because everybody has had him pegged from the start. even his own family: jonathan tells will he accepts him before will can even hint toward the topic himself. however as much as we're told that he "seems" gay to other people, all we are shown subtextually is a totally normal child who happens to have feelings for another boy. this is important because it subverts the trope of making "being gay" the "obviously gay" character's sole or core trait.

mike is the kid who people would never in a million years guess was queer. it's not just that he gets the luxury of choosing when to come out of the closet; he's so deep in it that he's drowning in winter coats. he's the "twist queer character," except he's not. his subtextual queercoding has been there beneath the surface for just as long as will has been textually referred to as queer on a surface level. this makes it clear that him being gay isn't some kind of last minute decision and the subtlety of his presentation wasn't an accident. if you don't knkw mike is gay now before it's revealed then you aren't supposed to.

they're foils like that. they're the archetypal queers, and i think it's kind of beautiful.

(and if anybody tries to argue that one expression of Queer Experience is more important than another then i'm coming for their kneecaps. having both experiences not only represented but thoroughly explored is so rare, although there are people all over the world who resonate with each.)

bylers when over 350k people don’t have the exact same thoughts and opinions as them

I know there are a lot of theories bouncing around that Maddie is still alive and it feels very weird to say this about a character that I genuinely like, but... I hope not? I mean, don't get me wrong, I totally see where the theories are coming from & it would explain why she's so different from the other ghosts, but I also feel like it would really undermine the emotional core of the show for me.

okay so this one, def came from my delulu mind, but barbie starts and all the barbies and kens have this flat skin, which was mentioned by someone from the crew (i don’t remember if it was margot or greta) that they all had this uniform, flat makeup, no flaws, no shadows, “perfect”, like the plastic dolls are.

but, at the end, the scene when ncuti ken says he just misses his friend barbie, and then emma barbie comes up, she has moles on her neck, the makeup is not perfect anymore. it’s normal, human. i think this speaks for itself.

again, i don’t think it’s canon bc i theorize a lot, but i think it’s a cute theory

botw got me into watching every zelda theory on the planet and totk got me out of it :I

i will focus on my comic and the rewrite project, rant here an there or answer some questions but im pretty sure im not gonna watch/read anything zelda theory related for a good while