#and if no one has explicitly written down a theory then has anyone read or written any fanfiction following this idea

[itsabouttimex2]

Platonic yandere shadowpeach x teenager daughter dating redson

(First ship I’ve explicitly been asked to write for. Not too surprised that it was Shadowpeach! I’ve written for Wukong and Macaque’s reaction to dating Red Son here!)

(Also, I’ve got a questionnaire if anyone would like to help me with my blog)

Platonic Yandere Shadowpeach

Sun Wukong and Macaque should; in theory, balance each other out. One is bright and forthcoming, the other is secluded and scheming. One is a glittering ray of sunshine that everyone looks towards for safety and salvation, the other a beam of moonlight slinking about unseen in the shadows.

They should get along. They’ve both got a penchant for the dramatic, and take interest in different arts- one in drawing, one in performing. The two are both fond of food and wildlife.

They should be capable of getting along.

But they don’t. Or maybe they can’t.

They’re both too arrogant, too worn, too hurt to be something healthy or happy or wholesome. Why they’ve rushed into this relationship before either had begun to heal and forgive and truly make amends is anyone’s guess, but there’s one thing you know for certain-

You’re the glue holding this ramshackle family together.

A joke long ago led to your birth, two offerings of blood thrown blasphemously into a sacred vase of jade. Wukong had laughed and pitched down a measure of fresh blood from his chest, then Macaque frowned and followed along, dropping a handful of dried flakes gathered from a wrapped wound on his head.

Neither had bothered to read beyond a scant few characters carved on the vase, speaking of ‘rituals’ and ‘blood’ and ‘growing’- and both stopped short when their eyes fell upon ‘Guanyin’, goddess of mercy and compassion.

Immediately, Wukong had started an exuberant and loud routine of sacrilege, prodding the vase and shaking it, mockingly yelling into it and pretending to be a mortal pleading futilely for help from the heavens- right before he decided to take his disrespect a bit further.

“Bud,” the Monkey King hollered excitedly, bouncing on his heels, “Come here, come here! I have a great idea!”

Macaque cautiously uncovered his ears once the yelling had stopped, trudging over to the jade-hewn vase to stand beside his partner. “Uh, Wukong… I don’t know if messing with a sacred vase is all that great of an idea-“

“Hush! Don’t be such a scaredy-cat, bud! We’re gonna toss in a little bit of blood and see how sacred this silly thing really is!”

(Macaque would come to regret many things about has past- but being swayed by Wukong to participate in this sacrilegious ritual would not be amongst the list of them.)

Their blood alike; wrenched from beside Sun’s heart and pulled from the place nearest Macaque’s brain, dripped to the very bottom of the open-mouthed vase, mixing and melding as they oozed down. The blessed container rattled once, twice- then stopped short and went still.

The sudden halt had Wukong howling with laughter, doubled over and wiping tears from his eyes. “Of course not! Like the gods would do anything for the people down here,” he loudly called, as if trying to reach his accusations to the heavens through sheer volume. For good measure, he had given the precious vase a kick, rattling it around.

And listened as something thudded around at the bottom.

Macaque had turned on his sable heel at the sound, scurrying back over to his now alert partner. The demon’s eyes scrunched with worry as Wukong stuffed his arms all the way into the vase, gripping whatever sat at the previously empty bottom. His hand shifted to rest on the end of Wukong’s tiger-hide skirt, though it was more for his own comfort- a way to keep close to his exuberant partner without impeding his arms.

“It’s a baby,” Wukong had stated in awe, a rare note of outright reverence in his voice as he pulled your form past the jade maw of the vase and into his arms. “Bud, this thing just made a baby!”

For a few minutes, neither dared to speak. They just stood and stared, trying to register just how far this little ‘joke’ had spiraled.

Common sense quickly kicked in, leaving Macaque to pry you from his partner, staring down at you with softened eyes.

“Look at her- she’s ours, bud,” the Great Sage announced with pride, and few would have dared to argue with him.

A child fresh to the world, born from dregs of demon blood and formed by sacred jade, with fur and a tail and golden, glowing eyes to prove that you were theirs.

“…never knew I’d be a father,” Macaque quietly says, wrapping you in the long red scarf he always wore.

“Never knew we’d be fathers,” comes his partner’s supportive voice, a rare tone for the Monkey King. Wukong steps forward and slings an arm around Macaque’s neck, hauling him close.

“But I wouldn’t trade this family for the world.”

You had grown up happy and safe, surrounded by uncles whose names had been your first words. Each one was an inspiration to you, standing proud as they walked in lockstep and wielded mighty weapons. They had been your heroes, every last one of them. You wanted to be strong and intelligent and graceful and noble, to be all that they were and even more.

When it had been them and your fathers, everything had been at least fine, when not outright good.

Learning to read maps with Uncle Yellowtusk. Eavesdropping on fights caused by training mishaps. Hunting with Uncle Bull. Getting scolded for messing with weapons without permission. Uncle Peng teaching you how to gut rabbits and fish. Climbing onto shoulders and backs so you wouldn’t fall underfoot.

Everything with Uncle Azure.

Listening close to his stories and relishing his kind touch, letting him braid your hair and fix your clothes. Sitting on his knees and sharing your food, trying new things with his gentle encouragement. Staying up far too late to stargaze with him before falling asleep in his arms, wrapped in his cape.

It had been family, however unorthodox.

But not all families are built to last- some crumble and sever, instead.

One fight years later had been the tipping point between your fathers, leaving Macaque to cart you away over his shoulder as he sulked away through the shadows, putting as much distance between himself and Wukong as possible- he still had you, Macaque reminds himself.

None of the past mattered if he could focus on a bright future with his daughter. The two of you. Alone. No brothers, no partners- just a father and his daughter. No more teasing remarks or being spoken over or dragged along on dangerous missions for a futile cause.

Just him and you.

And that works for all of five centuries, before there’s a ‘parent swap’ and one of your fathers is dead with a glittering gold staff struck through his flesh and bone, poking in through his eye and out through his skull.

Macaque’s blood; freshly splattered across you, hadn’t even dried before Wukong had swept you into his arms with a guttural scream of both sorrow and relief. His child, at the cost of his partner.

Not a fair trade. But one he chose to make anyways.

The Great Sage holds you close, pressing kisses to your forehead and wiping away your fearful tears. He whispers into your ear about how safe you are now, how you won’t ever be alone or scared again. How he’s back and so, so sorry that it took so long to find and save you, that he’ll protect you from now on.

And how he won’t let you go ever again.

How could he? You’re his.

#Platonic Yandere #Yandere Lego Monkie Kid #Yandere LMK #Yandere Sun Wukong #Sun Wukong #Yandere Macaque #Macaque #Yandere Father #Yandere Shadowpeach #Shadowpeach

[badoccultadvice]

So like, I have been having this weird experience analyzing the Harry Potter books lately, and please indulge me while I talk about J.K. Rowling's weird writing.

My goal was simple: read the Harry Potter books to find which parts were influenced/inspired by actual magic that people do in real life. My theory was that there was a lot more magic in the earlier drafts of the books, and that she took a lot out due to fear of backlash from America's ongoing reenactment of the Satanic Panic. For instance it's quite obvious some of their magic lessons got dumbed down so that very little of what's in the books could actually be tried in real life, and I think she took out a lot of astrology.

I also wanted to do a couple errands along the way, one of which was to check and see if it's explicitly written in the books that Harry is a cis man. I'm a trans man, SO I'D KNOW. (I'm a slow reader so all I can say for now is: the FIRST book does not explicitly state Harry is cis, but if he's trans, there's some implied worldbuilding with items like the Sorting Hat that comes into play. Also I'm fairly sure the Dursleys would have gone along with him being trans because that meant Petunia could reuse Dudley's old clothes instead of having to get girl stuff. I'mma save any other explanations on the topic for a video on it.) The reason I'm doing this read-through is because I think J.K. doesn't know anything about trans people and didn't think to make sure her wizard world was trans exclusionary. AND IT TURNS OUT THAT WE TRANS MAGIC USERS HAVE A WAY OF WIGGLING INTO MOST PLACES UNDETECTED BY NORMAL MEANS.

While I was doing the re-read I encountered two sort of broad revelations:

There's a lot of old stuff in there like Latin and Greek and tradcraft stuff, but also modern magic of the more recent era... but the incorporation of modern magic cuts off somewhere before the 80s. These books read like they were written by a early 70s magician. Like they honestly read like J.K. is a magical practicioner who just didn't read any magic books written after 1972 and never discovered what Chaos Magic is, (and also, never heard of most of what happened in the Cold War). I have never found a writer, in fiction or non-fiction, more dedicated to referencing magical stuff that most magicians alive today just don't care about anymore.

J.K. Rowling's knowledge of child abuse laws and general social mores regarding treatment of children also ceased to update itself by about the 80s. I keep getting distracted by this and having to make more side-notes about corporal punishment and researching stuff like when caning was banned in England. (HInt: it was banned before Harry went to school, so in Book 1 it's fuckin weird that he assumes that Wood is the name of a cane he's about to be whipped with.) Like, this woman raised children in the modern era, she should know when canes stopped being used.

So like, when I mention that I'm doing some research in this area, this is the sort of stuff I'm reading for and the sort of stuff I'm encountering. I haven't been talking much about this journey because it seems like any time anyone brings up anything Harry Potter up whatsoever, we've got to talk about how J.K. is a terf in every other sentence. But like, y'all: I hope you slow down and re-read the books, because J.K. Rowling is a terf who is also a child abuse apologist and normalizer. She is a terf who is also a horrible fat-shamer. She is a terf who is also an ableist with a huge problem writing about mental illness. And she's a terf who's also a sexist who undermines feminism with her actual writing of female characters.

And I honestly think she double and triples down on the terf stuff so that people will only talk about that. I think it's worth talking about the fact that not only is she an awful person in the terf way, but like, every other way imaginable too. I think it's worth talking about the fact that with all the obvious biases she has, the group she CHOOSES to publicly marginaiize is trans women, and I think she makes that choice because she thinks that she'll get more allies that way. That if she wore all of her issues on her sleeve like she wears the terfness, that she'd lose a lot of allies, that a lot of prestigious charities would stop having anything to do with her. That she uses the identity of "terf" as a shield because she knows that certain people will protect a terf, and she does this specifically so people won't notice how much of a sexist, abuse apologist, ableist, fatphobe etc she ALSO is. Opinions that could lose her a lot of money and clout if people remember them enough.

She's trying to pick on who she thinks is the most unpopular kid in the class out of the hopes that the bullies in class will be her friends instead of pile up on her, but if the bullies knew what she really thought of them, THEY wouldn't even be her friends.

Also like... I just want someone else to read the actual words in these books and see what fucked-up choices she made as a writer. I think a LOT of people remembering these books are actually remembering the movies, which are way more different from the books than you might expect.

#this got long and rambly #every time i try to read the books i find a new thing that is weird #i had to look up when milk bottle delivery stopped in england #i know so many things about knickerbockers now #it seems like the only reason platform 9 3/4 is used is for the parking and that's so weird #why would you name something futuristic a 2000 when that's only 9 years from when the first book is set #who leaves a one year old on a doorstep #how come the dursleys are so affluent to have late-era milk bottle delivery at the doorstep #yet no 4AM joggers in the neighborhood who would have seen Harry before Petunia did #these books are an assault upon all logic and I am mad and angry that there is a theme park based on them that fails the ADA #you're telling me wizards can hide an entire castle yet they can't add a ramp to a shop's doorway #oh gods i'm never going to stop get me out of these tags I need a snack and a hug

[fangirleaconmigo]

I love your book analysis and show analysis posts! I like that they aren’t super gatekeeper-like and don’t talk down to people for simply enjoying the show. While I enjoyed the books more I don’t see the need to insult people who favor the show. Reading your recent post about “Burn Butcher Burn”/the “Mountain Break-Up” got me thinking about how different Geralt and Jaskier’s dynamic is in the books compared to the show. For instance, in The Edge of The World, Show Jaskier writes a song about Geralt but Book Jaskier writes about the Goddess. Or how in the show Geralt and Jaskier have a major fight early on in the series during the dragon hunt but in the books, they don’t have a major fight till later on during the Hansa's stay with Annarieta. Furthermore, the simple difference that Book Geralt and Jaskier are more affectionate towards one another than the show versions are. My question for you is, why do you think these differences were written into the show? Why do you think they changed their dynamic like this? (Sorry for the long ask! 😅)

Thank you! I am so glad it comes across that way. I think there are many very good reasons someone would prefer the show, and I do think a lot of the changes they made, made a lot of sense for the format. I adore most of what they've done with Yen and the sorceresses. I am intensely invested in her journey. I could go on about other things I love, but that'd be a different post.

As far as why they did what they did to Geralt and Jaskier's relationship? Ok, so I have my theories, but keep in mind this is all just me talking. I don't know anyone on the show. I'm wildly speculating.

I'm tagging TWN critical but this is not critique. It's just wild speculation and analysis.

My guess is that in order to deliver the kind of show Netflix wanted, they had to simplify. So, they looked at the show and said, we choose-- "Geralt's emotional arc will be a closed off, gruff, grizzled man who is changed by the love of a woman." And then they crammed everything else into that.

I think this for a few reasons. First, in S2, when Nivellen asks Geralt what changed him, why he is saving Ciri, Geralt says that Yen changed him. So it is said explicitly there. That takes away most of the guess work of the arc.

But also, in S1, pretty much all of Geralt's friendships and non romantic relationships were erased. I think if they'd have shown him being so loving with Ciri, Nenneke, or warm and affectionate with Borch, Jaskier, Chireadan, or Yarpen, it would have undermined that 'changed by romantic love' narrative and character arc.

That's my guess.

The way I differentiate between book and show Geralt is,(I've gone way into detail here, but to summarize):

With Book!Geralt, we see a man constantly trying to connect with a world that rejects him over and over again. He navigates these rejections with a bit of self consciousness and caution. His hurt is evident. But he always jumps at the chance to make a friend.With TWN!Geralt, we see a man who has shut himself down to protect himself from the world’s cruelties. He rejects people preemptively. They are like the inverse of each other in a way.

I think the nuance of the book version is...Geralt yearns for connection but it's complicated. He doesn't know who is going to hate him for being a witcher and the bigotry of the world can make him assume people are just morbidly curious or objectifying him (and indeed sometimes that's true). The discrimination has made him cautious at times, especially with humans, so he can be awkward and careful until he knows he isn't going to be rejected.

He tries so hard to reach out to people all the time, with varying levels of success. Yes, he tries to push people away sometimes, but it's when he is literally actively heading into dangerous situations. And then he is very open about why he wants to go alone. He's like...I am going alone. I do not want you to die. We like to tease book!Geralt about being broody lone wolf, but the fact is, it IS mortally dangerous for people he loves.

Now, I think that is incredibly difficult to translate all of that to screen under time and space constraints. We don't have Geralt's internal voice on a show, and they aren't writing a character driven show. Netflix decided on an action show. Some people say that The Witcher was Netflix's answer to Game of Thrones. But I see it as Netflix's MCU or Star Wars.

I know Game of Thrones fans complain about the reduced quality of the writing after they ran out of books. But BEFORE the books ended, they lifted a ton of writing from the books. The language could be very stylized and witty, and reminiscent of what modern people expect of medieval language. There was a bounty of character and relationship development.

The Witcher just fully went with plain modern speech, and a faster moving plot. I really think they're thinking MCU here. They wanted a franchise they could develop that would make them a player in the scifi fantasy realm. Those properties try to deliver genre, action, comedy, and a bit of heart. Whether they succeed depends on the show/movie.

So. Going back to Geralt. That nuance in the book was flattened, which I think made it easier to translate to screen. Plus, when you go genre/action you cut out almost all of the space for multiple relationships or character dev, so you have to pick one. And they picked his romantic relationship to center it on.

But wait, I hear you say, they didn't spend enough time or effort on that either! And all I can say to that, people who are consumers of the romance genre often do not need all that space to be filled in. That genre often speaks in tropes, and it is accepted and understood that the viewer will be invested automatically and will fill in all the spaces.

I think the way it was written, they were counting on that. For me that doesn't work. I'm a very unromantic aro person. (Yes, I write romance. I do love love! Just not romance on it's own. Trust me, it makes sense in my head) For lots of people, it does. My older sister told me that Geralt's love for Yen is what humanizes him for her, and she wouldn't have been invested in him otherwise post-S1. My other sister (I have three) said she immediately understood their bond and didn't need anything else. So. To each their own.

So that is all a very long way of saying, his best friend was a fatality in the reframing of Geralt's emotional life and the choice they made to focus on the romance. Season 2 tried to play catchup somewhat, but had to focus mostly on the Geralt Ciri relationship to make up for cutting out their entire relationship S1.

And I do think the common fandom criticism has some truth to it. They just do not 'get' how to portray a complex, nuanced masculinity that allows for affection and love coming from men who are also strong and deadly and very very traumatized, to other men. They allllmost had it with Geralt and Vesemir before they pulled the rug on that one.

I've seen people say that the show knows how to portray complex femininity but not complex masculinity, and I think there is a good case to be made for that as well.

ETA: I've also seen people say there is a very American flavored no-homo anxiety to the show. They are trying to please everyone and maybe they fear affection between men would alienate certain types of cishet male fans who want to see themselves in Geralt, and would interpret these types of things as emasculating. This is the 'no-homo' anxiety. Could be. That's something I think you'd have to be behind the scenes to know. But I never doubt the power of the enforced gender binary on our society and in our stories.

#asks #the witcher #geralt of rivia #jaskier #these are all guesses #i'm just guessing #i'll tag twn critical #but i'm not being critical #just analyzing #but hey #twn critical

[insanityessays]

Sorry Shakespeare, Beetlejuice is better

Or: I aggressively compare things that could be tangentially related to my homework, but instead I'm just over-analyzing things to the point where I'm more or less rambling like an insane person.

You know what happens when you try to analyze Shakespeare’s Richard III while you’re hyper fixating on Beetlejuice (the musical, the musical, the musical)?

Well, if you’re anything like me, you end up drawing way too many plot comparisons and end up working on an analysis that you could never turn in for class credit because the analysis you came up with reads more like a conspiracy theory or a discussion than an actual essay.

So, despite the fact you have an actual essay to write, you need to get all of the thoughts you have in your brain down onto paper, then throw that paper into the void. On the plus side, because this isn’t a fancy-shmancy class essay, you get to write it the best way possible: really casually, with bad jokes, and not properly citing in MLA formatting because even though citation formatting makes sense it’s kind of a pain in the ass to complete. I also put in swear words because I can. This nonsense took me multiple hours to write. I do not regret a thing.

While I was reading Richard the Third, I realized that Richard is a lot like Beetlejuice. And then that sent me on a train of thought that led me to drawing more and more comparisons between the two. So here’s my very hastily written comparison between Shakespeare’s Richard III and Beetlejuice (the musical, the musical, the musical).

So there’s one really big similarity between the two characters that we can see from really early on in the play:

Everyone fucking hates them

To be fair, in both cases it’s understandable that these characters receive a lot of hate from every other character on stage. Lady Anne hates Richard because he murdered her husband and her son. Understandable. 

Beetlejuice didn’t do that (allegedly). The moment Barbra and Adam meet him, they’re just really creeped out. Beetlejuice hasn’t actually killed anyone (that we know of). He just really wants to.

“Oh, Babs, I would LOVE that. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to kill those people downstairs.” (I.v)

Both Richard and Beetlejuice then proceed to make a bunch of sex jokes.

This early in the story,  Richard is probably the more hateable of the two. That’s saying something, seeing as he’s up against a literal demon.

Richard is just a figurative demon (unless you’re interpreting the script in a really weird way, which then… good for you). 

Which is probably why the insults towards Richard are quite a bit more… intense… 

“Thou elvish-mark'd, abortive, rooting hog!

Thou that wast seal'd in thy nativity

The slave of nature and the son of hell!” (I.iii)

Meanwhile the worst that Beetlejuice has been called is a “needy pervert”. 

Okay, so maybe it’s not that fair to analyze the two of them side by side like this, mostly because Richard is way more despicable, and everyone hates him quite a bit more.

But I stand by my point- they’re kind of similar.

Richard’s opening soliloquy has him basically telling the audience “hey guys, I’m the really evil villain of the show. My intentions are to be very evil. Also no one loves me.” 

“And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,

To entertain these fair well-spoken days,

I am determined to prove a villain

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”

Which has a very similar feel to the DC version of the Invisible reprise.

“I WANT THE SAME THINGS AS YOU

TO BE SEEN THROUGH THE EYES OF LOVE

AND ALSO TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE

AND BASICALLY FUCK SHIT UP”

Those are basically the same if you ignore the differences. 

Both characters are demonic figures that can and will murder multiple people, both are quite evil, and both have a lot of soliloquies despite being a villainous character.

The key difference is their motivation.

It is very theater of a character to explicitly state their motivations to the audience (either through speech or song). That’s because understanding a character’s motivations is what drives the plot forward in basically any story. Just look at disney:

“I want adventure in the great wide somewhere”

“I wanna be where the people are”

“I wanna be like you”

Beetlejuice has motivations to be loved. He wants to interact with people, he wants to find friends, he wants to stop being ignored. The obstacle to this is that he’s an insecure guy who is also literally invisible for half of the show. Which is sad. It’s relatable to the audience. I relate to “wants love, bad at people” on a very personal level. If you look at the entire musical in that way, the whole thing makes sense.

Now let’s talk Richard III. What is his motivation? 

Without interpreting the character too much, there really isn’t much of a motivation there. He’s just evil for the sake of being evil. It isn’t really for love- in some ways he already has that. He gets a wife, his brother likes him, the children trust him, he has friends.

This is what really dampens the character of Richard III. I can’t relate to “I want murder” on a personal level. Arguably he’s motivated by fear for the second half of the play- he doesn’t want to lose what he has. But having half a play with no motivation for a main character? That’s stupid.

I’m sure that there are going to be people who are like, “he’s motivated by power” but to be honest, I’ve never really understood that. Power is a flimsy motivation. I want to dig deeper than that: why does this person want power? For Richard, there’s not much to go off of. The audience or the actors can interpret his interests, but there’s nothing (as far as I can tell) in the script itself to suggest his actions are fueled by anything.

So moving on in the story, both characters (kind of) get what they want at some point in the story. Richard is crowned king. Beetlejuice becomes alive.

When Richard becomes king, it’s a story of paranoia eating at him until he dies. Fun times.

When Beetlejuice becomes alive, he sort of ends up learning that he didn’t get what he wanted- for a reason. The things he thought he wanted weren’t what he actually wanted.

Sticking with the core motivation of “love” with Beetlejuice, it’s easy to see where each bit of his logic comes from. Mostly because he tells the audience exactly what he’s doing and why.

“Alone. Again. You know what it feels like

to get everything you thought you ever wanted, but still feel like no one

will every love you? This guy knows what I’m talking about, I gotta get

out of here! I need to really live, really connect! Everyone can see me

now, but if I were alive, I could get out of the house, meet my kind of

people. You know, socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. And there

is a way. All I have to do is convince Lydia to marry me.”

Essentially, he wants friends, so he needs to become alive. 

However, his plan to become alive involves tricking people and harming others- which is what leads to his death.

Which is where the redemption arc comes in. He realizes that you can’t make friends through murder. He stands up for the people he cares about, they kind of forgive him, then he leaves.

There’s a moment like that in Richard III.

Kind of.

“I shall despair. There is no creature loves me;

And if I die, no soul shall pity me:

Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myself

Find in myself no pity to myself?”

It’s the moment when he comes to a conclusion- no one likes him because he murdered a lot of people. The next act, he dies.

Isn’t that the most unsatisfying ending? He realizes that his actions were bad, and falls into this field of self hatred, then just kind of dies unceremoniously. It would probably have a greater effect if he hadn’t proclaimed himself a villain at the beginning of the play. He starts thinking himself a loathed villain, he ends thinking himself a loathed villain. 

Arguably, you could say that the play exists as Richard telling the story of his death, meaning that all of the soliloquies at the beginning of the play were made with the knowledge of what happens at the end of the play, and he comments on his existence as a villain in a form of regret for his actions. 

…Which might be how the audience is meant to interpret the play, as made more obvious by staging and acting choices.

I think I accidentally made myself interpret the play completely differently by accident?

But if that’s true, then Richard’s character is extremely weak for the beginning of the play. Without “evil” he has no motivation. With that, everything just becomes a very passive experience. If we have no idea why someone is doing something, there isn’t much drama to it.

I mean, you could argue that villains don’t need a reason to be evil. If we read Richard as the antagonist of the story then it’s a bit more acceptable that there isn’t much motivation.

That’s kind of the case with Juno in Beetlejuice. We don’t get the chance to explore her character very much, and she mostly serves as a final obstacle to defeat at the end of the story. In this way, Beetlejuice isn’t the main villain- even if he does evil things. 

So despite the fact that Richard has a ton of time on stage, and most of the choices are coming from him, and he speaks to the audience a lot, and his story is the one we follow; if we read Richard as an antagonist, the lack of a motivation makes sense.

But then I ask you who exactly is the protagonist of Richard III?

Well, maybe it doesn’t have one. It’s a weird play that focuses on a character who doesn’t have reasons for their choices- things just kind of happen. 

That’s a way to tell a story I suppose. While a lot of good stories are character-driven, it’s technically possible to write one without an active main character. Forcing Richard into that role makes the story not work very well, so why read the play that way? 

Maybe Richard III doesn’t need a main character that makes choices. Is that a terrible way to write a story? Yes.

Even if that is the case, Beetlejuice is still a better story. Because the actions of the characters actually make sense. There’s a part of Richard III that I haven’t covered yet.

Going all the way back to act 1, scene 2; Lady Anne insults Richard due to the fact that he killed her husband and her son. He ends up somehow convvincing her that even though he did murder people, it’s completely fine because he’s in love with her. Thus, the worst part of the play: SHE FALLS FOR HIM.

To begin, she gets mad at him for the whole murder thing. Richard claims he did not murder them, she calls him out on his bullshit. Then he makes a bunch of sex jokes. 

So Richard changes his tactic- he decides to claim that She’s technically at fault for the murder of her husband and son, due to the fact that he only murdered them so he could get close to her romantically. She spits at him, wishes him dead. So he hands her a knife and tells her to stab him. Lady Anne is not willing to do that. He gives her a ring. He pretends to want to repent, she leaves not as angry at him.

Which is the most infuriating scene in the entire play. Somehow, she ends up not wishing to murder him. Richard brags about it in a later soliloquy. 

“To take her in her heart's extremest hate,

With curses in her mouth, tears in her eyes,

The bleeding witness of her hatred by;

Having God, her conscience, and these bars

against me,

And I nothing to back my suit at all,

But the plain devil and dissembling looks,

And yet to win her, all the world to nothing!”

I’m 90% sure we are supposed to believe Richard during this soliloquy. Somehow, she fell for him in that scene.

Which is stupid. 

Why does she do that? Is it a trick? Unlike the end of Beetlejuice, where pretending to go along with the marriage plan led to his death, there seemingly aren’t consequences to this. It doesn’t lead to anything major happening to him.

On top of that, later she basically states that she did indeed end up falling for him:

“Within so small a time my woman’s heart Grossly grew captive to his honey words” 

Ugh, tell me this was written by a man without telling me this was written by a man.

Why on earth would she fall for the man that murdered her husband. It makes no sense.

Unlike Richard, Beetlejuice never receives actual romantic interest. He’s tricked into believing he is, and then gets killed. This makes sense, as he has threatened to kill (and has killed, in the DC version) people at this point. It would not make sense to fall in love with a person if they murder your family. This should be obvious, but apparently not to Shakespeare. 

Yes, I’m well aware that there are other themes in both shows. Beetlejuice is also about dealing with grief and moving on in life, Richard the Third is also about lying to people and trust. But when comparing the two similar characters and plot points, Beetlejuice (the musical, the musical, the musical) is much better at showing characters, making sense, and having a much more satisfying ending.

There’s also a giant snake.

#insanity essays #I write an analysis of literature but it's one no one should be forced to read. #This bad boy took me fucking hours #not the worst essay I've ever written somehow #Beetlejuice #beetlejuice musical #Shakespeare #Richard iii #am i really bad at reading shakespeare? #well #maybe my interpretations are a bit out there #but like i needed to write this #my adhd said so

[bigskydreaming]

thehollowprince

I'm liking the first theory, but I think someone pointed him out as a background character in a former issue of X-Men Red.  Haven't gone back to check yet

stone-monkey

I'm not reading it, but my money is on a Summer's family complication.

Ewing said he was a new creation so I’d be really surprised if they just reused an existing design but its not out of the realm of possibility. And lol when in doubt, assume its a Summers.

No, the way I see it, the evidence for:

Jon Ironfire as the unrevealed Vulcan/Deathbird child and Shi’ar prince:

1) Visually he fits, same hair color and general features as Gabe.

2) The missing heir has been heavily lampshaded the entire run. Vulcan brought up their child when facing off against Deathbird a couple issues ago, and with all the drama around the Shi’ar throne and Xandra, the question of where is Deathbird’s kid is a big one that needs addressing at some point. Especially since the thread where Lifeguard and Slipstream were alleged to be Deathbird’s hidden-away children seems to have been abandoned at least for now. 

(That said, back during this conversation Ewing made a point to not have Deathbird respond to Vulcan using pronouns to refer to their child. Gabe’s only assumed the child is a boy, because well, Misogynist King. Literally. But Ewing definitely made a point to have Deathbird NOT confirm that their child is a boy, or at least doesn’t identify as such...however whether this was written this way as a hint that Gabe’s assumptions are off-base or simply because at that point Ewing hadn’t decided for sure yet on what he wanted the character of Deathbird and Vulcan’s child to be like....could go either way). 

3) The name Ironfire seems to be a clear nod to Vulcan, who of course is named for the Roman god of fire and the forge.

4) Jon’s powerset includes transmuting his blood into any metal he can imagine, presumably including mysterium, and shaping it into weapons, armor, anything else....frequently manifesting it as sharp spikes he grows from his skin and hurls like projectiles. This not only mirrors Deathbird’s iconic javelin-quills she grows and uses as weapons, it also calls back to the blood-burning powerset of Adam Neramani, who according to this theory would be both Jon’s paternal uncle AND one of his rivals for the Shi’ar throne.

5) Given how much Gabe hates Ororo, having his son and heir have zero interest in the throne daddy dearest ‘acquired for him’ as well as being one hundred percent devoted to Storm would be HILARIOUS.

6) The fight between Jon and Mystique implied that Jon theoretically COULD be an omega, like Vulcan, but it could also be just typical fight talk and hyping himself up in front of his opponent. Ewing does like making weird abilities that don’t seem on the surface like they should be omega, however.

Vs....

Jon Ironfire as an unrevealed brother or son of Lodus Logos:

1) His powerset much more directly mirrors Lodus’ than it does Gabe’s.

2) Ewing and other writers have explicitly referred to Jon as being Arakkii in interviews. (That said, we’ve seen with characters like Craig, Beto and Ororo herself that the Arakkii take a very clear view of things: if you consider yourself of Arakko and fight for Arakko, then you are Arakkii, no matter where else you originated. And given Gabe blatantly didn’t care about Arakko other than as another potential conquest of his, this could be a lead-in to having his son reject all that and identify as being OF Arakko, much like Storm herself has rejected all desire to rule and simply wants to be of the land as much as anyone else. ‘No thrones on Arakko,’ round two. This time with the sentiment embraced by the son and heir of her chief rival on Arakko, after Isca herself).

3) Lodus is hands down Ororo’s biggest supporter and friend on the Great Ring, and has been since his very first appearance in SWORD, long before she even started making connections with Lactuca. In turn, she also gave up the Seat of All-Around-Us and the second vote that comes with it, calling him a better fit for it while she took the Seat of Loss in honor of Magneto’s death. They’re very close and while it would be FUNNY for Jon to be Vulcan’s son, with how devoted he is to Storm, thematically and character-wise I think his attitude around her makes a lot more sense if he’s Lodus’ son, and in the wake of his father and most of the rest of his peers on the Great Ring dying in the early days of the Red Diamond Empire....he’s naturally gravitated to one of his father’s closest friends and allies: Ororo.

4) We’ve seen that Jon will live to Year 1000, aging extremely slowly....which is more a staple of Arakkii mutants than Earthborn ones. Most of them possess some degree of longevity, whereas Earth mutants require that longevity be a specific part of their powerset to mirror that. (That said, if any Earth mutant were to live a thousand years without resurrection, it would make sense for it to be Gabe’s son, as many omegas DO have ways to extend their lifespan and Gabe in particular has brought himself back from death or the brink of it before).

My conclusions:

I think I WANT Jon to be related to Lodus Logos, but I’m more inclined to think he’s probably the Vulcan/Deathbird heir. I do think there’s a strong case to be made for either, and thus neither route would surprise me, but the missing heir plotline is too central to a lot of the book’s plots for it not to be coming up soon, and this sorta consolidates plots. Ewing does like to be efficient in his seeding of storylines. And like I said, the heir is of course an as yet unrevealed Summers too, and when in doubt....its safe to assume whatever’s going on has something to do with a Summers, lol.

(Plus, even if Ewing seems disinclined to follow up on it, that dangling plot-thread about Heather and Davis being Deathbird’s kids she stashed away to hide from D’Ken is still out there and someone else could pick it up eventually.....and that would make Jon their younger half-brother and idk why but Slipstream being Ironfire’s older brother is also hilarious to me. Especially when you factor in HIS epic crush on Ororo, back in the day.) 

#x-tag

[northamptoncouplestherapy]

The Top Five Relationship Books For Couples In Crisis

Let’s face it, our media and culture are awash in self-help, be-happy, romanticized relationship advice; knowing where to go to get support and research-backed tools can be daunting. So this week (as promised), I sat down and compiled a list of my favorite top five resources for couples in crisis. Again and again, these are the materials I steer people to when their heart is hurting and they’re longing for more. Because while your relationship is unique, specific issues that you struggle with are probably not.

My field, marriage and family therapy, is in the middle of a renaissance, with thinkers like John Gottman, Stan Tatkin, and Brent Atkinson paving the way for deeper connection, secure functioning (regardless of your past), and healing from betrayal.

And given the current national shortage of couples therapists, it’s more important than ever that you have some tools that you can turn to independently.

So if I was stranded on a desert island with my partner (or at home locked down in the throws of a pandemic) and we were steeped in gridlock and negative sentiment, here are the top five resources I’d want to have packed in my bag, to set things right:

5) Codependent No More, Melody Beattie

It took me decades to finally crack the cover of this modern classic and New York Times bestseller. As a professional, I was skeptical and wrongly assumed it was another pop-psychology self-help book. But when I finally got around to reading it, I was blown away by how helpful, practical and vital this book is. If you struggle with setting compassionate but firm boundaries, if you wonder whether someone else’s problem is your problem and have lost sight of your own life in the face of their struggles, this book will offer you immense guidance and support.

4) The Three Faces of Victim, Lynn Forest

This online article is required reading for all new couples beginning therapy with me. Based on a diagram developed by a well-respected psychiatrist and teacher of Transactional Analysis named Stephen Karpman, it explains the “Victim Triangle.” In a nutshell, this article will help you determine your default position when navigating relationship challenges. Are you prone to rescuing? Do you collapse into victimhood? Or are you more likely to resort to blame and persecutory actions? Regardless of where you start, what is essential to comprehend is that we all are vulnerable to inhabiting each of these roles and that they have the propensity to become “shame generators” and perpetuate dysfunctional dynamics.

3) Your Brain on Love, Stan Tatkin

An in-depth audio romp on attachment theory and brain science as seen through the lens of Stan Tatkin, Founder of the Psychobiological Approach to Couples Therapy (PACT). In this fantastic audiobook, Tatkin guides us through his proven principles and practices for building enduring security and commitment between couples, family members, and others that we love. His ideas are a welcome reprieve from our me-centered and autonomy-focused culture. Touting values, social justice, and interconnection, no relationship library is complete without this audiobook.

2) Daring Greatly, Brené Brown

Yes, this book is not a “relationship” book. Yes, this book is not written explicitly for couples. But I wholeheartedly love this book, and for me, it was a game-changer. Perhaps more than anyone, Brown has taught me how to love well. That “clear is kind.” That values and courage are indispensable tools in the psychotherapy office. That the wholehearted sit side-by-side Gottman’s Masters of Marriage. And it was my certification in Brown’s Daring Way™ curriculum that inspired me to write John Gottman and Brené Brown on Running Headlong Into Heartbreak, the Gottman Institute’s number 1 blog in 2019. This book should be required reading for all humans.

1) Developing Habits for Relationship Success, Brent Atkinson

If I had to pick one book to give all couples, it would be Developing Habits for Relationship Success by Brent Atkinson. As the Founder of the PEX method (Pragmatic Experiential Method for Improving Relationships), Atkinson has created a manual that will give you everything you need to get unstuck and move forward regardless of your circumstances. This book is required reading for all NCCT clients, and we consider it so essential we give a copy of it to every couple that attends NCCT for a private retreat or intensive. What makes the PEX approach so unique is that even one member of a couple can make use of it. So if you have a partner who refuses to go to couples therapy or won’t accept influence from you regardless of how skillful you are, the tools offered in this book are critical. Atkinson was the first to teach me about the importance of standing up skills. And not just why they are essential, but how to stand up well. He normalizes core differences. He proposes that we can always get further when we avoid defaulting to a perception of overall blame of our partner. In this sense, his ideas align beautifully with Brené Brown, who encourages us to assume people are doing the best they can, even when what they offer up is inadequate. And if that is not enough, this book, more than any other resource I know, will give you a plethora of exercises, concrete tools, and even audio clips (to listen to when you are freaking out). There is no other book comparable to it, and again and again, our clients tell us it is the most helpful thing they have ever read.

In summary, you can access many excellent tools from home with the click of a few keys on your laptop, and in turn, acquire an abundance of skills to shift problematic relationship dynamics without ever setting foot in a therapist’s office. Don’t get me wrong, couples therapy can be beneficial, and often it is the best way to move things along farther and faster. But having just finished offering my signature digital course, Crisis to Connected, I can assure you that we are all capable of growing and changing and that there are myriad ways to accomplish that.

Click here to schedule an appointment.

#relationship books #couples crisis #couple therapy #relationship crisis

[helennorvilles]

idk just been kinda thinking of how dhawan!master plays this role as the master, goes through the motions, half-assedly tries to kill the fam, like his hearts ain’t into it the same way, he isn’t having fun the same way, but like, where is it going?? have people written any theories or ideas around that bc i am so curious!!! like, where does the master as an overall character go from here??

#i know ppl have said all these bits before and that's cool but what i Really want is theories!!! #WHO has the theories?!?!?! someone's gotta!! #and if no one has explicitly written down a theory then has anyone read or written any fanfiction following this idea?? #like i want canon continuation levels of coherency y'know i want some smart brained person going hogwild #and writing something far better than we will likely end up receiving from chibnall #my post tag

[sofiadragon]

My feelings about season 2 of the Loki series are currently very similar to when I found out what else Steven Moffat and JK Rowling had presented to the public.

Ranting about the value of authorial intent, boycotting bigots, and asking the universe why a company like Disney lets people write about things they know nothing about under the cut.

I loved Doctor Who, and I enjoyed it enough to keep watching each episode as it came out through the end of of Matt Smith because the actors were clearly enjoying themselves and individual episodes were good, but the resolution of the story arcs was so bad after Tennant left and I knew that wasn't down to Smith's acting ability. Nice setup, bad play, over and over again. I expected a long con for River Song, but then after she was revealed to be a bespoke assasin designed to manipulate him on every level the Doctor just... boned her anyway? Despite being an ace romantic for the last 50 years? Explicitly so, what with how his people didn't reproduce sexually and that is a plot point even in the new series. That was hardly the only storyline with a very strange ending that left myself (and many other fans) dissatisfied.

I didn't get why the show made such a turn for the worse, and it was my complete disinterest in authorial intent, backstage drama, and entertainment news interviews kicking me in the ass. (As it occasionally does.) Moffat can do a lot of things, and his individual episodes are often fantastic, but bringing a season long story arc to a beautiful end is just not one of them. When I read what his intent was for these stories I just laughed. I didn't take away half the things he expected a casual fan to notice, let alone the deeper meanings that people like me who love to rewatch and theory craft supposedly should have seen. It all felt rushed and unfinished at best, a bit of deus ex machina at worst.

Nope, you failed the assignment. It's just more embarrassing because you are the one who defined the assignment in the first place. I hated the end of Sherlock too, (S4) and now I know that I'll probably love the setup and hate the resolution for anything Moffat makes because that is just how he makes things.

I think there is a lot of value in looking at what someone made without director commentary because bad things can be made with the best of intentions and good things can be made by very problematic people. I have no interest in entertaining JK Rowling's asinine declaration that Dumbledore and Lupin as written in the 7 HP books are good queer representation. The things she says and promotes about trans people are disgusting. However, that doesn't change what I experienced when I read the books or the community I found among fans at the time. It means I won't consume new things she makes and, to be fully honest, cemented my view that a film or book contains what it contains and should be criticized or praised separately from the people who made it. Pottermore became the worst bit of public self-pleasuring I've yet seen. All her cut and extra content for the world neither added much nor was a loss to the main story. She believes that while an individual can do great things, systemic change is always bad and honestly that both predates and supersedes her being a terf in my decision to avoid her other work.

This view was only maintained when my own fanfiction started getting nasty comments about how this or that fannon theory was bunkum when those fannon theories didn't appear in my story, they only existed in other stories with similar tags. This is how I consume media and how I evaluate narratives, and if that isn't for you then that's fine. It doesn't mean I ignore bigots or that I don't think anyone deserves to be judged when they show their ugly to the world.

So... the Loki series. Turns out a show with a main character who has been canonically queer for the last *checks Norse mythology* twelve centuries or so was made by bigots. Now I am a strong believer that if you do your research and are hard working you can write about anything and be respectful about it, but that's assuming you aren't deeply opposed to the core subject matter. There is nothing I have seen to show that Tom Hiddleston has this issue, but from the writers on down to the actress playing the main character (not Loki but Sylvie, who seems like his replacement as the "superior" version of the character according to the show) are either openly bigots or are blinded by their entitled ignorance of why Loki went off the rails in the first place.

What the actual Hela is this? Does Sylvie need to be played by a bi or genderqueer person for me to be happy? No. It would be nice and I think since *insert current year argument* we are where we are it is absolutely possible to have that kind of face- on- screen representation, but that isn't necessary if you have good actors willing to shoot the sorts of scenes that role requires.

The writers room is where the diversity needs to be, it has to be in the initial creation. On a project of this scale (meaning the MCU) all these scripts have teams and assistants and editors crawling over the story - you can claim one person wrote the thing and I'll just laugh in your face. A specific scene, maybe, but there is a committee involved in this and it isn't small. All the way down to the directors talking about the tone and the actors improvising lines they think work better, this is a group project.

I could name a hundred terrible books written by bigots about this or that minority that perpetuate a host of horrible stereotypes. I could show you the movies where some of that filth was scrubbed off the source material by less or non-bigoted script writers, directors, and cast. Here is one low-hanging fruit: Look at the difference between how the Fifty Shades trilogy treats BDSM kink as a mental illness purely caused by abuse that can be cured with love and vanilla heterosexual intercourse and reproduction and the movie where consent takes center stage (or tries to.)

When the initial cut of meat is full of maggots it doesn't matter how you try to trim it up or what spices you use, the meal will be tainted. Disney hiring people who find no value in core parts of the main character's identity to make a TV series is the stupidest decision they have made in the entire MCU.

#loki series #loki series criticism #harry potter critical #Steven Moffat criticism #death of the author #doesn't save bigots from the flames #mcu #loki meta #marvel #disney criticism #disney lgbtq hostility #I'm just saying I can see Hiddleston reading a script with a male-male kiss and nodding #but if SDM read a page about kissing a woman she'd be upset #haven't all British actors done drag at least once before they are allowed a leading role in Shakespeare? #He'd do the genderfluid parts if they were in the script #he just wouldn't think to make a scene like that up in improv without prompting probably #jk Rowling criticism

[whitehotharlots]

A movement that cannot be criticized cannot achieve positive goals

The hardest part of talking about malignant trends on the broad left is that, well, you’re not allowed to talk about them. It’s no exaggeration to say that criticism has become fully conflated with violence. If you attempt to engage critically with a left-liberal writer--regardless of how thorough and respectful you may be, and regardless of how powerful, public, or insulated the subject of the criticism--you will be accused of dismissing and erasing the writer, of inciting violence against the writer, and of committing some form of genocide against whichever identity groups the writer belongs to.

Conversely, if you don’t provide specifics, you’ll be accused of making stuff up. The same people who claim it’s an act of aggression to ask for proof when they make claims of victimization turn into immense pedants the moment they encounter a heterodox opinion. 

Unsurprisingly, a discourse milieu in which critical analysis is forbidden is a prime breeding ground for unsustainable (and even horrific) behavioral standards. Never mind improving the world that exists outside their sphere of influence... these people are perpetually on the brink of destroying their allies, their institutions, and themselves.

Today I dug into an especially profane case that highlights both of these points. It’s a matter of public record, so I hopefully won’t get accused of “doxing” anyone for discussing it. It’s also the sort of story where if someone cares about it, they’ll have an opinion of it within a second or two of reading a headline describing what happened. This means it’ll only be of interest to the sort of cranks who read this blog. My goal here isn’t to express outrage or advocate for one side or other--although it is outrageous, and you won’t have to try too hard to see which side I favor. Instead, I’m going to try to move beyond that, to use this instance as a broader cautionary tale in regards to the more horrific tendencies of the identitarian left, and to begin formulating some means of resistance. 

In other words, this might get boring. Even more so than usual. 

The story involves a court case, documented here, in which a young man named Kieran Bhattacharya is suing the University of Virginia Medical School. Mr. Bhattacharya (a white supremacist name if I’ve ever heard one) was subjected to formal censure, repeated psychological evaluations, suspension, and eventual expulsion. This all happened because he raised some concerns after a White Fragility-inspired panel on microaggressions.

This is one of those cases where both sides are going to assume there’s a lot more going on beneath the surface and, like I said, are going to be disinclined toward actually reading the available evidence. Thankfully, the court brief is fairly exhaustive and--importantly--the account provided in the brief has received the approval of both plaintiff and defendant. To stress, everyone involved in this case agrees, legally, that the account provided herein is an accurate picture of what happened. Additionally, we also have audio of the initial microaggression seminar (Mr. Bhattacharya’s comments start at around the 28:30 mark), as well as of the pursuant committee meeting that ended in his expulsion. 

Here is the initial exchange, as documented by the brief:

Bhattacharya: Hello. Thank you for your presentation. I had a few questions just to clarify your definition of microaggressions. Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group? 

Adams: Very good question. And no. And no— 

Bhattacharya: But in the definition, it just said you have to be a member of a marginalized group—in the definition you just provided in the last slide. So that’s contradictory. 

Adams: What I had there is kind of the generalized definition. In fact, I extend it beyond that. As you see, I extend it to any marginalized group, and sometimes it’s not a marginalized group. There are examples that you would think maybe not fit, such as body size, height, [or] weight. And if that is how you would like to see me expand it, yes, indeed, that’s how I do. 

Bhattacharya: Yeah, follow-up question. Exactly how do you define marginalized and who is a marginalized group? Where does that go? I mean, it seems extremely nonspecific.

 Adams: And—that’s intentional. That’s intentional to make it more nonspecific . . . . 

After the initial exchange, Bhattacharya challenged Adams’s definition of microaggression. He argued against the notion that “the person who is receiving the microaggressions somehow knows the intention of the person who made it,” and he expressed concern that “a microaggression is entirely dependent on how the person who’s receiving it is reacting.” Id. He continued his critique of Adams’s work, saying, “The evidence that you provided—and you said you’ve studied this for years—which is just one anecdotal case—I mean do you have, did you study anything else about microaggressions that you know in the last few years?” Id. After Adams responded to Bhattacharya’s third question, he asked an additional series of questions: “So, again, what is the basis for which you’re going to tell someone that they’ve committed a microaggression? . . . Where are you getting this basis from? How are you studying this, and collecting evidence on this, and making presentations on it?”

You can listen to the audio if you like. There’s nothing there, in my opinion, that is not captured accurately in the written description. Bhattacharya does not yell or raise his voice. He sounds skeptical, but in no way violent or threatening. Nor does Adams, the presenter, signal that she is experiencing anything that approaches fear or trauma. 

Immediately after the event, a professor who helped organize the discussion filed a “Professionalism Concern Card”--a cute academic euphemism for a disciplinary write up--against Bhattacharya, alleging he had displayed a troubling lack of respect for differences (the irony here probably does not need to be explicated).

Soon after that--literally still the same day of the panel--Bhattacharya received an email from faculty asking him to “share his thoughts” so as to help him “understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations.” The tone of the email is polite and professional, but the text hints toward an attempt at entrapment. You’ll see this a lot in woke spaces--invitations to come to an understanding with one another that are, in actuality, attempts to get a person to say something cancellable.

Bhattacharya took the bait, and, well… 

During Bhattacharya and Peterson’s one-hour meeting, Peterson “barely mentioned” Bhattacharya’s questions and comments at the panel discussion. Dkt. 33 ¶ 73. Instead, Peterson attempted to determine Bhattacharya’s “views on various social and political issues—including sexual assault, affirmative action, and the election of President Trump.” 

At this point, the kid was fucked. He soon after had an uneventful-seeming meeting with a dean. Two weeks after that, a separate panel found him guilty of “patterns of unprofessional behavior and egregious violations of professionalism” and strongly encouraged him to seek psychological counseling. 

Pre-Trump, Bhattacharya still probably would have been fine if he had just kept his head down, gone to a couple therapy sessions, and maybe issued an empty apology. Since 2016, however, the rules have changed. An accusation is now absolute proof of guilt and no amount of ablution can save someone in a vulnerable position. 

Eleven days after receiving the ostensible suggestion that he receive counseling, Bhattacharya was informed that he would not be permitted to return to classes until he had been evaluated. A day after that--before even having the opportunity to seek the mandated counseling--he was given a mere 3 hours notice before having to attend another disciplinary committee meeting. 

This meeting found that Bhattacharya’s continuing behaviors were proof that he posed an imminent danger to the campus community, although the committee did not bother to explain what those behaviors entailed. His behavior was simply noted as “unusual” and this was proof that “Any patient that walked into the room with [Bhattacharya] would be scared.” The following day, Bhattacharya was forcibly removed from campus and told he could not return until he had been screened. He was, subsequently, not allowed to receive sanctioned screening, because of his status of having been removed from campus after being deemed a security risk.

Again, none of what I have described is an exaggeration. None of these details are even being contested. 

Now for my own conjecture: the problem isn’t that anyone genuinely believes Bhattacharya poses a threat to anyone’s safety. The problem is that he attempted to question the ideological firmaments of contemporary anti-racist training. These firmaments are protected with aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny. Had Bhattacharya merely scoffed at them, or even if he had been outright condescending and dismissive, he probably would not have received such a severe punishment. The problem was that he was right, and his accusers knew it.

Understanding speech in the manner prescribed by the peddlers of microaggression theory cannot possibly be codified in a way that won't result in arbitrary punishment. Bhattacharya’s experience demonstrates that with horrific irony. 

The assertion here is that the intention of a speech act should have no bearing on how we adjudicate the morality of that speech act--such a point was made repeatedly in the initial discussion, and stressed once again after Bhattacharya’s concerns have been raised. This standard contradicts how we've processed the morality of speech for centuries, but that's what people are very explicitly demanding.

How is this workable, when literally any statement could, conceivably, be considered offensive by at least one individual? This, I feel, was the point Bhattacharya reaching toward. If you were to say, I dunno, "I love trees" to a group of 1000 people, 999 of them could regard that statement as benign. But what if one person takes offense to it? What if they work in the lumber industry, or they were molested by guy in a Smokey the Bear costume? What if that person then files a report accusing the tree lover of offensive speech? Will the speaker be disciplined? Or will the powers that be take intention and effect into account?

Of course, we're not going to criminalize all speech in this way. Like all extreme and broad-reaching disciplinary standards, this one will only be selectively evoked in order to punish people with heterodox opinions and/or those whose presence threatens the status quo. Someone who says something much more incendiary, like "all men are rapists" or "white people shouldn't get social security" would not receive a reprimand regardless of how much offense their statements caused, because they're saying something that's acceptable in our current milieu. And right now, the least acceptable speech is that which shines a light on the manifest flaws and hypocrisies of corporate anti racism. 

Back to my hypothetical example, if the tree-loving speaker was on good terms with everyone, the complaint would most likely be ignored. But if he had said or done other things that for whatever reason displeased the people in charge, the specious accusation could still ruin him. What's worse, the person who filed the allegation of offense might not have even actually taken offense at the statement--they were just looking for a way to get rid of him.

Bhattacharya was attempting to voice legitimate criticisms about a political movement whose suggestions are functionally unworkable and that, even if it were implemented fully and uncritically, does not contain even a hypothetical explanation in regards to how its goals would result in improved racial equality/equity. Because of that, he was cynically labeled dangerous and expelled from a public university. 

You'd think a group that obsesses over power differentials and their own marginalization would have some grasp of this. Regardless of which side you fall into with this particular culture war, it should fucking terrify you that a movement that’s been tasked with addressing pressing social problems is designed in such a way that any substantial criticism is met with aggressive punishment. 

There’s no way you can win if this is you is how conduct yourself. This is why we’re losing. This is why even if you get all the censorship and deplatforming you can ever dream of, even if every major bank and multinational corporatation professes fealty to your movement, you will still lose. Because there’s no way you can win. 

[nealiios]

The Supernatural 70s: Part I - Corruption of An Innocent

"We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us - we're soldiers writers."

-- with apologies to the screenwriter of "Stripes"

Dear reader, I have the darkest of revelations to make to you, a truth when fully and wholly disclosed shall most assuredly chill you to the bone, a tale that shall make you question all that you hold to be true and good and holy about my personal history. While you may have come in search of that narrative designer best known for his works of interactive high fantasy, you should know that he is also a crafter of a darker art, a scribbler of twisted tales filled with ghosts, and ghouls, and gargoyles. I am, dear innocent, a devotee of horrors! Mwahahahaha!

[cue thunderclap, lightning, pipe organ music]

Given the genre of writing for which most of you know me, I forgive you if you think of me principally as a fantasy writer. I don't object to that classification because I do enjoy mucking about with magic and dark woods and mysterious ancient civilizations. But if you are to truly know who I am as a writer, you must realize that the image I hold of myself is principally as a creator of weird tales.

To understand how and why I came to be drawn to this sub-genre of fantastic fiction, you first must understand that I come from peculiar folks. Maybe I don't have the Ipswich look, or I didn't grow up in a castle, but my pedigree for oddity has been there from the start. My mother was declared dead at birth by her doctor, and often heard voices calling to her in the dead of night that no one else could hear. Her mother would periodically ring us up to discuss events in our lives about which she couldn't possibly have known. My father's people still share ghost stories about a family homestead that burned down mysteriously in the 1960s. Even my older brother has outré memories about events he says cannot possibly be true, and as a kid was kicked off the Tulsa city bookmobile for attempting to check out books about UFOs, bigfoot, and ESP. It's fair to say I was doomed - or destined - for weirdness from the start.

If the above listed circumstances had not been enough, I grew up in an area where neighbors whispered stories about a horrifically deformed Bulldog Man who stalked kids who "parked" on the Old North Road near my house. The state in which I was raised was rife with legends of bigfoots, deer women, and devil men. Even in my childhood household there existed a pantheon of mythological entities invented explicitly to keep me in line. If I was a good boy, The Repairman would leave me little gifts of Hot Wheels cars or candy. If I was being terrible, however, my father would dress in a skeleton costume, rise from the basement and threaten to drag me down into everlasting hellfire (evidently there was a secret portal in our basement.) There were monsters, monsters EVERYWHERE I looked in my childhood world. Given that I was told as a fledgling writer to write what I knew, how could anyone have been surprised that the first stories I wrote were filled with the supernatural?

"The Nightmare" by John Henry Fuseli (1781)

My formative years during the late sixties and early seventies took place at a strange juncture in our American cultural history. At the same time that we were loudly proclaiming the supremacy of scientific thought because we'd landed men on the moon, we were also in the midst of a counter cultural explosion of interest in astrology, witchcraft, ghosts, extra sensory perception, and flying saucers. Occult-related books were flying off the shelves as sales surged by more than 100% between 1966 and 1969. Cultural historians would come to refer to this is as the "occult boom," and its aftershocks would impact popular cultural for decades to come.

My first contact with tales of the supernatural were innocuous, largely sanitized for consumption by children. I vividly remember watching Casper the Friendly Ghost and the Disney version of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. I read to shreds numerous copies of both Where the Wild Things Are and Gus the Ghost. Likely the most important exposure for me was to the original Scooby Doo, Where Are You? cartoon which attempted to inoculate us from our fears of ghosts and aliens by convincing us that ultimately the monster was always just a bad man in a mask. (It's fascinating to me that modern incarnations of Scooby Doo seem to have completely lost this point and instead make all the monsters real.)

ABOVE: Although the original cartoon Scooby Doo, Where Are You? ran only for one season from 1969 to 1970, it remained in heavy reruns and syndication for decades. It is notable for having been a program that perfectly embodied the conflict between reason and superstition in popular culture, and was originally intended to provide children with critical thinking skills so they would reject the idea of monsters, ghosts, and the like. Ironically, modern takes on Scooby Doo have almost entirely subverted this idea and usually present the culprits of their mysteries as real monsters.

During that same time, television also introduced me to my first onscreen crush in the form of the beautiful and charming Samantha Stevens, a witch who struggles to not to use her powers while married to a frequently intolerant mortal advertising executive in Bewitched. The Munsters and The Addams Family gave me my first taste for "goth" living even before it would become all the rage in the dance clubs of the 1980s. Late night movies on TV would bring all the important horror classics of the past in my living room as Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, the Invisible Man, the Phantom of the Opera, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and Godzilla all became childhood friends. Over time the darkened castles, creaking doors, foggy graveyards, howling wolves, and ever present witches and vampires became so engrained in my psyche that today they remain the "comfort viewing" to which I retreat when I'm sick or in need of other distractions from modern life.

ABOVE: Elizabeth Montgomery starred in Bewitched (1964 - 1972) as Samantha Stephens, a witch who married "mortal" advertising executive Darren Stephens (played for the first five seasons by actor Dick York). Inspired by movies like I Married a Witch (1942) and Bell, Book and Candle (1958), it was a long running series that explored the complex relationship dynamics between those who possess magic and those who don't. Social commentators have referred to it as an allegory both for mixed marriages and also about the challenges faced by minorities, homosexuals, cultural deviants, or generally creative folks in a non heterogeneous community. It was also one of the first American television programs to portray witches not as worshippers of Satan, but simply as a group of people ostracized for their culture and their supernatural skills.

Even before I began elementary school, there was one piece of must-see gothic horror programming that I went out of my way to catch every day. Dark Shadows aired at 3:30 p.m. on our local ABC affiliate in Tulsa, Oklahoma which usually allowed me to catch most of it if I ran home from school (or even more if my mom or brother picked me up.) In theory it was a soap opera, but the show featured a regular parade of supernatural characters and themes. The lead was a 175 year old vampire named Barnabas Collins (played by Johnathan Frid), and the show revolved around his timeless pursuit of his lost love, Josette. It was also a program that regularly dealt with reincarnation, precognition, werewolves, time travel, witchcraft, and other occult themes. Though it regularly provoked criticism from religious groups about its content, it ran from June of 1966 until it's final cancellation in April of 1971. (I would discover it in the early 1970s as it ran in syndication.) Dark Shadows would spin off two feature-length movies based on the original, a series of tie-in novels, an excellent reboot series in 1991 (starring Ben Cross as Barnabas), and a positively embarrassingly awful movie directed by Tim Burton in 1991.

ABOVE: Johnathan Frid starred as Barnabas Collins, one of the leading characters of the original Dark Shadows television series. The influence of the series cannot be understated. In many ways Dark Shadows paved the way for the inclusion of supernatural elements in other soap operas of the 1970s and the 1980s, and was largely responsible for the explosion of romance novels featuring supernatural themes over the same time period.

While Dark Shadows was a favorite early television program for me, another show would prove not only to be a borderline obsession, but also a major influence on my career as a storyteller. Night Gallery (1969-1973) was a weekly anthology television show from Rod Serling, better known as the creator and host of the original Twilight Zone. Like Twilight Zone before it, Night Gallery was a deep and complex commentary on the human condition, but unlike its predecessor the outcomes for the characters almost always skewed towards the horrific and the truly outré. In "The Painted Mirror," an antiques dealer uses a magic painting to trap an enemy in the prehistoric past. Jack Cassidy plots to use astral projection to kill his romantic rival in "The Last Laurel" but accidentally ends up killing himself. In "Eyes" a young Stephen Spielberg directs Joan Crawford in a story about an entitled rich woman who plots to take the sight of a poor man. Week after week it delivered some of the best-written horror television of the early 1970s.

In retrospect I find it surprising that I was allowed to watch Night Gallery at all. I was very young while it was airing, and some of the content was dark and often quite shocking for its time. Nevertheless, I was so attached to the show that I'd throw a literal temper tantrum if I missed a single, solitary episode. If our family needed to go somewhere on an evening that Night Gallery was scheduled, either my parents would either have to wait until after it had aired before we left, or they'd make arrangements in advance with whomever we were visiting to make sure it was okay that I could watch Night Gallery there. I was, in a word, a fanatic.

ABOVE: Every segment of Night Gallery was introduced by series creator Rod Serling standing before a painting created explicitly for the series. Director Guillermo del Toro credits Serling's series as being the most important and influential show on his own work, even more so than the more famous Twilight Zone.

#horror #70s #occult #supernatural #television #writing

[grim-echoes]

Hey grim what do u think the totem boss (and other totems u see in the game) represents bc I'm dumb and still cant figure that shit out. Idk if u have written anything on it and I've missed it

This one's been tough for me to figure out, too. There's not anything about the Totem (or the part of Info Isle leading up to it) that evokes anything explicitly suggestive of something Jimmy has seen/experienced, and because Info Isle in itself is sort of a shitpost within the context of the game, I wouldn't blame anyone for not seeing anything thematically relevant in it.

What I have been able to glean is that there's a very clear connection between Jimmy in his current condition, and the idea of undeath. There's a lot of textual (and some visual) references in the game to rot: rotting meat; writhing, maggot-infested flesh; decaying matter. I imagine that's how Jimmy feels about his body, constantly in a state of dying and feeling his body wither and break down yet never achieving death. Zombies are like that, too. I think when it comes to the Totem's functionality, it's sort of like Jimmy's cancer—you kill one Info Guy, and eventually another takes its place. No matter how many times you kill them, they just keep coming back. The only way to stop them from clawing their way out of the grave again and again is to eliminate the source of the problem.

Considering the theory that Info Guy represents Jimmy's doctor(s), you could also read it as the equivalent to being medically comatose and kept on life support (something @redrobster mentioned to me), with the Totem being like the machines Jimmy is hooked up to.

The eyes also glow—kinda like those machines!

I also get heavy vibes of 70s - 80s Giallo flicks from the general area—to say Italian filmmakers were fond of supernatural horror is an understatement, especially where zombies were concerned. I like to think that if this was something inspired by Jimmy's external world, it was another one of Buck's movies (make no mistake, the man's a raging slut for Giallo).

The one thing that confused me the most was the association of the Totem with Lars in the Heart Prison. Every character's wing boss is meaningful to them in some shape or form (for example, the Mad Queen and Helga, Whisper Weaver and Buck, Mr Cat and Hitomi which is an obvious Sailor Moon reference), but the Totem and Lars...didn't make a lot of sense until I looked at it from the potential angle of, "the resurrection mechanic is equal to Lars' ability to bounce back from and take what life throws at him". Or, considering Lars likes video games, it's a little like Resident Evil—which is extra funny when you remember that part of Jimmy's idea of adulthood is playing violent, gory video games.

That's about all I've been able to come up with, no doubt there's something to it I'm missing that will blow my fucking mind when I realize, like with Grimclaw. Maybe someone else can contribute with an interesting take I haven't heard?

#jimmy and the pulsating mass #jimmy and the pulsating mass spoilers #jatpm #jatpm spoilers #analysis

[chooseyouovereveryone]

Brittana Analysis Part 1: Musical Choices (Main Songs)

So anyone who knows me will know I love Brittana a crazy amount, and I spend way too much time breaking down every tiny detail about them. I’ve written a fair few analyses about them on Reddit which people seem to enjoy, and the lovely @hopefulobjectmiracle suggested I posted them on here for people to read. I’ll no doubt add more as time goes on, but going to post up what I have for now. If anyone has any requests for analysis, my ask box is always open because I love doing these :) Happy reading! & congrats for making it through my essays.

Part 1 covers a music analysis of all their main songs and the meaning behind them. Part 2 will cover their smaller parts in group songs etc.

Me Against The Music

This one is less a lyrical analysis, because I don't think the song explicitly relates so much, more a contextual one. The Me Against The Music scene is a shared fantasy that Brittany and Santana have while under anaesthesia. What's telling is that the fantasy they have is an exact replica of the original music video between Madonna and Britney Spears, which is well known for it's heavy undertones of a same-sex relationship. The plot shows Britney chasing Madonna, with Madonna becoming increasingly more susceptible as the video goes on, until right at the end when Britney catches her and goes to kiss Madonna, who then disappears. It's a cat and mouse chase, a fight for power. With Brittany playing Britney, and Santana Madonna, this fantasy represents to me the way that Brittany is chasing Santana trying to break down her walls, and she gets close but just as she does so, Santana pulls back. In the original video Madonna disappears into thin air when Britney tries to kiss her, in the Glee version Santana is switched out for Britney, but the symbolism is the same and foreshadows the Brittana arc that we get in S2. Brittany always gets close to having Santana, but then Santana pulls away and at times she loses her. So for me, the significance in this is 1) the fact they both have a same-sex fantasy about each other and 2) how Brittany's subconscious is filled with the idea of feeling like she is chasing Santana but that every time she gets close, Santana is ripped away.

Landslide

This was a song chosen by Santana to tell Brittany how she feels about her. It may not be the most "obvious love song" choice to everyone but that works for two reasons. The first being that Santana was scared. This was a big move for her, so she certainly wasn't going to go all out and sing an obvious love song. She wanted something with subtlety, something with meaning for her and Brittany rather than for the whole Glee Club to pick up on. The second being that Santana "has the perfect song" instantaneously. From the way she doesn't need to think about it, it's clear that Landslide is already a song she associates with Brittany, and it's probably something she laid alone in her room listening to. Now she's ready to share that. It was a song that had meaning for them, but I do think lyrically it makes sense also. For me it's about Santana realising life is passing her by and that she needs to just be herself. Time makes you bolder is one of the most poignant statements in the song. The whole bit about "building my life around you" could be a double meaning. The first being she's built her life around this friendship she has with Brittany and she's afraid to tap into the relationship dynamic because doing so would inevitably alter the platonic side of things. The second being that she's built her life around this idea that she's straight and she's "normal" but she's now realising as time goes by she needs to be true to herself. I tend to think it's the latter, and that the meaning is around Santana realising she needs to let go now and just be true to herself and to Brittany before she wastes any more time. It's ironic that the next scene shows Brittany choosing Artie, which shows that Santana was already too late and the time had already passed her by. (thankfully that all worked out tho)

Songbird

In contrast to Landslide, Songbird is a very obvious love song. The song explicitly says "I love you" and you can tell by Santana's delivery how much she genuinely means that. Since this is a private performance for only Brittany, Santana is able to choose a song that overtly expresses her feelings. She doesn't have to mask it with subtlety because of the Glee Club, like she did with Landslide. While Landslide was about Santana to giving into her feelings and accepting a change within her, Songbird was the next step from that in freely expressing her love to Brittany. Santana says this in her own words before singing it. Some key lyrics beside the obvious "I love you's" that stick out are "for you, there'll be no more crying" which could relate to all the backwards and forwards Santana has done over the years (telling Britt she loves her, taking it back etc.) and times she possibly made Brittany cry, as well as the fact she has probably spent many years crying over this herself and wishing these feelings could go away, but now she's putting a stop to all of that. Following on from that "I feel that when I'm with you, it's alright, I know it's right" relates to Santana giving into all of those feelings that she's spent years pushing down about the love she has for Brittany being wrong, and really taking hold of her own self acceptance. "To you, I'll give the world. To you, I'll never be cold" is also very fitting for Brittana because it's well noted in the fandom how soft Santana is for Brittany, and how she's the one person she's not cold around. Lastly "I wish you all the love in the world, but most of all I wish it from myself" could relate to Artie in that she wants Brittany to be happy but mostly, she wants to be the one that gets to love her. I think we can all agree the lyrics, the meaning, the performance itself, the delivery from Naya were all *chefs kiss* in this song.

Cherish/Cherish

The song that Santana pays the God Squad to sing for Brittany. We don't actually see Santana choosing the song, but I think it's more likely that Santana picked it since she was paying for it, rather than the God Squad randomly picking one. If it was that kind of scenario where they picked for her, I feel Quinn would have picked the song, on the basis that it was meaningful for Brittany and Santana's relationship. I also imagine this is a song that Santana listened to back in the dark days when she was too afraid to be with Brittany in the way she desired. The lyrics talk a lot about wishing in the past tense. "you don't know how many times I've wished that I had told you, you don't know how many times I've wished that I could hold you" etc. These are likely all the kind of thoughts that Santana had back in the past, and there are also a lot of references to hidden love and hidden feelings within the song. 

If I Can't Have You

Okay so Santana might say that this song was about her love for fame, but I'm sorry, I don't believe her. I'm not discounting her wanting fame, but there's no way at least some of that song wasn't aimed at Brittany, just by the way she kept turning to her and gesturing at her. She was pretty much transfixed on her throughout the majority of the performance. But Brittana (Santana in particular) are generally very private with their relationship and in their declarations, so my theory? It was predominantly for Brittany but Santana got embarrassed around all the focus on them, so she gave the excuse about fame and told Brittany later who it was really for. No deeper analysis needed. If that song was Brittany, the lyrics apply to them easily, as they could with most relationships.

I Wanna Dance With Somebody

This one is simple. It's all in the lyrics. Mr Schue sets the assignment not only as a tribute to Whitney, but for the New Directions to express and explore what's going on with them. For Brittany, she just wants to dance with somebody who loves her, that person obviously being Santana. It's highlighted in the performance and how she pulls everyone up before Santana, and finally gets to Santana for the "with somebody who loves me" line, then at the end where she says Santana is her favourite to dance with. It could be that dancing and being happy with Santana is really her only concern at the moment, or it could be deeper than that. It could be that she is deflecting her deeper issues (the fact she is failing which she'd surely know by now) and as a result only wants to focus on dancing with Santana. The two loves in her life (the third being LT) meshed together and combined.

Mine

I did a whole deep analysis on the meaning behind this, because unlike the other songs this really doesn't fit contextually at all. It's a love song based around staying and holding on, and Santana chooses to sing this right before breaking up with Brittany. I never really understood that song choice, until I looked deeper into it. You can read that here if anyone wants to read it in more detail. If you don't want to read that though, in short, I think that Santana chose that song because when she made that choice to break up with Brittany, I think she can almost picture the future ahead of them and how eventually they are going to make it, they are going to be together, but right now she needs to break up with Brittany so that they actually get that happy ending that she can see. And that fits the whole last verse of the song where she's like "we're gonna make it now, I can see it now" etc, which otherwise doesn't make sense contextually when you're about to break up with someone. It's similar to what happens in the original video for Mine, where Taylor meets the love of her life in a cafe and she "sees" the whole future ahead of them (arguments included) as soon as they meet.

Make No Mistake (She's Mine)

Pretty self explanatory with this one because it's all in the lyrics (and the amazing delivery from Naya). She still loves Brittany and in her eyes Brittany belongs with her. It kind of links back to what I just said about Mine, in that I don't think Santana truly expected Brittany to move on. She told her she could because essentially she had to say that, but did she actually think Brittany would move on? I don't think so. I think she always thought breaking up with Brittany was needed to cement their future and that they'd end up better because of it, but then Sam put a spanner in the works which sent her straight back to Lima to fight for Brittany and stake her claim. Of course saying someone can move on and seeing it are two very different things. I really wish they would have kept the parallel version of that with Brittany/Santana/Elaine and that they kept Dancing On My Own in.

Valerie

This one is definitely more contextual than lyrical. Santana picked this number because it was meaningful to Brittany. It was the first number she choreographed, and so Santana learning Brittany's part of that routine and dancing it with Mike, was a way for her to spark something in Brittany that she was currently lacking and reignite her love for dance to remind her of herself. Clearly she chose to do a dance duet because it's Brittany, but it's poignant that she picked the first song that Brittany choreographed, and it was obviously meaningful to Santana too as her first solo. Although more contextual, the lyrics do carry meaning too. "Stop making a fool out of me, why don't you come on over Valerie" could refer to Santana wanting Brittany to get up and dance with her, while "I miss your ginger hair, and the way you like to dress" could relate to A) Santana missing Brittany in general and B) Santana missing the old care-free Brittany who loved to dance and wasn't consumed by MIT and math equations.

Hand In My Pocket/I Feel The Earth Move

Obviously this song was chosen for mash up purposes in line with artists they had to stick to, but I do think the song choice (chosen by Santana) were relevant to her proposal. The lyric "one hand in my pocket" is indicative of her hiding a ring. I really liked how Santana kept getting down on one knee mid performance (I feel like she was doing this teasingly to foreshadow what was to come rather than she was gonna propose mid song since clearly she had a big speech planned- but I love how every time she did it Brittany would get down as well ) and then all the further foreshadowing with the dragging of the chair that she wanted Brittany to sit in. It's not the most "romantic" of duets, but Brittany and Santana are very private so I feel like it made more sense for them to do a fun duet when it was in front of everyone. I do adore the bit where they're singing the "ooh baby when I see your face" etc. and they only have eyes for each other and look so utterly and adorably in love and happy. That bit really has my heart.

Wishin' and Hoping'

A song about Santana from Brittany's perspective which makes a welcome change. The performance itself is obviously a dream sequence when Brittany is thinking about heaven (because being with Santana makes her feel like she's in heaven and angel wings remind her of her ), but I think the lyrics fit well with the whole narrative we see in S6 of Brittany doing a heavy bulk of the wedding planning and trying to make sure everything is perfect for Santana. This is something we later see as causing her stress in the wedding episode, when she is so nervous and obsessed with it being perfect that she becomes a bit of a bridezilla obsessed with superstition. There were also cut lines from Brittany about everything having to be perfect, and though they weren't canon in the end, it's clearly the angle they were going with. This song links to that because it's all about how ultimately just being yourself and showing the person you love that you care is enough, and it almost foreshadows the conversation that Santana later has with Brittany where she says they don't need any of the traditions or the perfect planning because they create their own luck. They love each other, and that's enough. The performance has Brittany singing about wishing and hoping and planning, but it's Blaine, Artie and Sam who sing "all you gotta do is hold her and kiss her and love her and show her that you care", so it's almost as if they are assuring Brittany. Also pointing out the part of the performance where they sing about planning, and Brittany points at her stomach, one of many S6 clues put in there to hint that Brittana will have a family together in the future ❤️

Our Day Will Come

It's another straight forward one that doesn't really take much analysis. It symbolises how the day has finally come for them to get married and start the rest of their lives together, after such a long, hard journey getting there. One of the key lyrics is "no one can tell me that I'm too young to know", which indicates that someone has tried to tell them they're too young to get married. We know that Kurt said this to them, but since Kurt is singing in this duet with them and he apologised, it may be someone else. Santana's dad maybe? Either way, whoever said it to them, they show in this duet that they are certain about their commitment and the future ahead of them. The song also has the lyrics "I love you so, and you love me" which is repetitive of what Santana said to Brittany earlier in the day before they got married when she saw Brittany in her wedding dress. It symbolises what the ending of their whole arc is about. That after a whole lot of doubt, pain and a long road to get there, they are both finally happy together and content in the love they have in each other, and very proud of that love. Santana in particular I feel always doubted Brittany's love for her. Even when Brittany said yes to marrying her, Santana couldn't believe it. On their wedding day, all those doubts are finally gone, and it's actually Brittany who's doing the worrying. The worrying that Brittany does takes us right back to the beginning of Brittana, when Brittany had her own doubts and fears in the relationship because Santana just seemed like something out of reach for her, that she'd never fully get to have. It's like she has a moment of panic, that something could mess this up the way it used to get messed up all those years ago. Our Day Will Come symbolises the end of all of those doubts, and the start of their new lives together.

#brittana #brittany and santana #brittanalysis #brittana analysis #glee analysis #santana and brittany #santana lopez #brittany pierce #glee santana #glee brittana #glee brittany #brittanypierce #santanalopez #brittany s. pierce #glee songs #brittana songs

[astringofmadhousefloozies]

Ghost Wedding: The Remix

So, uh, here’s the first actual fanfic I’ve written, and the first full length piece I’ve written in literal years. I wrote it for my own amusement, after weeks of eating up various bits of TWST lore and scenes and going “But, how would the whole Ghost marriage story have gone with a Yuu who was more like me a goth bisexual disaster?

What follows is a series of vignnetes, starring a Yuu who’s the only girl in NRC, with deeply questionable taste, told in the second person. Please let me know if you enjoyed it, I crave positive feedback and like when other people enjoy the things I like.

Contend warnings for blood, body horror, emeto, coarse language and pretentious word choices.

You've been here a while. En-Arr-See wasn't precisely a safe place, what with your dorm being a condemned hellpit of tetanus and black mold, and powerful magicians having mutagenic psychotic breaks only curable by kicking their ass so hard it flies out their mouth. But certainly, it wasn't boring, and you'd made friends. You had your scrappy ginger Ace in the hole; your serious mamas-boy Deuce; your funny little not-a-cat Grim. Hell, you even have your Horned Boy, he of the poison-coloured eyes that never seem to leave your face when you talk about fun things like books and music and the moral imperative of dissolving the monarchy. And, you were on speaking terms with a good chunk of others. So, when your favourite little robot came up to Crowley, yelling something about ghosts kidnapping his brother, you took his hand and said, "Ortho, show me what's going on." After all, you won't let anything happen to Idia. You have plans for him yet.

~*~*~*~

Some beauties might launch a thousand ships, and in your (objectively correct) opinion, while Idia's beauty wouldn't lead to a ten year siege of Troy, he'd certainly convince everyone attending Whitby Goth Weekend to haul off into the sea with a beat of his lashes. The first time you'd seen him, you'd simply stared in slack-jawed awe. He was luminescent; even leaving behind the fiery hair that flashed and swelled behind him, his eyes were a bright clear amber, and his skin translucent, with his own blue veins serving as the detailing in the marble. Add in the deeply circled eyes and the bluish discolouration of the lips, and the figure he presented was arresting, astounding, more beautiful and unreal than anything you'd conjured up after staying up all night reading ghost stories. "Magnificent," you'd said to yourself, and if your friends gave you a strange look, well, fuck 'em. They have no sense of beauty or taste.

Unfortunately, the intensity of your gaze proved too much for him, and he'd fled. You'd had no time to pursue the object of your infatuation either, class would soon begin, and Grim was yelling. Later, then. There's all the time in the world to ask after the fine young man with the lamplight eyes.

~*~*~*~ "Oh no," you said when Ortho showed you the video. "She's really hot."

Grim gawked and Crowley raised an eyebrow. "Is that what you take from this?"

"You're the one with an all-boys school. What's a girl like me to do when a pretty girl pops up?"

"She's a ghost, Yuu."

"That's the best part."

"My brother-"

"I'll help you, dear." You set a hand on Ortho's shoulder. "He must be so frightened, right? I'll do what you need." 

Before anyone could say anything else, a racket started up outside, and things got a little busy.

~*~*~*~ "Do you mind if I sit?"

Idia looked up at you. starting at the intrusion. His face was awash in blue from the conjured screens around him, his lips gone black. "...Why?"

"Tables are full. I'd rather not eat standing." He didn't explicitly say no, so you settled across the table, a few chairs down. He made a fascinating tableau as you picked at your lunch, flicking through and typing at the screen. Lines of code, schematics for all sorts of tech, occasional comics all flit across the pane of light in a million shades of blue. Until...

"Could you pretend I'm a bug?"

You squinted. "What." What the actual hell did he mean by that.

"Pretend I'm not here. I'm beneath notice."

You stop for a moment and smile, faint enough that he can't see the devil in it. "You want me to treat you like an insect."

"Yes." Hard to see in the light, there was a small twitch by his temple, a barely perceptible shake in his long fingered hands.

"Alright." With that, you slide down the table to directly across from him, settle you chin in your hands, and stare at him unblinkingly.

"?!?!?" The squawk he made was undignified and deeply, deeply endearing. "What are you doing?"

"You asked me to treat you like an insect." You smile at him, full of mischief and good cheer. "So I'm looking at you very closely. I'm taking in every sweet action, and delighting that the day has conspired to put something so wonderful in front of me."

Oh, who would have thought that this blue boy could turn so pink! As he pulled his hood up, you chuckle and move back to your tray. "I'll let you be," you say, and did indeed, for the amount of time it took him to close up shop and flee back to the depths of Ignihyde. When you waved at him as he went by, he nearly tripped in his haste.

~*~*~*~ "Stop laughing."

The boys did not listen.

"May others show you the kindness you've shown Idia if you're in a bind."

"You're just mad because she's gonna kill your-"

"Grim? Shut the fuck up. Now; who's helping."

After a chorus of 'no's, you drag your fingers through your hair. "I hate all of you so fucking much right now... Ortho, your ideas?"

Ortho's idea was deeply enticing but Crowley would not have the school leveled, and thankfully, the two of them threatened and guilted the others into helping. You'd have to say thank you later, but god, then Crowley might think you actually liked him instead of just finding him funny, and who needed that in their life?

"Alright, so... A plan?"

~*~*~*~ As badly as he might've liked to have escaped, there was only one empty seat in the class, and it was by him. So, Idia threw his hood up, along with his headphones, and started blatantly ignoring you.

"Idia." Silence.

"Idia." A faint grunt and he turned away from you.

"Shroud," you intoned in the most sepulchral tone you could, setting you hand in his field of vision. He whipped his head at you, the fire in his eyes nothing compared to the changing colours on his head.

"WHAT."

You raise your hands in supplication, trying to still your racing heart. "I'm sorry dude. I wanted to ask where you got your screens?"

"My screens?" His eyes flicked back to his schoolwork, hovering in the air. "I made them myself."

Your face lit up in awe. "That's amazing dude, holy shit. How'd you do that? It's a damn miracle."

"Ah... well..." Two sides warred within him - pride that someone recognized his tech genius, and his deep seated anxiety that anyone trying to be nice was just fucking with him. Fortunately for both of you, pride won out. "It's certainly something complicated for a magicless normie like you to understand." He raised a questioning eyebrow. "Do you really want to hear?"

You fixed him with a level look. "Never call me that again. Now, start like I'm five and go from there."

He stared back at you, and you stared right back. "Indulge me, Idia."

He gave you a smile full of sharp, crooked teeth, and while you tried to still the palpitations the sight of them gave you, he started with very basic theory, and went from there.

~*~*~*~ "You are not going to seduce the ghost bride, Yuu."

"Why the hell not?"

"You're a girl?"

"You're kinda plain."

"You're fat."

"She's probably straight?"

You point in turn at Leona, Azul, Vil, and Kalim. "So?, no I'm plenty hot actually, get fucked, and... Okay, That is a good point. But Kal, you have no idea how many straight girls I've managed to kiss."

"I think you'd die, Shrimpie," Floyd said as he flopped heavily over your shoulders, giggling as you attempted to untangle yourself. "And you're short."

"Yeah, but you have no idea how hot I am when I'm actually try- Shut up, Vil - Like, I clean up so good you guys. I even made a suit a couple weeks ago -"

"That's convenient? Weirdly so?"

"I found suiting that wasn't moth eaten and decided to have fun, at least-" You finally escape from the noodly arms of Leech the Wild One. "Let me suit up and show you? I can be so sexy, you guys. Come on."

In answer to the confused silence, you took your keys out of your pocket and chucked them at Deuce's confused face. "Adeuce! Grim! It's on the vanity in my room!"

"But ghosts?"

"Say you're clearing out things so that we won't bother... No, actually just go the balcony way."

"You can't unlock the balcony from the outside without a lockpick, it only locks from the inside."

A moment of silence. "Lilia, what the fuck?"

He shrugged. "I moved everything two inches to the left once to see if you noticed."

"I wasn't imagining things?!?"

This'll take a moment to sort out, and the clock is ticking...

~*~*~*~ You truly liked the woods! Green and quiet. Full of things that crawled and scurried, little friends that squeaked and croaked and hissed. The occasional precious treasure of a small bone or edible mushroom. So, you were quite surprised when you found Idia, miserable, crouched beside a fallen log.

"... Skipping gym?" Going by the uniform, the most likely answer. "Or did you finally realize that outside doesn't always bite?"

He scowled at you, and you stifled a giggle when you realized that yes, he was actually covered in bug bites. "They should replace this with a mall."

"You hate malls. Too many people." You reached out a hand, and pulled him to his feet. Idly, you wondered if he'd let you try and fit your hands around his waist, but thought better of asking.

"Game stores are alright. No one bothers you in one, or in arcades. And." He stopped, as he brushed the dirt from his legs, before continuing in a mumble you only got the gist of.

"Me and Ortho will be your big, scary guard dogs?"

"... Who'll notice me with both of you?"

"Everyone." Because he's the most beautiful person in the room, and they'd be mad not to look. "Because you show up so rarely. It makes it all the more noticeable when you are out, so everyone pays attention." You held out a hand. "I'll take you out the back way so you don't get in trouble."

No dice. He held his hands in close. "I'll just follow."

"Alright. Why'd you go out this far in the woods with no map, anyways?"

"There's no cell service..."

"Clearly, we need to turn your blood into a wi-fi signal, instead of liquid sugar."

He huffed, but he did follow you, and was actually approaching a good mood once you escorted him through the Ramshackle gates.

~*~*~*~ "Hey, what did I miss?" It took entirely too long to get a single lock of hair to to a perfect insouciant flip over your forehead, even with the eternally stylish Sam's help.

"She's slapped everyone who went to propose, and when she does you're paralyzed for 500 years."

"Christ," You say as you adjust a pin on your lapel. "We have to get Idia back, he'll get what? A week before he gets the hand."

"She's so fussy!" yelled Grim. "You have to sing and have a dog and she hates poison flowers."

"Clearly, she has no taste." Honestly,you thought her taste was just fine, what with thinking Idia was the finest of the bunch. He was very princely, if your tastes ran to exquisite corpses with the personality of a neurotic goblin. "Who wouldn't want poison blossoms?" Tie? No tie? Tie? No tie? No tie. And unbutton. Leona wishes he had this chest.

"We know she has no taste because she chose Idia."

You chose to ignore that, and clapped. "Okay, Round Two!"

~*~*~*~ The truest tragedy of this school was that it was all boys. Not that boys were bad by any means, you certainly enjoyed them, but... girls. Tall girls! Short girls! Busty girls! Petite girls! Butch girls! Femme girls! Fat girls! Girls!

So many kinds of girls, and you, in all of your plump and handsome glory, were the only girl in an entire high school. Welcome to hell.

You accepted no gifts that came unvetted. You had friends ward the everloving bajeezus out of your dorm room. Grim was more than happy to test your food and drink for tampering, but it was exhausting. You at least knew that any food you ate at the Mostro Lounge was clear, but that was only because everyone was too damn scared of the eternally hovering Floyd to try anything while there.

 So, you eat a lot of vending machine snacks.

You've been standing there for fifteen minutes, trying to figure out the best combo with your limited funds, when someone coughed behind you.

"??? Oh, hey Idia." You stepped aside while he shuffled up to the glass and peered in. "Anything to recommend? I got this." You waved your bill in the air.

He only looked at you a moment before looking back at the machine. "That won't get you much."

"Ah, don't I know it. But it's all I got."

He still wasn't looking directly at you, but a smile started to creep across his face. "Get your bag."

"Wha-" He was already tapping out a beat with the keypad, blue sparks flying from his fingertips, the machine starting to groan and shiver. With a final note, the snack machine gave a final heaving shudder - and every single snack fell to the bottom of the machine.

He was so proud as he smiled at you, reaching down and pulling a single bag of gummies from the spilled mess. "You first."

And, as you stuffed your schoolbag and pockets full of thieved goods, praising his genius, his cleverness, his skills, he just glowed.

~*~*~*~ "I guess you were ahead of the game, Yuu. She hates that no one's dressed up properly. And..."

"And? You raised an eyebrow at Ace.

"You do look stylish. But you need backup."

"Of course. You'll all rescue people while I distract her!”

"But what if she slaps you?"

"You'll step in if that happens. But we have to dress you all up."

"Did you makes spares?"

"No." Tragic, everyone would look so cute in summerweight green wool. "Let's ask Sam, he's got everything."

~*~*~*~ "Okay, Ortho, you see?" You held his back to your chest, and raised your hand in front of his face, palm away from him. As you wiggled your fingers, you could see movement on the back of your hand. "Those are tendons. Those, and the muscles, are what move the bones, make your hands move. If you put your fingers here," you say as you place his fingertips over the moving lines, "you should be able to feel it."

"I do! They go up and down. What's the popping?"

"That's my faulty joints, we'll cover those another day. Now," you flipped your hand over, and moved his fingers to your wrist. "You feel that?"

"That is your pulse! It's not as string as it should be."

"I'm not always in the best of health. So, Ortho. My hand moves by muscles and tendons when I think of it. My blood moves through my body, one beat at a time, and you can feel it. Right?"

"Right."

"You," you say, as you take Ortho's other hand. "Your hand moves by motors and servos, when you think about it. Electricity and magic moves through your body, in beats so fast we can't perceive it, and it's as measurable as my pulse."

"... Because I am a robot."

"Because you are a bit different. But we're both alive, we're both real, just in different ways." You turn to look at Ortho directly, and he looks back at you with yellow eyes that are actual, real lamps. "Don't let anyone ever say you're not real, or alive, or good enough, just because you're different."

And though you can't see it, you can feel Idia smiling from the corner of his room.

~*~*~*~ Alright. No more time for memories, only the here and now. You've got a heart full of love, a pocket full of ring, and a head full of stupid. You're as prepared as anyone else who went in. Start on your left foot, and...

"Hello? Excuse me?" You make a cursory knock at the doorframe before stepping in. "I heard there was a wedding."

The bride - Eliza - whirled on you, and stopped. She was even more of a vision in person, airy translucence and fine, sweet features currently arranged in confusion. "Ah- Yes! I'm getting married to my darling Prince Idia! Right away, so-"

Not if I have my way about it, you thought to yourself as you arranged yourself in a perfect bow, one hand behind your back. You pretended not to notice Idia trussed up with rope, but you filed the sight away for later. "How wonderful. I wish you only happiness. But it must wait."

Before she could get her hand ready, you straightened and fixed her with your best smile. "My dearest princess, I cannot let this happen until I dance with the most beautiful person in this room. It would be improper to do so with a newlywed, and I cannot know peace until I dance. Would you be so kind, my fair princess?"

She was still baffled. "Aren't you a girl?"

You keyed up the brightness. "I am, and I dance very well. Would you indulge me, my dear?"

You could see her considering it. "You... are rather princely. Can you lead?"

"Of course. May I?" Again with the bow, and to your delight, she returned with a flawless curtsy. Hand in hand, you began.

~*~*~*~ It was delightful, to dance with this silly ghost girl. Everywhere your bodies touched, from her hand in yours to what would have been a fine chest, but was instead a clean and elegant ribcage festooned with pearls, heat seeped away and left only a chill as cold as clay. Her footwork was flawless, considering she no longer had feet, and she was so easy to chat with. She asked you about your dog (none currently, but you'd love to have one, and there was Grim in the meantime), your singing, (little voice to speak of, but that was what vocal coaches were for), and why you wanted to dance with her (because when would the chance ever come again? Unless fairest Eliza considered her for forever and a day.)

"But what of dear Idia?" She'd almost looked towards where Idia no longer was, having been unknotted long ago, but you drew her back in before she could notice the chaos around her.

" 'Dear Idia', though as beautiful as the moon in the sky, has cold feet, my love. He's afraid of dying. But I? I'd cherish you for all of eternity." You leaned in closer. "I am not afraid of dying, beloved. To journey with you through realms beyond mortal reach. I can think of nothing more exciting than to cross the barrier to the other side, hand in hand with you. In the words of a fine sir from my home, 'to die by your side/the pleasure, the privilege is mine'. Please, please consider me, please..."

Here's how it should have gone: She said yes, and you put the ring on her finger, and all was well. But you'd awakened such a sweet hunger in her, she could not wait for propriety. Instead, she grasped your face and kissed you with the passion of five hundred years search, found.

~*~*~*~ It was so pleasant at first, that you couldn't help but return it. When had anyone ever kissed you with such passion? But quickly, the chill began to overtake you. It could have been bearable, but after that was pain. You started to shake, uncontrollably, as every nerve in your body was scraped away with a rusty blade, and as you weakly tried to push away, as blood began to flow from your eyes, your mouth, every pore and orifice, she still would not let go. All you could think was it hurts it hurts it hurts hurts hurts hurts hurts and, as you slipped to a grey place beyond where pain could touch you, you barely noticed the cacophony around you, or something hurtling towards the two of you from the corner of your eye.

Something blue.

~*~*~*~ When you finally woke up, through a drugged and painful haze, you couldn't tell where you were. When you jolted up, the pain of it sending you into a nauseated fit of blood-flecked coughing, a familiar yelp sounded, and you turned to see Idia, little the worse for wear.

"You're up, uh..." He fumbled something onto the table, behind his back. "I."

You just looked. At him, at the surroundings. A hospital bed, with gifts and flowers (most filched from the wedding venue, but someone had stuck Jade's poison blossom into a vase and set it in the far corner). Idia was the only one present, seeing as it was the middle of the night.

"Ortho's getting things you might need. I... I hate hospital scenes..."

"Hurt's over.” You tried to settle yourself more comfortably, failing miserably. “Here comes the comfort." You reached out a hand, as he looked anywhere in the room but you.

"Idia." Silence.

"Idia." More silence.

"Shroud." He hesitantly placed his hand in yours, tinting pink as you pulled the sleeve up. The sight of it made you gasp. His fine wrist, so small even you could put your fingers around it, was mottled with deep bruising, blacks and purples set so deep into the skin that there was crusted blood on the surface, despite being unbroken. It was so, deeply, incredibly...

Beautiful. It was all you could do, not to press your lips to his wrist and taste his pulse as it flitted under his skin. To clean the blood away with your own tongue and cover the marks that your hungry ghost princess had made with your own teeth. Not hers. Yours.

Really, no wonder you'd been so enchanted with Eliza. You're cut of the same cloth.

"It must hurt."

He jerked his hand away, making you both wince. "What the hell is wrong with you? They only reason you're not dead is everyone pouring so much healing magic into you that it exhausted almost everyone. I." You could see flickers and flashes of orange sparking along the full length of his hair. "I'm not worth dying for. Why?"

What do you tell him? That it was the right thing to do? That you wanted to prove that you could woo a pretty girl? That you didn't want him dead? That you were a possessive bitch that couldn't stand the idea of someone else having him, even if unwilling on his part? All were true, but what do you say?

It proved a moot point, as when you opened your mouth to say something, anything, something shifted within you, and the only thing Idia received was a gout of blood square in his face.

~*~*~*~ After you'd slept, you reached for your phone in the thin morning light. Your friends where texting well wishes and condolences, and explanations of what happened after you went down (It seemed Idia had tackled Eliza clean off of you, and after some chaos she ran off with her retainer, rending this entire day moot). Even more interestingly, you found a text from an unknown number:

- I'm still mad at you.

You huffed to yourself, and after a bit of thought, start to text back.

- Dude I'm so sorry about the uh. blood puke. - I'll pay for cleaning - Also you know, you could have just asked for my number a long time ago? - Like a normal person? - Who doesn't break into phones to steal said numbers while I was unconscious next to you, what the fuck dude - That's not what this is about though. - You've got every right to be mad - That whole day was traumatizing, and you didn't deserve any of it - I'd rather sort this out in person but if text is easier for you right now we can do that - One last thing though

You stopped, and thought Do I actually do this? and went what the hell.

- I still need that dance I went in to get from you

#twisted wonderland #twst fic #twisted wonderland fanfiction #ghost wedding #my writing

[geekgirles]

A Scorned Lover

This is an analysis on Creek’s character in @tipolover22 ‘s fanfic Betrothed (an Arranged Marriage! AU). Please, keep in mind that this analysis contains important spoilers of the fic, so if you haven’t read it, I’d suggest you do it before reading this. 

And with that, let’s begin.

The reason behind this analysis is, basically, that I love writing papers on characters with complex personalities, hidden intentions, and twisted reasons for their actions. And @tipolover22 ’s depiction of Creek in Betrothed has potential for all those points.

If you’ve read Betrothed (which I’d recommend you do before reading, since it’s not going to be spoiler free), then you’re certainly aware of Creek’s role in the story. The simplest way to describe his character so far would be “love rival”, or as Branch put it in chapter 10, “ […] He was made for the sole purpose of being a pain in his arse.”

Of course, if it were that simple, I wouldn’t be doing an analysis on his character, as much as I love a good love triangle (especially when I know for sure which pairing is going to be endgame). 

So let’s dive in into Creek’s portrayal, shall we?

To understand a person’s motivation, we must know their past, the reasons that once forged said motivation.

In Creek’s case, he had everything he could’ve ever dreamed of before the arrival of the Forest trolls: he was a valued member of Troll Village, he had a close bond with the Snack Pack, and, most importantly, he was Poppy’s one and only. His life could not be better.

But that all changed the day Poppy agreed to marry Branch. 

Judging by the flashback from chapter 3, not even in a million years could have Creek imagined losing Poppy to someone else, even if that someone else was, at that point in time, the rest of the Valley Kingdom. And I’m saying this because in the previous chapter, that is to say, chapter 2; the Rainbow trolls seemed to be aware of the upcoming royal wedding, even if they weren’t sure if it was true or not. Creek was also aware of it, but he never connected the dots about Poppy marrying someone else–in spite of the dire times they were facing–, until she broke the news to him herself.

Denial or obliviousness? Only time will tell.

It’s easy to understand why he’s so bitter towards Branch, even at the beginning of the story. 

However, the thing is, he was never disrespectful towards Branch up until chapter 10. No. Every time they interacted Creek treated Branch with relative respect. Even if their interactions were enough to make Branch dislike him based on what the guru talked to him about.

So you might be wondering, if Creek had just lost the love of his life to someone who didn’t even treat Poppy fairly, then why didn’t he show signs of hostility before?

If you ask me, I believe that is because he thought he still had Poppy’s heart until she told him to move on. The one time he showed disdain towards Branch before that was when he told Poppy “He doesn’t deserve you.” Back in chapter 7.

And back then, as painful as it is to admit, he was right. Branch didn’t deserve Poppy then. He was rude to her, he ignored her, he never tried getting along with her, not even once. Of course Creek would be ticked off at the sight of losing his beloved to someone who didn’t value her half as much as he did!

But why didn’t he confront Branch about it? I have several possible reasons, in fact.

This one is obvious; if he ticked off Branch, especially pre-character development Branch, he was in for a world of pain.

He still had a façade to maintain. If he let it drop, he could lose credibility among the village, and with Poppy, pretty quickly.

This is where my mind goes crazy: because, maybe, he believed that if Branch and Poppy never got along, then she would either ditch her husband for him, or ask for a divorce. Either way, Creek wins.

Based on that last theory, as frustrating as it was to witness his love interest in a marriage that didn’t lead anywhere, it was exactly what he needed to get Poppy back! As I see it, Creek was patiently buying his time until the day came that Poppy couldn’t take it anymore, where he’d step in to sweep her off her feet one more time.

What he didn’t count on, however, is that, not only Branch would actually try to please Poppy for the sake of their marriage, but that he, too, would fall in love with her, hence, becoming active love rivals. 

And if we add to the equation that Poppy was warming up to her husband as well… Things certainly spiraled out of control for Creek.

The foundation of my theory is actually Creek’s last line in chapter 13: he expected a divorce, maybe even a war. Whatever it took to have Poppy back. 

(This isn’t written down word by word, but you get the gist).

Having Branch as a love rival made things all the more exasperating for the guru. The possibility of never getting back together with Poppy was now more tangible than ever! Which led to him becoming some sort of antagonist, although I believe he is still far from being the fanfic’s Big Bad.

Ever since Branch fell for Poppy and did his best to make her happy, something that didn’t go unnoticed by Creek, his world started to crumble little by little. And the day Poppy actually refused to kiss him (chapter 13), he was finally forced to see the truth, even if Poppy didn’t know it yet, he had lost her forever. She was no longer his, but Branch’s.

Unfortunately, that realisation has only made him more bitter, instead of allowing him to let go.  

As of chapter 19, Creek’s negative emotions had finally caught up to him, beginning to consume him. Now he’s as grey as he feels. And his feelings for Poppy have become a double-edged sword. 

He now uses what he knows about Poppy as leverage against Branch, knowing of the consequences the prince’s actions could bring to his marriage. And even if he can no longer have Poppy, watching the one “responsible” for his distress losing everything, everything that once was his, is enough for Creek.

But, despite all this, I still believe hope for Creek is not lost. 

Despite the trouble his actions have caused for Poppy and Branch, he’s portrayed as being almost as much of a victim as the royal couple. 

It was explicitly mentioned in chapter 19 that Creek has got abandonment issues originated from growing up as an orphan because his and Cybil’s mother had them too late in her life. Given that established character trait –which I’d bet my right arm he hasn’t shared with anyone besides Cybil or, perhaps, another close friend of his–, I’d say it is safe to assume that is exactly what he’s going through when it comes to his current situation.

He feels Poppy abandoned him, instead of realising there’s nothing else she could’ve done to keep her people safe and her relationship. But because Poppy is still the object of his affections, he blames Branch for his misfortune as a result of his bitterness and jealousy.

This is a very deep portrayal of Creek, if I may say so myself. And one whose roots make a lot of sense.

The two times in his life he’s been “abandoned” were because of reasons that were out of his control: his mother’s declining health and the predators from the forest.

In Creek’s eyes, he’s not at fault for anything! Then why must he be the one suffering?! And, to be honest, till chapters 10-11, he was right; losing Poppy wasn’t his fault. He shouldn’t have had to suffer like he did.

What I’m trying to say with this is that his portrayal hints on a future redemption. Of course, I could be wrong. I don’t know when it’ll happen, how it’ll happen, or if he’ll do something selfish, and stupid, and horrible before he finally sees the error of his ways (perhaps that’ll be this universe’s version of his betrayal?). But I do believe he’ll change for the better, maybe even with a certain Glitter troll by his side ;)

Guess we’ll just have to wait and see what @tipolover22 has in store for us. And I, for one, can’t wait ;)

#trolls #dreamworks trolls #trolls analysis #trolls fanfiction #betrothed #Creek #Poppy #Branch #Broppy #Guy Diamond #Cybil #character analysis

[northamptoncouplestherapy]

The Top Five Relationship Books For Couples In Crisis

Let’s face it, our media and culture are awash in self-help, be-happy, romanticized relationship advice; knowing where to go to get support and research-backed tools can be daunting. So this week (as promised), I sat down and compiled a list of my favorite top five resources for couples in crisis. Again and again, these are the materials I steer people to when their heart is hurting and they’re longing for more. Because while your relationship is unique, specific issues that you struggle with are probably not.

My field, marriage and family therapy, is in the middle of a renaissance, with thinkers like John Gottman, Stan Tatkin, and Brent Atkinson paving the way for deeper connection, secure functioning (regardless of your past), and healing from betrayal.

And given the current national shortage of couples therapists, it’s more important than ever that you have some tools that you can turn to independently.

So if I was stranded on a desert island with my partner (or at home locked down in the throws of a pandemic) and we were steeped in gridlock and negative sentiment, here are the top five resources I’d want to have packed in my bag, to set things right:

5) Codependent No More, Melody Beattie

It took me decades to finally crack the cover of this modern classic and New York Times bestseller. As a professional, I was skeptical and wrongly assumed it was another pop-psychology self-help book. But when I finally got around to reading it, I was blown away by how helpful, practical and vital this book is. If you struggle with setting compassionate but firm boundaries, if you wonder whether someone else’s problem is your problem and have lost sight of your own life in the face of their struggles, this book will offer you immense guidance and support.

4) The Three Faces of Victim, Lynn Forest

This online article is required reading for all new couples beginning therapy with me. Based on a diagram developed by a well-respected psychiatrist and teacher of Transactional Analysis named Stephen Karpman, it explains the “Victim Triangle.” In a nutshell, this article will help you determine your default position when navigating relationship challenges. Are you prone to rescuing? Do you collapse into victimhood? Or are you more likely to resort to blame and persecutory actions? Regardless of where you start, what is essential to comprehend is that we all are vulnerable to inhabiting each of these roles and that they have the propensity to become “shame generators” and perpetuate dysfunctional dynamics.

3) Your Brain on Love, Stan Tatkin

An in-depth audio romp on attachment theory and brain science as seen through the lens of Stan Tatkin, Founder of the Psychobiological Approach to Couples Therapy (PACT). In this fantastic audiobook, Tatkin guides us through his proven principles and practices for building enduring security and commitment between couples, family members, and others that we love. His ideas are a welcome reprieve from our me-centered and autonomy-focused culture. Touting values, social justice, and interconnection, no relationship library is complete without this audiobook.

2) Daring Greatly, Brené Brown

Yes, this book is not a “relationship” book. Yes, this book is not written explicitly for couples. But I wholeheartedly love this book, and for me, it was a game-changer. Perhaps more than anyone, Brown has taught me how to love well. That “clear is kind.” That values and courage are indispensable tools in the psychotherapy office. That the wholehearted sit side-by-side Gottman’s Masters of Marriage. And it was my certification in Brown’s Daring Way™ curriculum that inspired me to write John Gottman and Brené Brown on Running Headlong Into Heartbreak, the Gottman Institute’s number 1 blog in 2019. This book should be required reading for all humans.

1) Developing Habits for Relationship Success, Brent Atkinson

If I had to pick one book to give all couples, it would be Developing Habits for Relationship Success by Brent Atkinson. As the Founder of the PEX method (Pragmatic Experiential Method for Improving Relationships), Atkinson has created a manual that will give you everything you need to get unstuck and move forward regardless of your circumstances. This book is required reading for all NCCT clients, and we consider it so essential we give a copy of it to every couple that attends NCCT for a private retreat or intensive. What makes the PEX approach so unique is that even one member of a couple can make use of it. So if you have a partner who refuses to go to couples therapy or won’t accept influence from you regardless of how skillful you are, the tools offered in this book are critical. Atkinson was the first to teach me about the importance of standing up skills. And not just why they are essential, but how to stand up well. He normalizes core differences. He proposes that we can always get further when we avoid defaulting to a perception of overall blame of our partner. In this sense, his ideas align beautifully with Brené Brown, who encourages us to assume people are doing the best they can, even when what they offer up is inadequate. And if that is not enough, this book, more than any other resource I know, will give you a plethora of exercises, concrete tools, and even audio clips (to listen to when you are freaking out). There is no other book comparable to it, and again and again, our clients tell us it is the most helpful thing they have ever read.

In summary, you can access many excellent tools from home with the click of a few keys on your laptop, and in turn, acquire an abundance of skills to shift problematic relationship dynamics without ever setting foot in a therapist’s office. Don’t get me wrong, couples therapy can be beneficial, and often it is the best way to move things along farther and faster. But having just finished offering my signature digital course, Crisis to Connected, I can assure you that we are all capable of growing and changing and that there are myriad ways to accomplish that.

#relationship counseling #couples counseling #marriage crisis #relationships

[airlock]

so, while I believe I’ve made my stance reasonably clear wrt defending edelgard, I also rapidly find myself annoyed by the slice of the Fire Emblem Three Houses fandom which is bent on swinging that pendulum the other way and accrediting her character far below all proper merits. perhaps it’s high time I dedicate that concentrated manic/spiteful energy to another long analytical text post

thus, the topic of today’s blathering on this blog shall be this: the ending of Crimson Flower, the frequent interpretations on the ways it’d secretly suck for everyone, and, without claiming that it wouldn’t suck (because it would), which of these interpretations simply don’t hold up to less motivated scrutinity

-Thesis: Edelgard can’t/won’t actually purge Such Individuals Who Carry A Snakelike Stride To Negotiate Spaces That Are Void Of Light

one of Edelgard’s most notorious points of discussion is her alliance with Fódlan’s baddest, flattest dudes. more charitable readings register it as either a means of playing her enemies against each other, or as a matter she initially has little say over, but can overturn by building up her power base. less charitable readings may register all of Edelgard’s reservations about the alliance as mere theatre -- includingly when she’s not addressing anyone other than them, apparently -- or cast suspicion on the idea that she really did sever her ties with them in the postgame, being that this crucial event is relegated to offscreen and acknowledged only in the epilogue text, which, on all routes, is notoriously difficult to take at face value

the matter with the former is that, just because Edelgard isn’t always honest with her allies, some of the fandom has gotten obssessed with this idea that anything that comes out of her mouth is passible of decanonization, as though one can only ever be 100% honest all the time or a pathological liar. sometimes Hubert also gets hit with some of it, including colorful theories that he’s secretly working with agartha on a deeper level than Edelgard and ultimately intends to usurp her for the ultimate evulz. it’s almost as if one’s not engaging with the same characters at all anymore. but hey, if we must deal in characterization absolutes, let’s go with this: Edelgard and Hubert are both very pragmatic characters -- why, then, produce so much blatantly unecessary theatre? like, there’s an entire paralogue dedicated to Hubert sowing the seeds of a future St. Patrickening; going through so much more trouble than they’re getting worth isn’t how these two operate

the latter issue will give us a little more to chew on, though, because there have been a variety of arguments made to sustain the idea that, despite the epilogue text, Edelgard cannot or will not hunt down the Dudes Who Do The Worm At The Club once the chips are down. a popular one is that Edelgard wouldn’t have enough resources at her disposal to pursue that purge due to having a fucktonne of fresh annexations to deal with; another frequent customer roots itself in archetypal allusions, arguing that, as Edelgard is a blatant second coming of Arvis from Genealogy of the Holy War, her regime should be expected to be headed for the same ignobile end

on the matter of whether Edelgard can wipe out agartha, I’m moved to ask: are the people who push this angle forgetting everything we do see onscreen of agartha? in VM and SS, one month is all it takes between realizing they exist and ending them; in AM, they’re smothered into dust as unintentionally as Dimitri destroys every sewing needle he picks up, largely because Thales somehow figured it was a good idea to stand squarely between the two factions he’d been trying to play against each other.

these guys are jobbers. they’re some of the most weaksauce major villains in the history of Fire Emblem. furthermore, CF concludes with them down several key members and stuck on the endlag of their nukes, which also tipped Hubert off to the location of Shambhala, because I guess it was that important to throw a nuclear tantrum over Cornelia. why would Edelgard be the only one of the three lords who supposedly can’t vamoose these dudes with a sneeze? is it just because she’s the only one who didn’t do it onscreen? and because offscreening it alerts us more readily to what a risible anticlimax the whole thing is, I guess?

as for archetypes -- it’s entirely correct to claim that Edelgard draws heavily from Arvis, and her tentative allies, from the less completely incompetent (but still really poorly written) loptyrous cultists. it’s also correct to claim that the secret spotlight-stealing squad of doom outplayed Arvis and took over his government. still, what sort of logic is this, where an archetypal resonance means everything will play out the exact same way? Perceval is heavily based on Camus and his other imitators, but you can recruit that dude. Jill is heavily based on Minerva and her other imitators, but she can defect back to nation she’d left, if the player is sufficiently incautious. there’s absolutely nothing to obligate Edelgard to follow the same script as her predecessor, least of all to such a point it’d contradict existing canon

(sometimes the ending tapestry also plays into this, because it features a dark bishop behind the crowd, carrying a dagger behind his back. supposedly, he’s threatening the crowd to stay in line. with the dagger that he’s not holding to them. please, rub those last two brain cells together and figure out who that guy is probably trying to kill in that tapestry.)

-Thesis: Dimitri has a secret unidentified heir who’s going to become the new Seliph and make Edelgard his Arvis properly

in a cutscene in ch17, Dimitri tells Rhea that he’s not too worried about getting himself into a straight deathmatch with Edelgard, because even if that ends poorly for him (as it does), there’s another who will carry on the Blaiddyd bloodline in his stead. the fandom has been scrambling for a while now to figure out just who the hell he’s referring to when he says as much

playing off the whole thing with how Edelgard surely must be a carbon copy of Arvis on all aspects, an ascending theory is that Dimitri went and spawned a secret offscreen baby, who will grow up to become Seliph 2.0, and thus, the blade on which Edelgard’s empire ends

the thing is, Dimitri did not spawn a secret offscreen baby. lo, by the combined forces of occam’s razor and conservation of detail, I give you the true identity of the secret remaining Blaidyyd: it’s just Rufus

remember Rufus? Lambert’s brother, was regent when Dimitri wasn’t old enough to be king, wasn’t much of any good at it? you may have written him off because he was murdered in AM, VW, and SS. you know who else was murdered in AM, VW and SS, but not CF? one of Dimitri’s eyes. and that’s not just a crack at Dimitri, either! the reason why he gets to keep both eyes in CF is because the coup d’etat that nearly killed him -- and did fully kill Rufus -- never came to be.

(sidebar -- canon implies that this difference occours because Byleth cast the elusive Summon Conscience spell on Edelgard; I’d say there’s a much more reasonable reading in that, with Rhea alive and relocated to the Kingdom, wiping out the royal family is a lot of trouble just to give her a pretext with which to rule the roost herself. still, see, we can interpret that reasonably without creating another stupid ass Edelgard Totally Lied spot!)

now, I do have to concede that Rufus isn’t explicitly confirmed to be the remaining Blaidyyd that Dimitri was referring to, and it’s also not totally impossible for Seliph 2.0 to be the product of Rufus’s grand royal womanizing. it’s just, at this point, the supposedly clear-cut archetypal resonance is now nothing more than unsubstantiated fanon direly clinging to that last cliff of technically being possible

-Thesis: Almyra will sweep into the wartorn Empire and crush it like a bug

maybe, if they did, we’d finally learn anything canon about them at all-

but see, that throwaway joke is a fantastic starting point. whenever almyra gets brought up in terms of FE16 endings, it seems to be under this unspoken agreement that they’re able, willing, and intent on unleashing a colossal invasion of Fódlan, effective soon enough to take advantage of the depleted and unstable society left in the continent at the game’s end.

why should we start from that assumption, though? it’s not rooted on anything other than the fact that Almyra at one point in the past was all of able, willing and intent on unleashing an invasion of Fódlan that was fierce enough to force international cooperation. what little we’re told of Almyra at the time of the game consistently indicates that this is no longer the case.

in CF alone, Almyra does attack, twice: once as Claude’s reinforcements, and then again when the usual noncomittal border raid meets the new leadership. Edelgard’s forces trounces them both times. note how that’s just Edelgard’s forces, too, and not the continental coalition that was previously required. but that should figure, shouldn’t it? after all, after the Locket was built, Leicester alone kept any new Almyran offensives from getting that serious. and Claude himself points out to Lorenz, in their supports, that Almyran raids dropped a lot in frequency around the time of the game; that may be just pre-timeskip, but all in all, the increasingly clear picture is that, even if Fódlan stirs itself for a bunch of years, Almyra doesn’t seem to be able, willing, and intent on squeezing that opportunity for another major invasion.

sometimes, the centerpin of this theorama is Claude, and specifically, his fate in Deirdriu. supposedly, there’s a catch-22: if he survives, he’s taking his ambitions and schemes back to Almyra in order to come back to Fódlan a few years later with a vengeance, and if he dies, the vengeance will instead come from his grieving parents. now, I know that correctly interpreting Claude’s character isn’t really in vogue yet, but both of those scenarios fundamentally misunderstand him, his development, and his circumstances.

let’s say he survives -- would he be eager to come back with an army behind his back? he might have all of his ambitions, but he’s a guy who rarely holds grudges, loves being alive, and just found out he doesn’t like war very much at all. and let’s say he dies -- sure, his parents aren’t going to like it, but is that all it takes? think back to Claude’s backstory, and to the amount of people who tried to kill him; didn’t these people just finally get what they wanted?

in fact, if Edelgard wants Claude -- and/or his parents -- off her back, accomplishing such is possibly just as simple as entreating with their enemies inside the country. remember, the paralogue where she fights off an Almyran charge also ends with her expressing a desire to reach across the Throat diplomatically, where previous authorities of Fódlan failed to do so because of their strict adherence to xenophobic dogmas. chalk that up to Edelgard’s naïveté or overconfidence all you might want; the long and narrow of it is that the possibility of exploiting inner Almyran politics to Fódlan’s favor is new ground that she breaks by herself.

of course, when it comes down to it, she might not even have to do any such heavy lifting, because it’s just not a given that Claude and/or his parents would be able to enact this vengeance that’s being expected of them, or would even want such a thing. this is, in fact, the breaking point of a lot of other smaller theses about someone who would hypothetically raise the flag of revenge against Edelgard’s regime. y’see...

-Thesis: any number of polities in Fódlan will never accept being violently subjugated by Edelgard

over the course of Edelgard’s march, a bunch of people die, and a bunch of territories get conquered. any number of the families that lose something in the process will then be assumed by fans to be plotting to retaliate against Edelgard for it. this, despite that the exact opposite of it happens over and over again in canon.

and do note, I’m not even just talking about CF. on all of the other routes, you spend a significant amount of the post-timeskip fighting your own country-of-choice’s forces, because a whole bunch of Fódlan folded to Edelgard without a second thought and another whole bunch is just going to stay on the fence unless you demonstrate enough force to draw them to your side.

in the Alliance, about half of all the most influential families side with Edelgard immediately, to the point of being willing to fight the other families over it. furthermore, it seems that Goneril, one of the families that isn’t a part of this pro-imperial bloc, often gets cast as as a focus of post-CF imperial opposition, because they’re very protective of their baby girl who probably died in the war -- nevermind that they don’t seem to be at all uncomfortable with asking for their dutiful new overlords to take care of the Locket while Holst is having another sick/poisoned fit. as it turns out, Hilda can keep her responsibility for choosing to give her life in that battle (against explicit orders, even), and warrior families can get over the fact that war gets people killed sometimes

the Kingdom is the same story; an entire territorial half of it will fold to the Empire on all routes. outside of CF, this requires a little coup, but if none of the western lords ever stood up to Cornelia, what would make them any sort of eager to stand up to Edelgard? hell, AM shows us Annette’s uncle having to give up his own life just so Cornelia doesn’t so much as get the impression that he’s colluding with Dimitri. and then, in CF, there’s no coup, but that same half of the Kingdom flips like a yugioh card as soon as Edelgard gets past Arianrhod, despite that the Kingdom, with the church’s help, is still exhibiting roughly enough military strength to keep pushing the Empire back.

in case you missed it, that’s Edelgard’s whole strategy: she tries to take the fight straight to the people who would never surrender to her -- because once she’s dealt with those, then everyone else surrenders. most of the authority in Fódlan is held by scattered people who put their own individual interests first, and happily base the side of the war that they support only on where they see the best odds of not getting killed, as opposed to any manner of loyalty or loftier value. this aspect of Fódlan gets called out a lot in the game, too

regardless, though, it sounds like there’s a lot of the fandom that’s still constantly projecting a specific type of loyalty onto these people. some sort of devotion to king and country, an appeal to a sovereignity which none of these countries, not even the Empire, probably really have. most of the nobles in Fódlan don’t actually give a flying shit what government they’re currently operating under, and haven’t given one since Adrestia was whole. even the ostensibly tidy three little country arrangement that we’re presented at the onset of the game is actually historically recent.

(fun fact: did you know that, when Leicester first became its own thing, Faerghus was also two separate countries? those two got back together, but Leicester decided not to get back together with them and they made a whole war about it. I feel like that’s a little less than the stark sense of nationality that folks keep projecting on these territories)

so yeah -- there are still lots of fair accusations to make of whether Edelgard’s regime would be a good thing, and whether it would survive. but here’s some that ought to be discarded, at least for those of us who aren’t in the edelhating bubble

#my stupid text posts #Fire Emblem is tagged in this post #Fódlan FE is tagged in this post #I spent too long polishing this post; praying it's not too late to enrage people