Sobbing so hard bc even as wifey, Mizu wore pants, didn't want to wear that pretty kimono and makeup except for the wedding ceremony itself because I'm sure her "mother" made her or to try and soften his heart after their spar. She was her tomboy self, you know? And people are out here putting her in hyper feminine stuff like NO THIS ISN'T BUTCH DEATH THIS IS BUTCH MURDER.
You can be a butch/tomboy and be pretty or have long hair, I do, but like, oooof. It's like when people made Tigress all girly pop like NO. STOP IT PLEASE. LET BUTCHES BE I BEG. She's clearly into utility over anything else, I mean, she wears her stitched up kimono even though she clearly has the means to buy a new one, her tattered, mud soaked little cape thing, etc. The pants she wore horseriding with Mikio even looked like her pants she wore as a man.
192 notes
·
View notes
I think the thing that shocks me the most about the discourse, if you can even call it that, around book Alicent vs show Alicent, is the idea that people think book Alicent had full autonomy over all her choices and she wasn’t a “victim” like show Alicent.
Now first, I put victim in quotations bc the way people who do not like her have almost bastardized that word. Alicent is a victim, and those things (rape, abuse, neglect) were done to her. That says everything about the men who did that do her and nothing about her. But people are hellbent on throwing Alicent, a woman in a violently patriarchal environment, being victimized back at people as if it is moral flaw of hers. Which is just terribly ironic bc the same folks who say Alicent “did it to herself” or “deserves what she is getting” also seem to think the crux of the story isn’t about generational trauma catching up with itself, how far people will go for power, or even how all girls and women are harmed - albeit to different degrees. But more the fact that Rhaenyra is the only woman to be harmed - and the only harm done is not getting the throne easily. Those same people wouldn’t be caught dead admitting that Rhaenyra is also a victim in the way they shit on Alicent for being. From the father who sets her up fail, to the baby daddy that’s been eyeing her since she was barely 18, to the uncle that grooms her. It takes away from the fantasy projected onto Rhaenyra if she too is surrounded by men that use her and she never escapes that.
Second, it’s funny how F&B gets heralded by some as this exploration of how history is skewed depending on who is telling it. But people can’t read between the lines (you honestly don’t even have to do that much work) with book Alicent. Showing 14 year old Alicent being preyed on, 16 year old Alicent being pregnant with her second child, and 18 year old Alicent being raped is somehow the show needlessly making Alicent a victim. But reading about a 13 year old bathing, dressing, and taking care of a king who mistakes her for the daughter he abused and neglected, and then that same girl, at 18, marrying another king that killed his previous child bride is just girl bossism on book Alicent’s part?
People hate conceptualizing the idea that (even book) Alicent is caught in patriarchal trappings bc to some that takes away from Rhaenyra’s plight…. Bc they can’t wrap their heads around several women *gasp* all going through hardships, and that ultimately people will respond to trauma differently depending on tools/knowledge they have at their disposal. Alicent neither being gleefully evil nor picking herself up by her bootstraps to somehow end years of patriarchal violence is not the neat box they want for her.
63 notes
·
View notes
re-watched welcome to samdalri ep10 and i wonder..... in this journey of sam-dal re-discovering herself as photographer cho sam-dal, sang-do did all the "romantic" things like buying her the disposable cameras that she used to use, and seeing which of her favorite scenic spots were still untouched by tourists. but i think sam-dal, had she known about sang-do's efforts, still would've appreciated yong-pil's way about it more, and not only because it's yong-pil. i think she would've liked that yong-pil had faith that she would discover all of these things on her own - that he believed in her, trusted her to re-discover herself - rather than trying to make her like him more by showing her that he still remembered everything about her etc.
when those newlywed couples in the forest asked sam-dal to take portraits for them and she hesitated, yong-pil didn't say anything; he just happily watched as she thought about it and eventually agreed. and as sam-dal slowly found joy in photography again, yong-pil found joy in watching her find joy. it's like he said in the ep6 epilogue when explaining his dream: "once your dreams come true, mine will as well."
anyway sorry sang-do..
123 notes
·
View notes
hm ok so for a while i was thinking that Wally, for the most part, only perceives reality as "Home", the neighborhood. that's his entire world, it's all he knows
but then i slapped myself and went wait. the Live Interview. Wally has been outside of Home, and has interacted with humans (presuming that the interview did actually happen, of course). and through Wally's interactions - or rather, attempt at interactions with Us, the QA, and the WHRP, it can be strongly assumed that he knows that there's an Elsewhere. there are places outside of Home. maybe he doesn't quite understand that there's another reality of sorts, but there's no way he's unaware that there's more than just the neighborhood out there
(and then of course there's the fact that Clown has said that humans are deeply involved (not a direct quote, im paraphrasing) in Welcome Home. maybe Wally interacted with them / regularly interacted with them. there could have been an adjustment period after he gained consciousness where humans helped him learn how to walk/talk/fine motor skills - this could be why he has such a seemingly inherent / desperate trust in Us & the WHRP & the QA... humans made him and cared for him. it's possible he could view them as a sort of higher power to trust & have faith in
& maybe he's been off-set or could go off-set. i mean, the houses' rooms were all different sets - the buildings themselves were empty husks, right? who's to say Wally wouldn't physically walk to the individual set pieces whenever he went over to someone's house (but then that leads me into speculation on how the puppets' consciousness works and how multiple copies of them could co-exist and wondering which is the - im getting off track. but there's all of that and then the two part "you're okay!" art pieces of Wally & Eddie, which are technically canon - dont quote me on that - and that's Another ramble/theory post i could go on about & have strong feelings on. Anyway!)
"but wait," i hear someone protest, "what about Barnaby? he was in the Live Interview too"
but was he? was he really? was that Barnaby, or was that a person in a suit playing the character Barnaby B. Beagle? i mean, if it was Barnaby, there had to be some memory fuckery going on that prevented him from either fully comprehending/realizing the situation, or just made him forget as soon as it was over.
and actually wait, Wally has to be aware of the reality discrepancy. because it was certainly him in the Interview as himself. He had to have understood on some level that either that wasn't really Barnaby, or that Barnaby wouldn't remember the interview.
(there's a connection in my head between all of this & how he would view an apple pie. "it isn't the same anymore. something's different". but i can't pin it down for the life of me.)
and with the Talking Telephone calls, Wally explicitly tells Us that he's not going to tell anyone who was behind the calls. i remember listening to the "original" prank call audio tests, which while were very similar to the canon in-website ones, have a few changes. one of which was Wally - in the tests - saying that the others weren't ready to meet Us yet. now in canon that tidbit has been swapped out for "You have to go too. You have work to do" but i think it's still implied through Wally's purposeful withholding-of-information that he doesn't think the others are ready to know. or he straight up doesn't want them to know
i mean, one little theory i previously had is that Wally wants them all to catch on to the nature of their reality and situation, but he doesn't want to - or Can't - tell them outright. they have to figure it out. and that can't was either something keeping him quiet, or because if they learned too soon / inorganically, their little puppet heads would pop into confetti like Red Guy's in dhmis 4
However my views have Changed and i'm pretty sure Wally is purposefully not telling anyone to maintain the illusion that everything is fine and can continue on as it always has. maybe it comes from a place of protectiveness, of love? whatever the motive i think he wants them all to keep being unaware and dare i say, Complacent while he "fixes" their situation.
which is delusional, but we all know Wally is digging his metaphorical claws into a desperate bid to keep everything the same / return it to its original state, leaving bloody scratches in something already rotted. or something like that!
all this to say i think it's interesting how it seems that he's the only one aware of humans / an outside/other world, yet he's so determined to stay in his lane. he wants connection & communication yet he doesn't want to leave or change. he wants help in keeping things the same (some could say in keeping Our reality & his separated) but in the process he's dooming everyone/everything and tearing down those walls himself
(Wally: i'm going to stay where i am, and you're gonna stay where you are, and we're gonna help each other keep me and my friends where we're meant to be. anyway i wonder what this sledgehammer does)
112 notes
·
View notes
The most recent session of Secret Life is so fascinating to me, because there's so much emphasis on this idea of heroes and villains in a series that's so full of murder. Like, everyone's doing it! What makes one person a villain for doing it and another a hero? Is it the cycle of violence, that the person in the wrong is whoever committed the crime first? Is murder excused when it's done for the sake of a task? Or for the sake of an ally rather than for yourself?
Scar: "So I'm just the villain of the red lives, the people who can kill me, the people who I was trying to kiss up to with the creeper farm. This is... secret keepers, why do you have it out for me?"
Gem: "All right, wow! I thought I'd have a lot more enemies, but actually I seem to be a bit of a hero on the server! Everyone likes me! Everyone has good things to say!"
Bdubs: "Want me to kill Scar? Okay, great, wonderful, that's going to be my mission for today! I'm going to be the hero of the server today!"
Gem and Scar both had tasks that involved hurting others on the server. So what's the difference? Everyone excuses Gem because it was just her task, but Scar's villainy was a task too. Do the others know that? Do they care? If Bdubs killed Scar, the narrative goes that he would be the hero of the server defeating the great evil villain. Task successful, I suppose.
101 notes
·
View notes