#Most reliable of narrators sure | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lovemyromance · 3 months

Text

SJM: I thought it was obvious??

AKA - No analysis needed. The clues are there. Things are already happening.

Please keep your 80 page PowerPoints and highlighted words from your “8 books of canon” (none of which are actually from ACOTAR, btw) to yourself.

“I thought it was obvious” = no deep dives needed. No extrapolation or analysis necessary. The words are already on the page. You don’t have to work harder than SJM to come up with your own theories (*cough* see HOFAS crazy hype theories vs actual book)

“I thought it was obvious”

The ONLY couple currently mutually attracted to each other is Elriel. They have had moments since ACOMF. ACOSF did not end them, it gave them the setup for the next book. They are set up for the greatest tortured forbidden romance of the series, how can you dispute that? Why would you WANT to dispute that love story? I don’t want ACOSF 2.0 which was all physical and no substance. I want an angsty, slow forbidden romance. I want to fall in love when the characters fall in love. Elriel will give us that.

“I thought it was obvious”

The other ships do NOT exist on the page at the moment. Elucien, I will give credit to because they are still mates so that COULD happen still. But right now, where ACOSF ended, they had barely even seen each other in a year. The only romantic coded interactions have been between Azriel & Elain thus far.

“I thought it was obvious”

Elucien & Gw*riel have not shared any romantic moments. There is no romance between them at this current time in the series. I am not talking about “what could happen” or “what could Sarah be setting up” because she said it was obvious. That means it’s there already. There’s no reason to hypothesize and theorize about ships that don’t currently exist in the book. Because - and say it with me-

“I thought it was obvious”

What is obvious about elucien? Other than the fact that they are mates. That’s it. That’s all they have. Not even a conversation on the page. Not even a shared shy glance or brush of their fingers. It’s the equivalent of an arranged marriage neither of them seems to want. Analyzing 20 sentences about flowers and sunlight, going out of your way to prove feyre is an “unreliable” narrator when she questions the bond (but Cassian, fashion police of Velaris, is a very very reliable narrator)-Why? Is any of that obvious to the casual reader? No.

“I thought it was obvious”

I’m not even going to spend many words talking about Gw*nriel, as I don’t see it as anything more than a crackship. They have like 4 platonic interactions. Friendly. Banter, sure. But not all banter is a clue that people are predestined soulmates. Most people who read their interactions are not going to overanalyze spark and glow and shadow behavior. They shouldn’t have to because - again - none of that is obvious.

“I thought it was obvious”

Shy glances and subtle scenes in the background wasn’t enough for those who claim to be reading experts. So SJM released a bonus chapter where in clear black and white text, you see both Azriel and Elain desperate for each other. This man is willing to BEG on his knees for a taste of her/ the end. Why would you even want him with anyone else after that?

“I thought it was obvious”

All these characters I’ve mentioned have been supporting characters this entire series. Nothing concerning them is going to happen in someone else’s book-but the seeds have been sewn. Any scene with Elain could have been written with Lucien or her sisters instead of Azriel - but it wasn’t.

Ex: when majda says, “if anyone can figure out what’s wrong, it’s a mate”

Lucien is THERE. Feyre is THERE. Nesta is THERE. But who figures it out - not her mate, nor her sisters - Azriel.

Lucien could’ve shown her the garden, feyre could’ve sat with her and listened to Elain’s garden plans till 3am - but no - it was Azriel.

And this man is the only one in the NC I’m convinced that has an actual job and responsibilities. So he is choosing to spend what little free time he has with ELAIN. What’s not clicking, folks?

“I thought it was obvious”

Sarah-we love her-but she is Queen of cliches. Her writing is not some insane thriller level that has you gasping every page turn. She likes threes, she likes happy endings, she likes her male LIs desperate for their female counterparts. The answer to Amarantha’s riddle was LOVE. CC had “through love all is possible”.

You really think she wrote the line “hoped love would trump even a mating bond” and it meant nothing?

SJM doesn’t do anything easy. But she said it was obvious- because it IS.

#elriel #pro elain #elain archeron #elain x azriel #azriel

195 notes · View notes

tossawary · 3 months

Text

"In recent years, of all the major sects, Cang Qiong Mountain Sect had become number one when it came to cultivation; it had no real business rivals. That it was overflowing with wealth could be left unsaid. In short, Like they'd want for even a single horse!"

Volume 1, Chapter 1, page 53.

Here is one of the passages discussing Cang Qiong's status in the cultivation world, specifically one confirming that Cang Qiong has been on the rise with the current generation. Yue Qingyuan is doing a good job bringing in the money! And I personally assume that Shang Qinghua is heavily involved in a lot of this business (Yue Qingyuan took Shang Qinghua back after everything).

At the Immortal Alliance Conference, Shen Yuan confirms that Huan Hua Palace is the wealthiest of the great sects and the one with the most contact with the world beyond cultivation. However... given the way that Shen Yuan talks about An Ding Peak... I'm not sure that Shen Yuan is the foremost reliable narrator regarding Cang Qiong and Huan Hua's respective financial statues. Both sects are obviously wealthy and Huan Hua is probably the wealthier one, I just don't think Shen Yuan has seen the spreadsheets, whatever may actually be on them, and I think it's funny (and kind of realistic) that Huan Hua Palace might have secretly temporarily put themselves into debt in order to throw a huge, flashy sporting event.

#tossawary svsss #tossawary rereads svsss #shen yuan #shen qingqiu #yue qingyuan #shang qinghua #spoilers

177 notes · View notes

disabledunitypunk · 7 months

Text

I am once again thinking about the term "suicide survivors". How it's a term that rightfully belongs to those that lived through a suicide attempt, that literally survived suicide. How instead it means those that lived through someone else's death. How it neans "surviving" in only the archaic use 'survived by" used in obituaries. How suicide "survivors" lived through something that was never going to kill them, that was never even a threat to their life.

How we are only ever a footnote in the stories of others. We're a tragedy that happens to people, a cautionary tale if we die and inspiration porn if we live. How, forever long we do live, we were suicidal, past tense, because it makes people too uncomfortable too acknowledge that suicidality is chronic (whether pathological or environmental).

How everyone wants to do suicide prevention but no one wants to acknowledge the people at the center of it. How it's never actually about our needs - or even about our safety, really. It doesn't matter what trauma or pain we must endure - they'll have us live if it kills us. Never mind social programs to give us housing, food, security, to make us want to live - it's our responsibility to find someone to tell us it's all in our heads and we need meds to fix us, because it's CRAZY to want to die. Make sure the hotlines can all call the cops if we don't comply.

Don't we know how selfish it is to want to not be in pain and be so desperate that we're willing to die for it? Don't we know how selfish it is to not have any access to the things we need to survive? Don't we know that suicidal depression is really our duty to get over, because obviously if we don't take meds that don't work or that make us sick, if we don't submit to medical gaslighting, if we don't "try" to recover, it's not like it's an illness or a disability! It's selfishness, a character flaw.

Don't we know that we're the selfish ones, when they make our struggling, our illness, our deaths, about us and not them?

It's sanism at its most basic. We're not reliable narrators of our own experiences. We're not the main characters of even our own stories. We're there to be a single pretty tear rolling down the cheek of our loved ones. We're tragedy-as-an-object, as an object lesson. "Make sure you pick yourself up by your bootstraps seek help so you don't become an inconvenience for us hurt your loved ones." Even STILL the focus is not on the harm done to yourself, except as a moral failure in that it harms the healthy people around you.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I don't ever want someone to call themselves a "suicide survivor" again who means it not as "I've survived BEING suicidal" but as "I lived through someone else being in so much pain that they took their own life over it". Not when there still exist people that have survived attempts or are actively suicidal. This is our narrative, not one for you to center yourselves in.

I will not go so far as to say your grief is selfish. That would be cruel. But your grief IS about someone else. This is still THEIR story.

It is likewise the same pain, the same trauma, and the same ableism and sanism we face over it, for those of us who have actually survived it, more than it is that of those who have never stood on that edge. It is the same decentering of our own stories when we go through the exact same thing.

It is the same surviving another day of being suicidal, another attempt, and hearing people who have either never been suicidal or simply are not talking about their own survivorship of suicidality, have the audacity to call themselves survivors of something that they never survived. To take something that KILLED someone they love and claim to be survivors of it.

Cancer survivors had cancer. Automobile collision survivors were in collisions. Survivors of critical illnesses or disabling/severe injuries lived through those illnesses or injuries affecting THEIR lives. But suddenly when a deadly chronic illness kills someone, in this one case, the survivors are the ones who watched someone die of it?

Nah. This isn't a mass threat like a shooting or a pandemic, where your life was ever in danger. You're not the survivor. Your grief is valid, and there absolutely needs to be times and places where being a GRIEF survivor is centered, where your healing and well-being is focused on.

But let those of us who we so sick we nearly died for it, or DID die from it, be the center of THAT story.

Dead men tell no tales, so at least have the grace to let the echoes of our voices remain, unspoken over. And for gods' sakes, remember that there are people that DID make it through alive, that we're still talking, that our voices are most important in a conversation about OUR potentially deadly illnesses.

We're still here telling our own tales.

#cw suicide #suicide #suicide survivor #sanism #ableism #psychiatric neglect #psychiatric abuse #anti psych #anti psychiatry #forced recovery

392 notes · View notes

adickaboutspoons · 7 months

Text

I object to the term "whim"

In episodes 4 and 5 of the second season, there's a lot of throwing around of the word "whim." Ed and Stede both argue that they were just a whim to the other, Stede concludes they they are both "whim-prone" and that whim-prone people shouldn't run off to China together, and Ed cites their "whim-prone"ness as a reason to take things slow as they start to rebuild their relationship.

And I know we all like to joke about U-Haul failboats in love, but they aren't whim-prone. That's not what's going on here.

The first time on the show that we hear the word "whim" is in s1e4, when Izzy says "For years, I've followed your every whim, I've managed your increasingly erratic moods, I've massaged this crew when they were worried about your judgment." But from what we see of Izzy's interactions with the crew, he's not a massager, he's a sledgehammer, and the crew respect Blackbeard a hell of a lot more than they respect Izzy. Ed's moods don't read as "erratic" at all if you pay attention to what he's responding to; he's an emotional guy, for sure, but mostly even-keeled until highly provoked. And as for "following [his] every whim," Izzy can barely follow orders as given - committing insubordination at least twice that we see; not telling Stede that it was Blackbeard that wanted to meet him in s1e3, and flat-out ignoring Ed's "we're not doing this" in s1e6 when he challenges Stede to the duel. So I don't see Izzy as a reliable narrator when he suggests Ed is "whim-prone" - it might look like that to him because he doesn't try to understand Ed on his own terms, but it is v. much a construction that Izzy is imposing on Ed; not an objective character trait Ed possesses. After all, you don't get a reputation for being "history's most brilliant tactician" if you're not, at the heart of it all, a planner.

Stede is also a planner. Mary accuses Stede of abandoning his family on a whim, but that's also inaccurate. Thanks to all the hard work @nicnacsnonsense did in her marvelous 1st season timeline video, we know that SIX MONTHS elapsed between Stede proposing with his model boat that they go to sea at the anniversary debacle and the night of Mary's apology when Stede had already committed to actually leaving. That's not a whim - that's plenty of time for serious deliberation. It LOOKED like a whim from the outside because of their disastrous communication failures, but that doesn't make it true. Unabandoning his family was not a whim either - Chauncy was the catalyst, but only because he created a high-pressure situation that validated all of the insecurities we'd seen Stede struggling with all season; guilt over abandoning his family, and his crater-bottom self-esteem that the people he loved were better off without him. Even in season 2, we see more of this long-game behavior, where Stede takes his drudge job in towels and elevates it by applying scent; a move that LOOKS whim-prone from the outside, but primes him for success when it comes time to escape, because it means he knows the guards are used to deeply inhaling the scent of the fresh towels he gives them, and is thus he is able to trick them into chloroforming themselves.

There are times in the 1st season where it might LOOK like they are being whim-prone, but for the most part, those things are mostly time-critical circumstances . The impulsive decision to go to the French Party Boat? The invitation was for that night, so it's not like another opportunity like that was just going to come along. Stede's impromptu Fuckery? He'd JUST been introduced to the concept that morning, and the ships on which he wanted to try it out were three days away. If you'll recall, Ed actually tries to talk him out of going through with it with such a short turn-around time, and likely would have succeeded if Izzy hadn't interveined to further his "Kill Stede Now" agenda. The Treasure hunt? Stede was anxiously scrabbling for ANYTHING to keep Ed's attention (AFTER he confirmed there were no oranges for sale, not even for ready money) because Ed said that his plans for the day included "planning for the next adventure" and leaving. Act of Grace? Signing away ten years of your life for a man you've known for a month IS a lot, but the alternative was letting Stede be executed. Running away together? I'll give you that China was quite the absurd swing, but they WERE in jail for all intents and purposes - no sense staying longer than absolutely necessary, and there theoretically could have been time for re-working the plan once they were just away had circumstances not arisen.

So while I think it's fair to call the boys whimsical with their love of dress-up and lovely perfumed things and theatrics and tasty sugary treats, I wouldn't say whim-prone is an accurate descriptor (and the fact that they are accepting that it is makes my heart crack wide open for them, because it's evidence that they're still both uncritically absorbing the labels applied to them by people who don't really understand them at all), nor the problem they need to address.

Their real problem is actually the exact opposite of flitting from whim to whim; that, once they've committed to something, they are all in, 100% ride-or-die. It's why Ed resigned himself to going down with the ship when it turned out he'd miscalculated the date instead of trying any evasive maneuvers with the fog to give them cover. It's why, when Stede didn't show at the docks, Ed went full pillow fort until Lucius was able to talk him around into life going on without Stede. It's why Stede threw himself into trying to be all the things he thought he'd failed to be as a husband and father when he came back to his family, and was committed to staying, even though it was making him miserable, until Mary tried to murder him.

Ultimately, the solution for both these conditions is the same - slowing down. But it's not a matter of making sure this is serious and not just a whim for either of them; it's a matter of taking the time to understand exactly what it is that you're committing to. So I object to the term "whim."

#ofmd #our flag means death #ofmd s2 spoilers #ofmd s2e4 #ofmd s2e5 #my modest contribution to fandom

253 notes · View notes

makethosenarratorsfight · 11 months

Text

UNRELIABLE NARRATORS; SIDE C

*NOTE; propaganda is out of order due to poll length!

Eugenides Propaganda:

the entire plot hinges on a detail he lets the reader (and every other character) assume is true. I don't want to spoil it because it's a really fun reveal but he is lying from the first second he appears on the page and you can't trust him to tell the full truth about ANYTHING related to himself and his goals. he mostly does it to keep his advantage and not have other characters be suspicious of him but it's just so fun when you realise he's been lying the whole time

Harrowhark Propaganda:

She gave herself a lobotomy and gives completely incorrect flashbacks to the previous book. Things that straight up did not happen. Gaslight gatekeep girlboss.

She’s schizophrenic (confirmed by the author) and also lives in a world with necromancy and ghostly revenants. She’s not just an unreliable narrator for readers, she’s an unreliable narrator of her own internal experience. She knows this and has to work with people around her to compensate for it. Descent into spoilerville below. Seriously Do Not Read if you want to read these books. There’s also the little matter about how she is *not actually the narrator* of a huge chunk of the story that we are initially led to believe is being told from her perspective.

(Spoilers) Holy shit she is THE most unreliable narrator. This gremlin gave herself a lobotomy so that she could forget about Gideon Nav, the most important person in her life (for magic soul-preserving reasons) so half of the second book in the series is spent gaslighting the reader about a book they just read. She comes up with an entire alternate version of the events of the first book in the series to carefully exclude any mentions of Gideon, and any time someone says ‘Gideon’ in front of her she LITERALLY has a stroke and/or an intercranial hemorrhage as her brain overwrites the word with someone else’s name. God occasionally intentionally triggers her memory revision to get out of difficult conversations. She also hallucinates ALL the time (unrelated to the lobotomy). She shows up at her frenemy’s room in the middle of the night (think little kid stumbling to their parents’ room and saying “I frew up”) to ask her to come check underneath her bed for the corpse that’s been wandering the space station. When frenemy checks underneath the bed, frenemy claims not to see anything, and Harrow is such an unbelievably unreliable narrator that it’s an open question in the fandom as to whether frenemy genuinely didn’t see the corpse or if frenemy was just yanking Harrow’s chain. Harrow is also haunted by a literal ghost that fucks up her already fucked up alternate history. Girlie will pick up a piece of paper and read from it the most violent and haunting piece of prose ever composed, when in reality all that’s written on the paper is the elementary school Superman S*. I am NOT joking that is a real goddamn scene. Harrow was created to win this poll. TLDR; she has brain damage and memory loss, she hallucinates, and is also haunted. * https://twitter.com/vestenet/status/1301012651145859072

Girl is so unreliable, she unreliably tells me events I was there for!!! She's retelling the previous book and I'm like "girlie, this is absolutely not how it happened". Also, she gave herself a DIY lobotomy, it has to impact your memory center I guess

She literally had a lobotomy, how can she be reliable

More Propaganda under cut!

Harrowhark is simply the unreliable narrator of all time. Can’t remember shit because of a lifetime of trauma? Check. Maybe lying to yourself and those around you a bit? Most definitely. Being gaslit by the survivors you depend on to orient you to reality? For sure. How about a little bit of canon schizophrenia? She’s got it all. Ghosts? Or something? Spirits that are attached in some way to your body and are not perceivable by others? Sure, sure! But how about spirits that are attached in some way to your body and are gonna use you to hijack others’ bodies and maybe kill God, too? Absolutely. Wee bit of DIY brain surgery? If it would make you an unreliable narrator, friends, then Harrowhark Nonagesimus has been there, been subjected to that!

Okay I don't know that much about this series since I haven't convinced myself to read all of the first book, but this is my blorbo in law so I'd feel bad not spreading propaganda (all of what I'm saying is something I've read, as to prevent myself from straight up submitting misinformation). So all of Harrow's unreliable narration takes place in the second book, Harrow the Ninth. Basically, without her even seemingto acknowledge it, Harrow's brain is very fucked up during this book, to the point where even she's not sure how reliable her narrative is. There's many questions left unclear as a result of her fucked up little brain, like what's real, what's fake, whether we can trust her judgement, whether even she can trust her own judgement, whether her original cavalier is dead or not (Harrow is convinced she is), etc. Let me tell you, I adore unreliable narrators who aren't even that sure if they're reliable. I have yet to eat that trope up here in this circumstance, but this poll might not run again by the time I do, so for now, here's my messed up blorbo in law.

OKAY SO REMEMBER MY GIDEON SUBMISSION? HARROW DOESN’T! SPOILERS AHEAD BECAUSE SHE LOBOTOMIZED HERSELF TO FORGET GIDEON BECAUSE THAT’S A HEALTHY WAY TO GRIEVE AND THEN IN THE ONLY PARTS OF HER BOOK THAT SHE NARRATES (THE REVISED CANAAN HOUSE PARTS) IT’S LITERALLY A ROOM FULL OF GHOSTS HER BRAIN SUMMONED TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT SHE CUT HER BRAIN IN HALF TO FORGET GIDEON. she also is a) haunted and b) psychotic, experiencing hallucinations her entire life of both the ghosts haunting her and less supernatural hallucinations- bells tolling, bones rattling, her parents (some of the only dead people NOT haunting her), etc! in the revised history of canaan house that her brainghosts invent, she brings along someone who knows about her psychosis to help reality check her when she tells him go! her caregiver as a child and support when she got older, crux, is a horrible man- but at one point, when someone other than harrow is in harrow’s body and tells him “i am not harrowhark, i am sorry,” his response is simply “aye, you’ve said that before too. who are you then, if not my lady harrowhark?” showing his familiarity with her psychosis and his love for the child he wouldn’t dare see as a daughter. but enough about that lets talk about her unreliable narration! she lies about her feelings of course but she also simply hides the truth from everyone, all the time, compulsively. also literally the entire section of her book that she narrates is a lie she’s telling US about a lie she’s telling HERSELF and no one understands even a little bit of the truth until like the last act of the book. queen.

#eugenides #the queens thief #queens thief #harrowhark #harrowhark nonagesimus #harrow the ninth #unreliable narrator battle #unreliable narrators #polls #side c

781 notes · View notes

azure-arsonist · 3 months

Text

Ok so here's the thing about dabi dying bc I have thoughts I've had thoughts for a while

1 it's just a poor narrative choice, and better blogs have discussed that at length so I won't get into that.

2 dabi doesn't want to die. I mean, he does, but it's more complicated than that.

He has a lot of big, overwhelming, literally all consuming feelings, and he'd like to not feel them, and dying is... a way to do that, sure, but wanting to die is like a secondary want. It's a (BAD VERY BAD I CANNOT STRESS THAT ENOUGH) solution to problems that otherwise don't seem to have one. Dabis's problems, his real problems, is that he felt unimportant, unloved, and unwanted and he felt like he had no purpose because he was a "failure," and even his horrific death didn't matter.

He's doing this because he thinks murder suicide achieves what he actually wants which is attention and validation and to be important to his family for once. Hes an emotionally neglected kid who wants to finally matter to people and he thinks the only way he can do that is by being a problem. He's also very hurt, and wanting to hurt somebody that hurt you is a very normal human reaction. It's not the BEST reaction, but it makes total sense for dabi.

3 Dabi isn't the most reliable narrator when it comes to his wants and needs because he's not emotionally mature or intelligent enough to really know what he wants/feels, much less articulate it. It's kind of like being passive-aggressive in that you can't just take what's said at face value. You kind of need to read into the subtext of his words/actions and take what he says with a grain of salt.

4 idk man I don't think having the suicidal character get their happy ending via suicide is like....good like it sort of misses the point. It doesn't seem like horikoshi will do that, but if he does that, he'd kind of undermine himself, lmao.

#dabi #touya todoroki #bnha dabi #mha dabi #mha #bnha

78 notes · View notes

bettyshoweduptotheparty · 7 months

Text

Midnights is defined by duality: The story of an unreliable narrator and performance art (Part 1)

One year on, I think I've finally figured out what midnights is about. And it might surprise you.

The midnights album has just celebrated its first anniversary. And having listened to these songs for the last 12 months, staying up late to watch live streams of the Eras tour, and at times being unable to escape news about Taylor on every medium, I finally have an idea that makes all of this make sense: This is Taylor's duality era. And she wants us to notice. Join me on the ride if you want to know more :)

I made a post a few weeks ago about how the Midnights aesthetic has the ‘two Taylors’ duology: Private vs public, which is the lead theme that carries over into the music and most recently also into her public image. Midnights had a mismatched visual to it from the very beginning with the depressed 70s look (announcement photo and vinyl covers) and the glamourous midnight blue (cover image and public appearances).

The two Taylors in the Anti Hero mv really drove home the message for me that this album is about two versions of the same story, and Taylor is the writer and narrator. And while I'm sure that these two versions have existed for a lot longer than the midnights era, they have not previously been so prominently next to each other. In fact, the very point of having the public narrative, is to keep Taylor's private life out of the public eye. She has never shied away from providing the 'stories' that her fans want to see in order to relate to her music, and as the girl that made her fame with songs about heartbreak and fairytale princes, that usually meant being seen with a man that these songs could be attributed to. And she made sure people would make the connection, be it with scarves that change ownership, or foxes on shirts:

(Btw you can't deny how effective this was, with just a few photos she managed to hang an entire album on each of these men!)

So, acting is not new to Taylor. In addition to appearing in a few feature films and TV shows since 2010, she's done this public performance for well over a decade now. And she has been vocal in recent years about her intention to go into filmmaking, so we know she's able to tell stories in multiple ways. She's a storyteller first and foremost, maybe the best of our generation. But is she a reliable narrator?

What does 'unreliable narrator' mean?

A story told by a so-called unreliable narrator, is usually a first person narration, where it turns out that the person telling the story was either lying or in some other way unable to give a truthful account of events (e.g. hallucinating or dreaming). That usually means that the audience is left with having to interpret for themselves what really happened and what was real or not real. Famous examples of this kind of storytelling are the 2010 psycho thriller 'Black Swan' with Natalie Portman, or the YA novel 'We were liars' by E. Lockhart. If you like stories that leave you guessing, check those out ;)

So, why is Taylor an unreliable narrator? For those fans that have paid attention to her lyrics, it has long been evident that her songwriting and public narrative don't match up. The most obvious theme being her 17-year run of writing songs about secret relationships and hiding, while she was parading men around in public to be photographed with. But, as we know, most people ignore it because it's just easier than digging deeper into lyrics. But now with Midnights, I'm starting to think she wants people to notice the duality and start to question her narrative. The sheer number of songs on that album that have strong double meaning or draw attention to lying or distorting the truth is astonishing: Right out the gate with track 1 we have Lavender Haze, a pretty loud song about bearding using the very well established queer reference of lavender. (And maybe she leaned out of the window a little too far with that title, because we all know the gaylor uproar was so loud when the title was revealed, that she had to backpedal and hetsplain it.) Immediately followed by Maroon, the song that has probably singlehandedly turned the most swifties into gaylors since Bettygate of 2020... Then on to Anti Hero, the ultimate duality song that also makes mention of lying and scheming, same as Mastermind. High Infidelity and You're Losing Me join the ranks of songs that look like they are about romantic relationships on the surface, but could also be interpreted to be about Taylor's relationship with fame and her fans. High Infidelity is a play on words of the term High Fidelity or HIFI, which is a 90s sound technology that refers to truthful reproduction of sound. High INfidelity is therefore a genius way of referring to both cheating and unfaithful reproduction of sound, almost like someone who makes music that isn't quite truthful... We also know from Aaron Dessner that this song was written following the 2021 Grammys and in the light of the whole William Bowery grammygate situation... I think there is point to be made about this song drawing attention to lying in a big way.

The timing of the release of You're losing me right around the time that her breakup with Joe made the news also feeds the narrative of a breakup song. But in this very 'breakup song' she says You say, "I don't understand," and I say, "I know you don't" and talks about sending signals that fall on deaf ears. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like 'I gave so many signs'? What does she know the addressee won't understand? Is it that when she finally reveals all her lies 90% of her fans will be shocked to their very core? On the exclusive CD version that has this track on it, it also immediately follows Dear Reader which on the track list looks like this:

Dear Reader You're Losing me (Does that look like a message? I think it does...)

By the time we make it to Dear Reader, she's basically told us 'I'm a liar who hides behind fake lavender relationships who charms everyone like a sleezy congressman, I'm the narcissistic Anti Hero you can't trust who schemes like a criminal and plans out everything like the puppet master I am, just so you like me and therefore you shouldn't look up to me, but I know you still will.' If that doesn't scream 'I want you to question everything I say or do' I don't know what does. Which brings us to performance art.

What is performance art?

Performance art is any kind of visual art that involves a dramatic performance aspect. To explain how this relates to Taylor and who she may have taken inspiration from, I refer to the brilliant Kristina Parro on TikTok:

Ok, groundwork is laid, but this is getting too long. Part 2 will be relating this to upcoming music releases and media coverage but that will have to wait til tomorrow.

As always, thanks for humouring me guys!

#taylor swift #gaylor #eras tour #midnights album #one year of midnights #performance art #unreliable narrator

130 notes · View notes

saintone · 10 months

Text

So, recently, I received the last book of SVSSS saga, and I instantly jumped to read, once again, Shen Jiu’s story chapter. And, oh boy. I’ve got things to say.

Spoiler’s ahead!!!!

Something I notice about MXTX’s writing is that, in a very subtle manner, their narrator's way of telling the story changes based on whose character's pov it is, so we can guess that the book’s narrator isn’t omniscient, but it’s actually a character’s inner voice. which isn’t anything new, as many users have pointed out that Shen Yuan isn’t a very reliable narrator, and some things of the books that are told from his pov don’t match with reality (the easiest example I can say is when sy and lgh reencounter after the eternal abyss. sy interpret’s lbg’s ‘dark gaze’ as his vengeful desire when actually half of the time he’s just being horny lol).

Something else I’ve noticed repeatedly, and kinda made me uncomfortable is sy’s portrayal of female disciples. Based on his belief that og!sqq preyed on his disciples, sy takes the liberty to make very perverted assertions that stay on the fictional side due to his fear of facing a similar ending as the one of the original goods. quoting some real phrases from the book:

“This was because he had designs on Ning Yingying—ah, no, more like the original Shen Qingqiu had designs on Ning Yingying!” (p. 34, first book).

“One can, however, imagine the result of daring to try to get a taste of the male lead’s woman!” (p. 35).

Or his description of the fight between Liu Mignyan and Sha Hualing:

“Every man dreamed of being caught between an angel and a devil. To watch them jealously vile for each other over him one moment, then risk life and limb for his sake in the next — that was the highest, most sacred, perverted fantasy of every male organism” (p. 112).

These aren’t the words of a neutral, omniscient narrator: these are Shen Yuan’s own thoughts. And he is a very perverted guy: it makes sense, as he was an avid reader of PIDW.

Following the conclusion that the narrator varies on the character’s pov, Shen Jiu’s story takes on a new meaning. Because all of the words in Chapter 24 are Shen Jiu’s own.

The Part 1 of the story starts with Shen Jiu on the streets, until Shiwu goes missing, and Yue Qi goes searching for him, with Sj following. The change to Part 2, which starts directly in the Qi mansions, is kinda abrupt. There are many reasons for something like this.

On one side, we can interpret that the story starts with Sj in the Qi mansions, and he was reflecting on his life to gauge how he ended up there. The sudden jump of events, which leaves us with a gap in information, can be due to trauma, or confusion: Sj isn’t entirely sure of what happened. That’s why this chapter is wholly written as a recount of events, from a man who, perhaps, needed to learn how to write and read to be able to put words to his life and story.

Shen Jiu’s reflections are born from his pain. At the end of Part 2, we get an explanation of how he ended in the Qi mansion:

“Shiwu should have been trampled to death, trampled into minced meat for thousands to spit upon. Qi-ge should have never gone back to save him [...]

As Shen Jiu suffered through day after day of torment, he turned those sweet yet futile thoughts over and over again in his mind, drawing strength and comfort from them” (p. 90, fourth book).

This phrase is very powerful. I think that, as Shen Jiu suffers, he reflects more on his life until now, on the reasons that guided him there, on the actions of those around him, and on the path they should’ve followed.

He wasn’t like that in Part 1. Even as a slave, he doesn't reflect on his pain or suffering because he was pretty much the top game among slave boys, and as Yue Qi says, “the other party would be the one to end up suffering and bawling in terror” (p. 82).

It’s also very meaningful how Part 3 starts:

“Shen Jiu thought a lot about why Yue Qi never returned to look for him” (p. 90).

Yess, right after Sj thinks that Yq should never’ve returned to look for Shiwu. Coincidence? I don’t think so!

Sj says “go back to save him”, but the one who actually saves them both, Shiwu and Yq, is Sj.

The question here is, does Shen jiu regret saving yue qi? Or is he afraid, as we see at the beginning of Part 3, that yue qi learned his lesson, and won’t come back to save a kid that could betray him at the end? Do you think that, after being imprisoned at the water prison, Shen Jiu considers himself a Shiwu too, betraying Yue Qingyuan and guiding the fall of the Cang Qiong Sect?

How do you think it felt for Sj to never get those answers either?

Before going foward, something very meaningful from Part 2 is Qi Jianluo’s reflections around Shen Jiu.

“As long as the boy remained obedient and honest, there would be no issues” (p. 88).

And “Humans must understand and repay kindness. Our family gave you the chance to play human, so even if it means repaying us with your life, that’s just how it should be.” (p. 89).

Who could you remember was obedient and honest? And wasn’t human?

Isn’t it awfully coincidental that the despicable way in which Qi Jianluo viewed Shen Jiu, is exactly what he tries to destroy in Luo Binghe? His honesty and obedience, his human side?

I’m not saying Sj did it intentionally, he clearly hated the boy, as stated in this chapter. But he made him the opposite of the weak, scorned version of himself.

And this is exactly what he says at the end of the chapter:

“Luo Binghe, everything you have today you owe to taking me as your master, so shouldn’t you thank me? Instead, you’re wholly unable to tell what’s good for yourself. As expected, you’re an ungrateful bastard” (p. 116).

Going forward, Part 3! Right off the bat, we have this beautiful phrase that just makes me go aghh:

“Shen Jiu even imagined walking to the ends of the earth looking for Yue Qi’s remains, and how, after finding them, he would dig him a grave with his own two hands. Perhaps he would even do his best to shed a tear” (p 90).

Let me remind you, that this is the only, single mention of crying in the whole chapter. From everything that Shen QingQiu has gone through, he has only thought of crying in the face of Yue Qi’s potential death.

He doesn’t cry when he receives the remains of Xuan Su, though. Because “This was not Yue Qi but Yue Qingyuan (p. 94).

Then, Shen Jiu puts it into words:

“Some people were rotten from birth. Shen Jiu thought of himself in exactly this way — someone vile and poisonous [ejem, like Shiwu, whose presence brought misfortune to his literal savior] from the start. Because, at that instant, he came to a crystal-clear realization:

That he’d rather have met a Yue Qi who’d died in some unknown corner, his remains unsightly and forgotten, than a Yue Qingyuan who was elegant and powerful, his prospects and future boundless” (p. 95).

This is exactly what I said before when I mention that Sj reflection’s starts from his pain, and his pain is born in the Qi household. Before, as a slave boy, Shen Jiu was actually the happiest. And that’s why he’d rather have a dead Yue Qi than an alive Yue Qingyuan: because he was still Shen Jiu, and he would be Shen Jiu until his death.

It’s right then and there, that Shen Jiu decides there’s something inevitably wrong in him, that he’s poisonous, scornful, and hateful.

And that word marks his future in Cang Qiong:

Part 4: “Shen Jiu hated far too many and far too many things” (p. 95).

But then, we get this phrase:

“I may be a hateful thing for most people, but luckily the Qing Jing Peak Lord doesn't despise me” (p. 99)

Is Shen QingQiu hateful, or is he hated?

Also, “thing”. He’s a hateful thing. So he’s still not human.

Changing topics, on page 100, we get to see a new side of Shen Jiu: his reflection on the women of the Red Pavilion. I think it’s very interesting to compare it with Sy’s considerations of women.

“Liking women wasn’t the least shameful, but treating women like saviors, cowering within their embrace and seeking courage from them... even without anyone saying it, Shen Qingqiu knew that was horrendously shameful”

From his wording, I don’t think Sj thinks badly of women: he thinks badly of himself. He considers that a man should be able to protect others, not be protected. The “horrendously shameful” thing is himself, and his pain.

And what’s really meaningful is when he says: “even without anyone saying it”. Because it shows us that many things Shen Jiu knows were taught by others' words. Because he was a slave boy, with no education of the noble, or even human ways (as slaves aren’t considered people), and everything he gathers of life he is constantly learning from others.

So of course he is hateful, and of course, he doesn’t get along with others: he hasn’t learned how to (and how big of a coincidence is it that Shen Yuan, who’s from a wealthy family, is able to get along with his Martial siblings just fine?).

Shen Qingqiu also knows that the only reason he was able to become a Peak Lord, is thanks to Qiu Jianluo’s teachings:

“In the past, Qiu Jianluo had forced Shen Jiu to learn how to read and write. Shen Jiu had been unwilling to learn, had detested it to the point of madness, yet now it was only through his abilities in reading and studying—through being smarter than his peers—that he’d been able to earn the Qing Jing Peak’s lord's favor. To make it even more laughable, of the thousands of possible names in this world, the peak lord had just happened to name him Qingqiu” (p. 101).

Doesn’t this remind you of something? I’m going to write this quote once again:

Just like Luo Binghe, Sj is where he is thanks to his abusive master. But never once does Sj regret his past:

“But no matter how laughable, no matter how it made him gnash his teeth, Shen Qingqiu still wanted that name, for this name represented that from now onward, a shining new life was his” (p. 116).

Notice the change of preposition, from “that” to “this”? That name is the Qiu name, and this name is the QingQiu name.

He is no Shen QingQiu, and no longer Shen Jiu.

“‘That name irritates me whenever I hear it. I’ve long forgotten it. So please, Zhangmen-shixiong, you should also discard it.’

[...] ‘ Then, the day you responder to it would be the day it no longer irritates you?’

[...] ‘ That would never happen’” (p. 101-102).

Shen Wingqiu wholeheartedly accepts his new name.

No matter what happened, we never see Shen QingQiu regretting his actions, neither cursing his fate. He accepts what life gives him, and he accepts his punishments.

“What’s happened has happened! I’ve already ‘considered’ it hundreds and thousands of times! There is no ‘if’, no ‘in the beginning’—, there was never any chance of redemption!” (p. 111).

And you know why that is? Because he already considered it a lot after Shiwu’s betrayal.

Shiwu should have been trampled, Yue Qi shouldn’t have gone to save him (should’ve come to save Shen Jiu). But after that experience, Shen Jiu learns that should’ve and could’ve, and would’s aren’t worth anything, because, at the end of the day, his life never goes the way it should.

And he just accepts it: “Only when I see other people unhappy can I be happy myself” (p. 112).

This quote was very strange to me because it didn’t really match Shen Jiu’s actions. We don’t see him going out of his way to make others unhappy. (Except Luo Binghe lol. He openly admits to trying to murder him).

I think the situation was quite the opposite: It was when Shen Qingqiu was happy, that others were unhappy: when he was in the Warm Red Pavillion, others were unhappy. When he was with his female disciples, others were unhappy. When he succeeded as a disciple and became Peak Lord, others were unhappy. And when he was a slave, living alongside Yue Qi in the streets, he now believes Yue Qingyuan was unhappy too.

Shen QingQiu’s happiness came with the price of others’ happiness, and that’s why he comes to accept that he prefers others’ suffering, he accepts other’s hate.

The first time Shen Qingqiu is in the Linxhi Caves alongside Yue Qingyuan, he notices the crude markings on the walls, and asks him about it. What’s relevant of this scene is that it’s the first time Shen QingQiu is the one starting a conversation.

Before that, we always see Yue Qingyuan looking for Shen Qingqiu, talking to him, interrogating him, and a Shen Qingqiu reluctant to talk. In this scene, the opposite happens: Shen Qingqiu asks, and Yue Qingqiu ignores him.

Here we see, that in those fundamental moments that Shen Qingqiu is the one interested in something, others (Yue Qingyuan) are distant.

Last but not least, I’d like to bring some of the last lines of the chapter to light:

“He had singlehandedly created the Luo Binghe of today, but who had singlehandedly wrought this ending of Shen Qingqiu’s?

Yue Qingyuan shouldn't have met this kind of fate” (p. 117).

THIS

THIS PHRASE

Made me go ughrr oh my god.

First of all, the acceptance: like yeah, I made the devil. It came to bite me in the ass. Okey.

But does he regret that? NO! He regrets being who he is. What he is. He regrets what he became: he regrets being hated, being unhappy, he regrets being mean, not because of what it caused him, but because of the person he became.

Shen Qingqiu never, not even once feels pity for his ending, for being tortured and mutilated. He only regrets being unhappy.

And also, he blames Yue Qingyuan for it.

Because it isn’t a coincidence that after that question, he mentions Yue Qingyuan’s name. First of all is a literary resource. Second, it’s the clear association of the narrator’s mind as he builds a sequence.

He blames Yue Qingyuan for the person he became, and also blames Yue Qingyuan for not being able to avoid the person he became: he denies his cruel destiny.

Yue Qingyuan shouldn't have met this kind of fate.

Because Shen Qingqiu only ever wished for the death of Yue Qi.

This chapter’s narrator is a very sharp, and concise one. He goes from scene to scene, from thought to thought, abandoning fluency and just concentrating on a list of events. This is a reflection of Shen Jiu’s mind: a recollection of traumatic events that brutally shaped him into the man he became.

We see very little emotion, very short pieces of a sentimental being that laze themselves as puzzle pieces trying to make the shape of a deeply traumatized man.

I said it before, and I say it again: SVSSS is a masterpiece, is a book that will become a classic and be analyzed by literary critics in universities (or it should become. we can only hope).

And MXTX is one of the best current fiction writers in the world.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk lol

#svsss #svsss novel #shen jiu #Shen Yuan #shen qingqiu #bingiu #liu qingge #liu mingyan #sha hualing #mxtx #mxtx books #mxtx characters #yue qingyuan #im not crying you are

227 notes · View notes

demontobee · 9 months

Text

Parallels between Lord Jim and Good Omens (2)

I have rewatched GO2 at least 10 times now (still counting, obvsly), and every time I notice new easter eggs that emerge from the massive web of intertextuality that Neil Gaiman created for us here.

So today, I wanted to focus on the way Aziraphale came up with the “undercover” name “Jim” for Gabriel. He read it on the spine of a book: Lord Jim.

That book was written by Joseph Conrad (a Polish-British writer with dubious ideas about colonialism) and published in 1900. The plot basically follows the life of a young idealistic seaman called Jim who has to defend himself in a trial that concerns a sinking ship which he and other members of the crew abandoned in a storm, leaving it and the helpless passengers to their fate. The ship did not sink in the end, and he was the only member of the crew who was held accountable for his deeds by stripping him off his naval certificate. The trial is where he meets the narrator of the story, Marlow, who is strangely intrigued by the young man, who seems to be engulfed by guilt and shame over his morally wrong decision to leave the boat. The narrator tries to help Jim to his feet and lands him a job as a post manager at some remote colonial outpost. There he becomes a hero by capturing a local bandit. Later he falls victim to a scheme against him, and a pirate raids a neighbouring community and kills the son of their chief, Jim’s close friend. Jim then goes there, and the chief shoots him as a revenge for his son.

I mean, the most obvious parallel is that Gabriel gets named after Jim. He, too, abandoned his ship (Heaven; and the question here is, did he know it might be a sinking ship as well?) and was put on trial and lost his position as archangel before he came to Aziraphale for help. But that’s not all there is to it.

Let us start with the formal (concerning style and structure) aspects:

narrative structure:

“Marlow has complete control over the story … and he exercises his power in increasingly complicated ways. Time is broken up: in a single paragraph of narration, Marlow will reference the past, the present, and the future. By manipulating the flow of the narrative, Marlow is able to create juxtapositions and contrasts that highlight particular aspects of the story. He is a master at withholding information …” (Source: Sparknotes)

As I have already discussed in another post, this is more or less how narrative structure works in GO, too (S2 maybe more than S1, but this still applies to both). We get minisodes from the past that directly reference and juxtapose situations in the story that takes place in the present. Take, for example, the Job minisode, which gives us information about the development of Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship, but we also see how devastating and hard it was for Aziraphale to realise that sometimes he had to lie (or do something considered wrong in heaven) to do the morally right thing. This sequence is juxtaposed with the relative ease he exhibits in the present day when he has to lie to heaven on a regular basis (in this case, about the miracle and hiding Gabriel, which is kind of a big lie, too). The show also plays with our understanding and expectations of how time works, as S2 starts with a scene that takes place “before the beginning,” which undermines dramatic structure as it has been known and accepted since Aristotle. It is also interesting to note that in S1, we have a strong sense of an almighty narrator, since god herself is narrating the whole time and she sure lets us know that she is playing her own ineffable game here. In S2, however, we don’t have a clear narrative voice. This might make it seem like the narration is more neutral or less meddled with, but in reality, it just makes things even less reliable and situations more ambiguous, as we have no single voice to interpret them for us. Someone is definitely “withholding information” here, and I guess we’ll have to wait for S3 to get the full picture.

language/style:

“Marlow constantly ponders the "message"--the meaning of Jim's story. His language is dense with terms like "inscrutable" and "inexplicable," words that denote imprecision and indecipherability, but which also possess a certain quality of uncertainty in themselves, as words. He struggles to name things, and is often reduced to wondering if there even is a meaning to Jim's story and his fascination with it. Sometimes he concludes that the meaning is an "enigma"; sometimes he decides there is no meaning to be found at all. Words are constantly being contested in this novel; at least three major episodes center around the misinterpretation of a single spoken word.” (Source: Sparknotes)

I mean, “inscrutable” and “inexplicable”? Why not just call it “ineffable”? I also love how Crowley seems to wonder about the meaning of things (especially the distinction between “good” and “bad”), as one of the first things we here him say in S2 is something like: “Do you ever ask yourself what’s the point. I mean angels, demons, heaven, hell … it all seems a bit … point … less.” And obviously, the whole show is full of misinterpretations of words (e.g., “what does your exactly mean, exactly? I feel like my exactly and your exactly are different exactlies”), or, as we are all painfully aware, a whole way of communicating with one another (“aim for my mouth, but shoot past my ear”).

Now for some similarities concerning informal (aka content) aspects:

moral balance and “naïve heroism”:

“Even more tortured is the analysis of idealism and heroism that lies at the center of Lord Jim. Jim is a young man who enters the world motivated primarily by fantasies of daring and noble deeds lifted from cheap novels. His ideals break down, however, in the face of real danger; they are, in fact, untenable when applied to any form of reality.” (Source: Sparnotes)

That sounds like both Crowley and Aziraphale in a way. They both set out as naïve idealists, and both of them learn (Crowley earlier and faster that Aziraphale) that their (heavenly) ideals do not hold in the complex reality of life. A lot of what we see in S2 is Aziraphale coming to terms with accepting that doing the “right thing” on earth often involves breaking his heavenly rules and allowing for “shades of grey.”

struggling to comprehend own identity and moral consequences of own actions:

Both the narrator, Marlow, and the protagonist of his tale, Jim, are trying to figure out their identity. Marlow seems to tell the story mainly to kind of make sense of identity itself but also of him personally, while Jim tries to make amends for his morally wrong behaviour and tries to manifest his identity (as a hero) through action.

In GO2, we have a lot of identity struggles and questions of “who am I?”: Jim the amnesiac angel is the most blatantly obvious case, but we also have Aziraphale negotiating his identity constantly, e.g., in the Job episode when he asks “Then what am I?” after having lied to heaven for the first time . And I mean Crowley is just on another level of liminal identity entirely, isn’t he?

As a bonus (and I am probably going overboard here, but well), this is the description of Jim’s death:

“Then with his hand over his lips he fell forward, dead.”

The imagery reminds me of something…ahhh yes:

Feel free to add your thoughts in the tags or comments!

#good omens #good omens s2 #aziraphale #ineffable husbands #crowley #go2 #good omens 2 #good omens meta #neil gaiman #crowley x aziraphale #meta #lord jim #go2 meta #jimmmm short for gabriel #thank you neil gaiman

154 notes · View notes

lorcandidlucienwill · 4 months

Text

“I risked my neck for you during your task. Was that not enough?” His metal eye whirred softly. “You offered up your name for me—after all that I said to you, all I did, you still offered up your name. Didn’t you realize I would help you after that? Oath or no oath?”

I really don't think everyone understands how significant a moment this was for the Feyre-Lucien relationship. Even if I don't agree with this take, there is an argument to be made that everything Lucien did for Feyre before was only for Tamlin. But the moment Feyre offered her name in exchange for his life? Lucien's loyalty wasn't just to Tamlin anymore; it was to her. That means saying, "TO YOUR LEFT!" taking the whipping, coming back to see how she's doing, all that? That was for Feyre, not Tamlin. This applies in ACOMAF too. Why do you think he told Feyre not to ask him to pick? Because his loyalty is to both now. Him pleading with Tamlin to let her train? For her. Him hiding the engagement ring? For her. Him seeking a way out of the Night Court bargain? For her. All of it. Him trying to bring her back from Night? FOR HER. Y'all forget nobody is supposed to know that the Night Court is not really "evil." “I did it for you, too, you know.” Cold, hard words. “I went with him to get you back.” Why do people ignore this and act like Lucien only cares about Tamlin? Bull fucking shit. He didn't TRUST Feyre in ACOWAR because he's smart and he knew she was up to something. Miss girl thought she was such a great actor but Lucien saw right through it.💀 And yeah OF COURSE Lucien was worried about Elain in ACOWAR. She's...his mate???? Y'all be fr and stop taking everything Feyre says at face value. “And that’s why you’re here. Not because it’s right and he’s always been wrong, but just so you can get what you think you’re owed.” Y'all think that Feyre is spitting facts or whatever? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe...she's an unreliable narrator? Lucien has never ONCE acted entitled to her and SJM made sure to have Lucien call out Feyre for being a hypocrite.

“You have the gall to question my priorities regarding Elain—yet what was your motive where I was concerned? Did you plan to spare me from your path of destruction because of any genuine friendship, or simply for fear of what it might do to her?”

And how did Feyre reply? “You would have been fine.” Were it not for Ianthe, a problem Feyre exasperated by her own admission, Ianthe wouldn't have even been a problem. She'd backed off of Lucien. I had done my job too well, provoked her jealousy too much with every instance I’d found ways to get Lucien to touch me in her presence, in Tamlin’s presence.

Using a victim like this is disgusting. DISGUSTING. The only thing Feyre ever did for Lucien and it was a problem that she caused in the first place. Oh yeah and then you take Lucien's words for fact too: “You are a better friend to me, Feyre,” he said quietly, “than I ever was to you.”

Yeah...fucking bullshit. Generally I'd call Lucien the most reliable narrator considering he's the smartest, but recalling this when Feyre went into his mind? Thoughts slammed into me, images and memories, a pattern of thinking and feeling that was old, and clever, and sad, so endlessly sad and guilt-ridden, hopeless—

I'd just say it's guilt that he wasn't able to do more talking. But he did everything he could without literally dying for Feyre. Or did you forget this? I didn’t want to know what was happening in that room, what he’d done to Lucien, what Lucien had even looked like to cause that pulse of power.

#lucien vanserra #pro lucien vanserra #anti feyre archeron

64 notes · View notes

ghostinthegallery · 5 months

Text

It should be no secret that I adore Oltyx. He's one of my favorite 40k characters. Which is amazing because let's be real, he's an insufferable little shit who spends most of the books consumed by entitlement, paranoia, or both. He's just so damn well written, the elements that make him awful (which also form the starting point for his character arc) don't quite overshadow his redeeming qualities (which prove he is a person worth giving the opportunity to grow).

Those early chapters do some serious heavy lifting, character-wise. Oltyx comes out the gate swinging for "worst protag of the Year award". He's bitter, he's convinced all of his problems are someone else's fault, he is needlessly cruel to his subordinate (ready to kill Neth just because one grot made it to the stairs). A real winner, right here. Except for two things:

1) he doesn't want his soldiers to die. Sure, he justifies this with facts and logic. Attrition will eventually diminish his forces, leaving him unable to defend his shitty planet, and he isn't getting reinforcements anytime soon. But still, he wants to preserve the lives under his command. He wants to create a "new way of war" which is surprisingly sympathetic for someone who acts like a surly teenager (more on THAT later). Bonus that he does not in fact kill Neth

2) his flashback where he sees Djoseras' first lesson to him. Where we see that Oltyx is not exactly a reliable narrator regarding his elder. And if he's wrong about Djoseras, what else is he wrong about? The narrative is doing something here.

That second point is super important. Because there's a huge difference between reading an asshole protag where the author knows they are an asshole vs. where the author doesn't. The former can be incredibly satisfying as you watch someone grow and change. The latter is annoying AF. That flashback (for me) is like a footnote from the author promising "hey, not all is as it seems, bear with me."

Oltyx's hints of compassion are the incentive.to.give him a chance. Which is then further cemented when we enter the tomb and get to see Oltyx's affection for Yenekh, the first character we see Oltyx caring about. Proof that he has relationships that matter. He doesn't actually hate everyone and everything. And as the narrative continues, we peel back the layers to see what Oltyx actually is.

While I reading those opening pages, I joked to my spouse that Oltyx sounded like a teenager who listens to too much emo music. Turns out that was not actually a joke, that was the entire character. As we get more of his interactions and flashbacks, we are shown someone trapped in perpetual adolescence. Who had the compassion beaten out of him by war, trauma, and neglect (or literally sliced out of him, fuck Hemiun). The more you see of Oltyx the more heartbreaking he becomes. Not because he isn't terrible (he is) but because he didn't have to be. Yet it is so understandable why he is. The lessons he was taught even by the people that loved him (life has no value, compassion is a weakness, lies will come from those closest to you) twisted a kind soul into a conflicted mess. It excuses nothing but explains everything.

But despite ALL OF THAT Oltyx still tries to do the right thing. He tries to save the dynasty that exiled him, he tries to fight beside the brother he taught himself to hate, he tries to resist the madness that he thinks will make him a monster. He literally has the mind of an eighteen year old, trapped in a metal body that is slowly destroying what little sanity he has left. That's a lot!

Crowley had a fine line to walk writing Oltyx, making him sympathetic but not dulling the impact of his darker traits. For my money he did it brilliantly. Oltyx is my precious son who has done everything wrong and I love him.

#necrons #wh40k #Oltyx #twice dead king #yes he is a little shit but considering that he is also perfect and precious and must be protected at all costs #what angsty music is oltyx listening to?#evanescence was my middle school go to #i think he'd appreciate MCR #he had a lot of time to fill tho #needs more music recs

76 notes · View notes

nofomogirl · 4 months

Text

What we know and don't know after Good Omens S2

Honestly, it's mostly what we don't know.

This was originally meant to be an intro to Before the Beginning (part 1.5.) - a post in my series of posts discussing what we learn from the opening scene of S2 - but I've decided to make it its own thing after all.

I just enjoy reminding myself and others what we know for sure and what is just a theory or a headcanon. So here I go.

#1 The Fall

I've already written about the Fall shortly after S2 aired: Implications of Metatron's offer

My points still stand, except now that I think about it I might have put too much stock in Metatron's words. I think they prove less than I was willing to believe back then, as it's not difficult to imagine they might have all been a bluff.

In short: we don't know what the Fall is and how it actually works.

All that we know is that it happened once, and in the process, part of the angels were transformed and became demons.

The rest is just a long list of questions.

#2 Crowley's Fall

We're not much wiser when it comes to the circumstances of one specific Anthony J. Crowley's Fall.

Let's look at the very few facts we have:

In S1 Crowley claims that "he didn't really fall, he just sauntered vaguely downwards", "he only ever asked questions [and] it was all it took to be a demon", and "he didn't mean to fall, he just hung around the wrong people".

Neil Gaiman suggested more than once that Crowley isn't the most reliable narrator when it comes to his own Fall, and while he's not as bad as Heaven believes, he's also not as good as he thinks.

In Job's minisode, when Aziraphale is on the brink of questioning God's sense of justice ("Yes. But..."), Crowley tells him that was how it started for him too.

We learned from Furfur that Crowley actively took part in the dubious battle on the plains of Heaven just before the Fall.

In the finale, Metatron isn't the slightest bit surprised Crowley didn't take his offer and comments he "always did want to go his own way. Always asking damn fool questions too."

What does it all tell us? Nothing specific, except that perhaps we were a bit too quick to take Crowley's word that he hasn't done anything that would warrant any kind of punishment.

Questioning God's way of doing things was just how it STARTED for him. Asking damn fool questions was something he did TOO.

In short - we have no idea what really happened.

#3 Memory erasure

It's one of those popular headcanons that have been around at least since S1 and got canonically confirmed in S2.

We now know it's something that exists.

And that's where our knowledge ends.

Everything we really saw in the show was Gabriel getting sentenced to having his memories of being Gabriel removed. Then he very quickly moved his whole self to the fly to save it and we don't actually get to see what the result would be if Heaven did it. Would he be the same returned-to-factory-settings goofball or would he be given some memories to fill the blank spaces?

Is it actually possible to plant false memories in someone's head or can you only delete them?

Are memories really erased or just made inaccessible? Gabriel could still force himself to access some of his old memories. Was it because that's how it works and everybody could do it theoretically or was it because the memory-erasing procedure wasn't performed properly in his case?

We know it can be done remotely, but what is the range?

How precise and selective can it be? Gabriel was meant to forget everything. Perhaps that's the only way and you cannot pick and choose what one remembers or not.

We do not know.

#4 Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship

In S2 we have learned that they knew each other before the Fall. But all we saw was one meeting that appeared to be the first one to boot, judging by the fact that Aziraphale introduced himself.

We don't really know if they met again after that, how well they got to know each other, and how close they became.

It's not impossible, that when Aziraphale insists he knew the angel Crowley was, he's not even right about that...

#5 Aziraphale's and Crowley's memories

Last but not least, whatever Aziraphale and Crowley knew initially and whatever events they were part of or witnessed, we have no way of knowing what memories they've kept AND if they're even aware one or both of them might be missing something.

There may be important things that only one of them remembers but since I doubt they've ever compared notes, he operates under the wrong assumption that the other is aware of it too.

Anything is possible, really.

I've seen many convincing theories regarding all of the above and plenty of delightful headcanons. I'm just listing it to keep in mind all the questions remain open.

#good omens #good omens 2 #good omens meta #aziraphale #crowley #ineffable husbands

60 notes · View notes