#but i interpreted it as partners who are very clear about their opinions and can have open conversations about them

[tower-girl-anon]

Juno: Wedding Edition

Hello!! I came back with another asteroid reading that involves, this time, the asteroid Juno which is usually considered as the asteroid that signals who your future spouse is going to be and how will the marriage will be like. This interpretation is not wrong in my opinion and there is plenty of publications related of the meaning of this asteroids in the sign and houses. But, since I want to do something unique and it's still the month of love, I wanted to write about how would you imagine your wedding day to be based on the sign and house of asteroid Juno. As always, take what resonates and please don't repost this without giving proper credits to the owner.

Juno in Aries/1st house: you will probably like to be married early in life or fast. In your mind, once you've found your future wife/husband or once you are engaged, you won't like to wait. It has to be as soon as possible. Money won't be an issue for you along with the place of the ceremony, the party, the clothing, and so on. Don't care if it's in Las Vegas, a resort, the beach, or a church. You want to get marry fast.

Juno in Taurus/2nd house: these people will like to be married in a traditional place like a church and with only close friends and family. They won't like to invite thousands of people. Their wedding day could be either a very extravagant one or a very frugal one depending on the taste or the ammount of money you both have. The setting of the party and the clothing could be very classical in the mind of these natives.

Juno in Gemini/3rd house: those who have this sign or house will either plan every single detail of your future wedding, or I can see you being totally confused about what you want to do in that day. Maybe you will imagine yourself in multiples scenarios. One day you picture a church, another in a garden; a classic dress or tuxedo one day, and then a see through dress or a colorful tuxedo; and so on. For some you will picture your wedding place in another town or not close to where you live.

Juno in Cancer/4th house: these people won't think so much about the details of their wedding day like the clothing, the place or the food. Unless those things reflect some special memory or feeling within them. But, in general, the things they will think more are about the feelings he or she will have during that special day. Sorrounded by their loved ones, their friends, their parents, and, of course, their bride or groom. He or she will picture themselves crying in their wedding day.

Juno in Leo/5th house: these people will picture their wedding day as a special day for them and their bride/groom. That will be the day where he or she will feel proudest about their partner and their relationship. Probably, they picture an extravagant place full of people, full of little details and fun so people would remind that wedding. They will like to make clear that they, along with his/her future spuse, are the focus of the day.

Juno in Virgo/6th house: these people won't imagine anything about their future wedding. I think they will plan it in advance. The place, the flowers, the decoration, the clothing, everything. If not that, then they will picture his/her special day being perfect. Every single detail and effort they put through months (or even years) to create this special occasion will unfold perfectly. Just like they want.

Juno in Libra/7th house: the ideal wedding for this group would be something sorrounded by beauty and love. Maybe by nature too. They will like their wedding to be aesthetically pleasing to everyone, which it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be expensive, and their future spouse. But, overall, they won't mind much about everything as long as his ideal partner looks at them with love during the whole ceremony.

Juno in Scorpio/8th house: these people imagine their future wedding as a private setting or a extravagant one depending on the money. Family and legacy could be a theme here so you could get married following certain traditions of your family, or in familiar setting such as an old camp of your family, or your family could help by paying the wedding arrangements. An intimate energy and transformative power could be felt by these people when they picture their wedding day.

Juno in Sagittarius/9th house: these natives will picture themselves getting married in another country, at the beach, in a farm (the symbol of Sagittarius is a horse), in a place that seems adventurous, or the ceremony could be very spiritual at the very least. They won't stress themselves about doing a fancy wedding. Having fun,maybe wearing something loose, and having a smile on their faces the whole day will be the most important thing for these natives.

Juno in Capricorn/10th house: these natives could picture themselves marrying either at an old age, with someone older, or in a traditional ceremony. For some, there could be an arranged marriage. They are very realistic, so the ammount of planning and hard work they must do in order to make the wedding day a success is already being considered by them. Maybe they picture themselves engaged for a long time first before getting married.

Juno in Aquarius/11th house: these natives imagine their wedding day as a funny and unique day in which there is going to be plenty of friends, family, food, and good times. They could possible imagine themselves wearing something untraditional or different like wearing a colorful outfit or doing something that people will remember such as arriving by helicopter or something. In their minds, their future spouse and them will be like best friends having a good time that day.

Juno in Pisces/12th house: this group imagine their wedding day as a deeply romantic experience full of fantasy, love, and mysticism. The fantasy sorrounding every possible scenario that could unfold on their wedding day will captivate them and keep them awake at night because, for them, marring won't be just an emotional experience, it will be sacred. Spiritual. They will like to keep the magic alive on that special day. In another context (it is really a random thing I just thought), maybe they want their wedding to be full of alcohol or drugs.

This is all I have for you today. I hope you enjoyed this reading.

Tower Girl Anon

#astrology readings #asteroids #asteroid #aspects #astrology #astro reading #astro notes #astrology observations #astro observations #juno #aries #taurus #gemini #cancer #leo #virgo #libra #scorpio #sagittarius #capricorn #aquarius #pisces #1st house #2nd house #3rd house #4th house #5th house #6th house #7th house #8th house

[thegreymoon]

Mo Ran is so gay it isn't even funny.

Now, this is just my opinion and I realise other people have their own interpretations, but this whole episode is super telling to me of just how unreliable his narration is about having tons and tons of sex with people of both genders in his previous lifetime. He's just so... oblivious. None of this reads as a man with a lot of previous experience with many different people. He did not pick up on her flirting with him at all. Sure, he did have a lot of insane sex in his past life, but as the book unfolds, it becomes very clear that most of that sex was with Chu Wanning. At best, there were only a handful of other people he was involved with, and one was a prostitute he was paying, while the other was his wife whose relationship with him was also transactional.

I know people argue that he is bisexual because he married Song Qiutong, but when we actually get her POV on their marriage, it turns out that they had unenjoyable sex only a handful of times, at least one of which was him taking her from behind and very much imagining that it was Chu Wanning in her place. There are plenty of gay men who end up married to straight women (and vice versa) for whatever reasons and none of this makes them any less gay. He also identifies as a 'cut-sleeve' himself at one point, so he doesn't seem at all confused about his sexual attraction to men. Later on, when we finally get his unaltered POV on his life in the brothel, it comes out that he considered the girls there as sisters at best, never as sexual partners. The only other named sexual partner is Rong Jiu, who is male, and I can buy that there were possibly other people who looked like Shi Mei that he was with under the influence of the cursed love spell, but there was never any real attraction there, which is why some argue that he is attracted only to Chu Wanning and would still be attracted to him regardless of gender.

But I think that this is also not true. He definitely was obsessed with Chu Wanning from an early age, which makes it hard to see what his preferences would have been if Chu Wanning wasn't in the picture, but that chapter when he finally realises his feelings also reveals that he does have a type, which he never dared to think about before because he thought he was unworthy of having a choice. However, Chu Wanning fits this type to a tee, so it's easy to run away with the idea that he is shizunsexual and that Mo Ran's attraction begins and ends with him.

With that said, we do get confirmation later on that he does find other men attractive, in particular, Jiang Xi. It's just that he never has the space or the inclination to do anything about it because of his preoccupation with Chu Wanning. In the extras, when Mo Ran misunderstands Xue Men's relationship with Jiang Xi and thinks they are having a love affair, in his unfiltered Taxian-jun state, he is full of approval because he personally finds these powerful, beautiful, prickly, emotionally unavailable older men to be the height of attractiveness. If Chu Wanning hadn't been in the picture, Mo Ran would have definitely been attracted to Jiang Xi or someone similar. Even Ye Wangxi, whom he also fixates on, fits this type (except for the older man bit because I understood her to be only a few years older than Mo Ran). The fact that she turns out to be a woman also cannot be used as an argument for Mo Ran's bisexuality because she very much presents as a man throughout the book (but whether or not she actually identifies as one is debatable).

In short, Mo Ran does have a type of man he is attracted to and it is definitely men that he likes, regardless of his few dubious and very unsatisfying dalliances with women. While Chu Wanning definitely fits this type of ideal man, there are other men out there whom Mo Ran finds attractive too, it's just that he is too unhinged about Chu Wanning to actually do anything about it. Also, I very much doubt that Mo Ran was nearly as promiscuous as he makes himself out to be because he reads as very oblivious when it comes to sexual relationships in general. Even with Chu Wanning, who was right there and about to pass away from sheer horniness that he couldn't even begin to disguise, Mo Ran was still going, "Shizun is so pure and virtuous!" 🙄

(I'm not going to get into the whole Shi Mei situation and how badly he misread him every step of the way too, but that is because his brain was so badly mangled by him that he really stood no chance on that front until it was entirely too late.)

#2ha #2ha meta #mo ran #chu wanning #ranwan #jiang xi #song qiutong #rong jiu #shi mei

[loudmound]

hi. welcome to my mary shepherd-sunderland post.

what will follow is who i think she is as a character, what she means to the narrative of sh2, and why people should think and talk about her more bcs me and the 4 other mary fans are dying out here.

DISCLAIMER BEFORE WE BEGIN: a lot of this post will be enmeshed with interpretation and headcanon that draws from me analyzing the text of sh2. this is My Post about mary. stormy mary post. please understand this.

the foundation of mary's character is an exceptionally strong one, and for someone like me, i enjoy making inferences about her person before the illness, during the illness, and near the end. the personality she has in sh2 is flexible enough to allow what i imagine her to have been like in my mind's eye.

i do not want this post to be read as the Definitive Canonical Interpretation of mary. i am just doing my best to inform my analysis of mary with the text as well as building from that set foundation given to us as the audience.

with that out of the way, please enjoy.

PART ONE: MARY AS A CONCEPT

what exists of mary is filtered through the lens of memory before the cumulative letter in the respective endings we receive it. throughout sh2, her status and state of being is re-contextualized as her husband moves closer and closer to the truth of the matter. she is an individual wrapped in idealistic fantasy that is slowly and surely stripped away the longer the game goes along, and the more we actualize her as the person she once was.

this element of conceptualization and fantasy is a through-line in sh2's narrative. mary is everywhere james looks in his version of the town. she's in the rot and rust on the walls, she's in the monsters he fights and runs from, she's in the places he goes, her face and voice is maria's, and she even has some of her memories and personality traits. it is truly understated how much mary just... IS in sh2, in spite of her not being physically present.

there's also this dichotomy i've been thinking about in the inability for mary and james to exist outside of one another, thematically speaking. for fundamentally being two different people, they are inextricably tied to one another in a really unfortunate and tragic way. james grafts himself to mary's memory before her sickness and slowly begins to resent the woman she's become out of anything but her own volition, and mary grafts herself to james because... she has to.

she's sick, she's dying, she's largely bedridden and in constant pain. she cannot rely on herself anymore; she has to rely on the people around her to take care of her, and when she inevitably goes home to live out whatever time she has left... it's james she has to rely on. and while i think james finds immense comfort and pleasure in living in the past they had while refuting the present, mary is thoroughly imbedded in the present and resents the past by means of something that she can no longer have. neither of them can, but i've always interpreted mary to be a very pragmatic and proactive individual.

she discusses in her letter how pathetic and ugly she feels, how she waits in her cocoon of pain and loneliness that's been grafted onto her unwillingly while she waits for james to visit her, and it's clear to me that she is the kind of individual that puts so much emphasis on being a useful and beautiful woman. that is what gives her worth as a human being within the society in which she lives (late 80s usa in my opinion). canonically, she is a housewife, and while that certainly coheres, i'm of the belief that she was a woman who worked outside the home as well, but also someone who did not do enough unpacking to really get away from gendered roles expected of her.

i really do believe that she feels she failed james spectacularly as a partner, but also as a wife; therein, as a person in his life. both of them dealt with their own baggage regarding gendered expectations, but mary in particular's is incredibly potent and crushing if you actualize her as someone who, in turn, wanted to be the perfect wife to james. kind, patient, nurturing, submissive, etc.

of course, as we all know, the perfect wife/woman/whatever you want it to be, is an unattainable concept, because how can anybody human like mary exist within such ridiculous, reductive parameters?

PART TWO: MARY AS A PERSON

so, in that case, who was mary, then? who was she, if not this idealized vision of a wife long lost?

as i've alluded to before, i envision her as a very pragmatic and proactive person; in the video tape of her, she seems very playful and outgoing, but also contemplative, appreciative, and straightforward. i've always seen her as a very different person from james in regards to how she navigates through life.

she's comparatively much more outward and readily emotional, but seems to retain a level of quiet interiority that meshes very well with james' very inward attitude. a very typical "bubbly wife and stoic husband" sort of situation on the surface, but i've always thought that mary greatly appreciated having james as an emotional anchor of sorts; somebody who can soothe the more keyed-up aspects of her personality, given how quiet and easygoing he is.

given how she mentions how angry she was all the time at the advent of learning of her incumbent death, i view her as somebody who really does not like being out of control of her own life. she has an idea of how she wants things to be and she wants them done the way she has already since chosen. (do not interrupt her routines. she will get very irritated.) she's very particular, and i think she's had to learn how not to just take the reigns from somebody else if she perceives them to be going about something "incorrectly" because this particular flaw has led to some arguments/falling-outs with loved ones in the past.

in that particular vein, holy fuck is this woman a fixer. she needs to fix everything she possibly can. the sink's busted? don't worry, she's had a lifetime of fixing shitty plumbing in her childhood home because nobody else bothered. need a couple more bucks for gas? don't worry, she always keeps a few extra dollars on her because she knows what it's like to be a few short and not have anyone else to turn to that you can trust.

you've been deeply traumatized and scarred by your adverse childhood experiences and it's left you with maladaptive and dysfunctional coping mechanisms? don't worry, she'll be there for you, in sickness and in health.

to me, mary's the kind of person that likes seeing the fruits of her labor, too. she takes great pride in being as self-sufficient at she has been, and does very much enjoy sharing that with others as much as she can. genuinely, i think she's very giving and compassionate, but jesus, when it came to james when he was struggling (before she got sick), it certainly got a bit dire. using your wife for free emotional labor is one thing, but when that wife welcomes it for a while because she has a pervasive desire to fix everything, including you? yeah.

also, of course, mary felt a pertinent obligation to doing such, being The Wife and all, but she's also a human person and got exhausted dealing with the amount of baggage her husband had, and their relationship got pretty rocky because of james' unwillingness to seek professional help (stemming from trauma with the laughable us-healthcare system) and mary's unwillingness to recant over and over again what she has in her toolbox.

which is where silent hill comes in. a belated honeymoon of sorts, mary and james take a trip to take their mind off the doom-inspiring monotony that is domestic life, and it's great!

until it isn't.

PART THREE: TERMINAL ILLNESS

so, the nature of mary's illness has never been clearly stated canonically, but we know that it gave her a persistent cough, rendered her bedbound, made her hair fall out, and made lumps grow all over her skin. i'm of the belief that she had hansen's disease, but cancer is also incredibly plausible too.

hansen's disease is one of those things that can lie dormant for years, and it can sometimes take a decade for symptoms to surface, so i don't think it was really a matter of mary catching anything from silent hill, per se. (i do think toluca lake has just the most godawful brain-eating bacteria in it but that's aside the point.) it's definitely a curable disease, but perhaps the strain mary had was a particularly severe variant. point being, however, is that this thing ruined her inside and out.

in the beginning stages, (year 1 or so) i do think she was pretty touchy, emotionally speaking. she tries to keep up appearances as much as she can and is able to, but it's clear that something has shifted for the worst. she's much more somber in the moments of quiet. her contemplative nature turns to brooding. she smiles, still, but her smiles are undoubtedly laced with a wry, bitter sadness.

she's now toiling with thoughts of dying as a way out, too. it'd be easier if they'd just kill me, she laments at one point. simultaneously at the crux of wanting freedom from one's pain in death but terrified of said death as being eternal, too.

it's something you can't ever undo.

now... i'd say a pretty controversial aspect of mary's character during this period of time is whether or not she was abusive towards james during her illness. cases have been made, it's a fairly ambiguous situation as presented in-game, but i think mary's anger that she expressed was quiet, overall. she tried to keep it quiet, at least, and when she did lash out, it was almost always in part due to her newfound level of self-loathing. when she's yelling at james in that hallway, she's yelling at herself more than she is at him.

she's no longer a person, to herself and to others around her that treat her like a dying animal than the woman that she is; the woman that she used to be. i'd be livid if i were her, too!

she also mentions in her letter that she "struck out at everyone she loved most." i have very strong reason to believe that she loved laura, and that unfortunately, she too was caught in the crossfire of mary's mood swings/outbursts. i also think that the guilt mary expresses when we're listening to the hallway conversation is genuine; i don't think her outburst and subsequent apology was a manipulation tactic to make james feel bad.

i think she's genuinely suffering. she doesn't know what to do with these compounding negative feelings. she has nowhere to put them. james comes in at a bad time and becomes the target. after the damage has been done, she realizes this and crumbles immediately. she's hurt james. she needs to do damage control however she can.

of course, none of this is to say that women can't ever be abusive/abusers and we can have conversations about the nuances of that all day, but... it's disquieting to me to see a consistent reading of a terminally ill female character's torment and anger be read as "abusive" to further exonerate the male character's deed of murdering her. like, i think we should consider that for a bit. i think we can hold that mary's behavior was not the best, but james' wasn't, either.

mary waited for him, but he never comes. he stays away, festering in his own grief, mourning her before she's even passed. i see james' aversion to seeing her in large part as a trauma response due to past abuse while growing up; when she shouts at him like that, it drags all of those ugly feelings and memories up.

it's a relationship i see as something that was mutually declining. it was something that was left to die. much like mary was, in a lot of ways.

mary was terrified that james hated her. that she disgusted him with her appearance, that he pitied her for being ill and effectively useless to him. that was something plaintively out of her control, being in the hospital. james could've ripped the bandage off and braved seeing her. he could've talked to her. he could've rekindled what was deteriorating. but he didn't.

again, mary's proactive nature of yearning for james, wanting to see him, wanting to talk to him and talk about them and what to do when the time comes. she wants to figure this out as best she can.

but james doesn't, and he still never comes.

mary poured everything left in her that she could muster in that letter. she profusely apologized for everything, for things that weren't even her fault to begin with. she told james that she loved him in that letter, because she couldn't say it to him to his face any longer. she didn't know if she would have any time left to do such.

but she does. and however long later, he kills her.

mary isn't a perfect victim, nobody that's a victim in sh2 is supposed to be. but she is still an individual that deserves compassion nonetheless, and i think the game does its due diligence in getting that across.

PART FOUR: MARIA

i think have to at least touch upon maria a bit if you're writing a post about mary. i think that's just the way it is.

maria, as we know, is a manifestation created by silent hill as a means to confront/interrogate/"punish" james by emulating mary but with very... choice character design changes.

she's clad in leopard print and a cropped red blouse. she's a dancer at heaven's night. she has bleach blonde hair with the roots peeking in. her face is all done up. she still extroverted, but far more provocative and alluring. she's a fantasy; something unattainable.

but she could be yours in whatever way you want her to be!

maria is utterly fascinating as an interrogation of james' character, but also as a reflection of mary, too. in born from a wish, she expresses her fear of pain and death, of being alone in town with no one else around, while also toiling with suicidal ideation. (sound familiar?) she seeks out companionship in whatever form it takes, and jumps on it when she does find it in ernest.

how much of mary is maria has always been up for debate and forever will be, but i think a lot of mary lives within her. the obvious, being the memories that she has of laura and the video tape left in the lakeview hotel, her hot and cold behavior with james, but also in the existential misery she feels in born from a wish. that desire to die to escape the pain of feeling alone, but also wanting to be with somebody else more than anything, and how death would undoubtedly take that away.

i also think her dyed hair isn't even hers; mary had that haircut and dye job when she first met james at that house party all those years ago.

i think maria's standing as a sentient individual is true, but in the sense that she is the combination of both mary and james' baggage made sentient. she never truly existed for herself, as her own person. she'll always have a little bit of someone else in her, someone she doesn't even really know, and that's... utterly tragic.

i think she realized this too when she points that gun to her head. but she chose james anyways out of that same desire for companionship. maybe she could be his new mary. maybe she could be better than mary. it's truly all so fuck.

PART FIVE: CONCLUSION

mary is the reason why sh2 happens for james. full stop. you cannot have sh2 without mary. there is a foundation laid for you to examine and explore. she is as infinitely fascinating as james is, if not more so. join me.

this post is sprawling and probably a bit confused at times because i wrote it on a whim, but i HOPE that i was able to get across the larger ideas of why i love mary as a character and who she could've been before her illness and death. i didn't touch upon everything i possibly could (mary and laura's relationship deserves its own post, i think), but this post is already long enough. i'll edit it in the future, undoubtedly.

thank you so much for reading all the way. listen to her final letter and cry with me.

#mary shepherd sunderland #james sunderland #maria #maria silent hill #silent hill #silent hill 2 #sh2 #stormy shouts #like i said in the conclusion i think mary and laura's relationship is deserving of its own post #i would've loved to get into it here but uh. this post is already very long. #that's where interpretation plays too #talking abt silent hill... showing laura all her photos... loving her like her own daughter... ugh it's so heartrending #anyways. this one's for my maryheads

[parentsday]

Hiii! Since you asked about headcanons/analysis stuff:

There's a common interpretation on the fandom about Max's treatment of David in the early episodes coming, at least partially, from trust issues regarding adults/authority figures. And I've seen push back against it, too. People who say it's just because David is annoyingly positive. Nothing else.

And sure, I can see that. But Nikki also acts in a cheerful manner and mostly enjoys camp, and Max doesn't treat her with the level of rudeness he treated David in season one. This could be due to her being his little partner in crime, but idk. I always interpreted it as him thinking that David is some fake nice adult who will just let him down if he allows it.

And, while I was thinking about this, I realized how this interpretation of Max's behaviour towards David adds another heartbreaking layer to Parents day.

Max's perception of David started changing after Order of the sparrow, specifically after the "Somebody fucking has to" moment. For just a moment, the annoying, overly positive persona drops, and Max is able to see a nuanced human being. And it's clear that he starts understanding David a little more, because in Cult camp (literally the next episode), he allows himself to be brainwashed and trusts that David will save the camp (btw, we as a fandom don’t talk about this aspect of this episode enough).

So yeah, his perception of David changes for the better.

But then, parents day happens.

And David spends most of the episode being an absolute jerk, even if he doesn't realize it.

He pushes SO HARD to try and make the day perfect, basically ignores Max when he states that his parents aren't coming, gets way too serious about playing the role of Max's dad for the day, forces Max into the activities and then, at the end of a day that was already shitty for Max, he yells at him.

I think the context of Max's opinion on David finnaly becoming more positive makes this episode so much sadder.

Because it ceases to be just about Max's neglectful parents.

Now it's also about the closest thing he has to a trustworthy adult making him uncomfortable, ignoring his feelings and then yelling at him and telling him that he "has a bad attitude" and "brings everyone else down instead of trying just a little bit to have fun".

(Which are things he must have heard from adults before, if he behaves the way he does at camp in school and other places)

Remember in Friends like these when he said "Life's just one dissapointment after another. I can't belive I let myself forget it"? I think he might have had the same train of thought here: "I can't believe I let myself forget David is an asshole that only cares about impressing Campbell and making this stupid camp look good". Or: "I can't believe I let myself forget that every single adult thinks I'm a bad kid and a lost cause."

And I know it gets fixed quickly, with David apologizing shortly after, but still. I think the idea of Max being dissapointed at David in Parents day, even if it was just for some moments, is so good.

I also think this is the episode that comfirms to Max that David is genuinely a good person trying his best. He spent the entire day having to think about the fact that his parents suck, and then there's David, who is kind, apologizes for upsetting him and takes him to eat pizza and have a little heartfelt talk.

When was the last time his parents apologized to him, or cared about what he wanted/needed, or talked to him so gently?

The contrast between his parents and David is so big, and I think that's what makes Max finnaly go "Yeah, this guy isn't actually that bad."

(Sorry for rambling, omg.)

hi first of all thank u for an ask and such insightful one at it too !! this was an incredibly pleasant read and a lot of the stuff you say i personally find very good analysis of the show and agree with, however i do have some stuff to say abt it soo here we go ^-^ (this will be a long one so sorry about this in advance)

as i said in some previous reply, max is an incredibly peculiar guy when it comes to the way this show treats his trauma and the way he himself behaves as a result of it, and that’s by design! a lot of the thing he says and does in the first two seasons when it comes to david are there for reasons of narrative set up, and are later masterfully recontextualized by parents day later, leaving very little room for interpretation when it comes to how and why he operates. im gonna go out on a limb and say that i don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that most of his actions towards david in the early show stem from the childish born-from-trauma need for attention and also from his need for societal reinforcement of his own ego’s right to exist. when it comes to the first one i see most people agree (bc it’s a basic child psychology fact), but turn their noses in reference to the second one.

contrary to popular belief, max being in need of constant affirmation that he, as a person with little self value, deserves to exist next to other people is something that we see examples of constantly and is not a terrible part of his character that needs to be ignored. max is a neglect victim who from our knowledge is given very little attention by his parents, as a result of it he is a pessimistic asshole kid whose ego suffers from the very thing that made it this way. its in his strained relationship with nikki and neil, its in him arguing with david to put himself in the position of an adult, its him putting himself above others when it’s not needed and its in him putting his own egos safety first when time comes to accept that things are moving forward (two final episodes from both s3 and s4 are good examples of this). its not an inherently positive trait, but it is one okay for him to have by the virtue of being a young abused child with no support system, and denying it will leave him devoid of this characterization. in freudian (ugh) terms, we cannot separate his character’s superego from his id in a way that won’t harm the way he was intentionally written. Id, ego and superego are all influenced by our relationship with our parents, the amount of nurturing of a child's emotional and psychological needs parents does will result in the child’s psychological state forming a certain way, max as a character who is heavily reliant of his lackluster relationship with his parents is not devoid of this and it affects his relationship with david too. and the reason i’m saying all of this is exactly due to this.

david, when put in most simple terms, is a character who’s an adult figure present and mature enough in max’s current social position that it allows him to treat max as a child, something max is not used to. not used to to such an extent that it puts a strain on his ego in the process. david feeds his need for any form of attention, positive or not, just as much as he clips away at max’s need to be seen as socially important and in a position of an adult. it’s arguable if both of these are good or not but the main thing they are in relation to is obvious: max feels that being an adult who meets both of his psychological needs in ways that are unfamiliar to him makes david an untrustworthy person, thats exactly where you interpretation comes in clutch.

max and his behavior towards david cannot be separated from david being an adult, that is made clear with the way he treats nikki as an equal just because she is a person his age, despite her sharing a lot of david’s traits. going through the episodes you mentioned, order of the sparrow episode lets max see david perspective for the very first time. max is allowed to peek into the reason why david acts the way he does, however it alone doesn’t make him see david in a good light, if anything it makes him appear genuine in his actions. it also lets max have something for david that he didn’t have before: trust. it ends up being used in cult camp as a confirmation of it being something david can live up to (you are absolutely right, we really don’t talk abt this episode and it’s narrative weight enough). all of this has been adding onto the way max himself perceives david, parents day, however, lets both of them internalize the sentiment of mutual understanding towards each other together. parents day does this by lampshading max and david parallelism, making this whole episode consist of max seeing his parents in david just as much as david sees himself in max through the whole show and putting them in each others shoes by the end of it. the episode ends with david choosing max as a priority, he is still acting selfishly (once again david is an asshole) but choosing to do so towards max because the situation allows him to understand max the way s1 finale let max understand him. and with the final turning point in their dynamic, max understands that both his ego and need for attention can exist without them being reinforced by an adult treating him like he is an adult too. max was chosen as a priority for the very first time and that alone made him feel of more value than the treatment he initially yearned for would have. above all else parents day makes max see david as someone he can look up to as a person in emotional way, not only in a life or death situations, the shot of david from his perspective in the end making sure that we don’t miss it.

most of this is not me disagreeing with you, on the opposite i think a lot of the arguments you make are nice and are mindful interaction with the media. gold star for enjoying meta analysis to both of us i guess ⭐️. my main problem is, however, the fact that using all of this to basically say ‘maxs parents suck so he has a distain for david because of it’ is a heavy oversimplification that you somehow go against in your initial statement too and that i, personally, just don’t enjoy. this alone does not make your interpretation wrong though, if anything just reinforces your general idea into a more concrete argument rather than a collection of bits and pieces of evidence pointing to it. hope all of this made sense

tldr; man idk no summing up this one as to not take away from the overall statement im making with this. read the post 🫶

#camp camp meta analysis #camp camp #this is looooong sorry op im a yapper at heart #this ask made me pace around in a break room like a crazy person hope u are happy 😒 <- slash positive #i didn’t talk a lot abt the post parents day stuff u mentioned simply bc idk what to add onto it u hit that one on the head lol #allowed myself to dadvid out here a little hope u don’t mind #also im so fucking sorry i mentioned freud again this man is the shit sometimes send the flood #max cc #david cc #dadvid #in a way

[ilovebeingt4t]

a (not) little rant about total drama’s portrayal of dissociative identity disorder in ROTI and AS

a few little tidbits before we get into the juice…

-i don’t have DID ! i have a dissociation disorder and i’ve done a lot of research on DID, but that obviously doesn’t mean i know as much as someone in a system would. if i make any mistakes or you want to add/correct anything, please do !

-since there isn’t an official name for the system as a whole, i’m gonna use “mike system” to refer to mike, chester, svetlana, vito, manitoba, and mal as a system

-before anyone says it, i know it’s “just a kids’ show” but it’s a kids’ show i’m insane and not normal about. so i’m very passionate about this. also kids’ shows should still be normal about mental illnesses/disabilities so idc

alright stinkers… let’s get into it

ok ! mike systems DID in ROTI isn’t GOOD representation but it isn’t like. the worst out there compared to some other media. some huge positives are the way the alters have actual triggers, and that everyone in the system IS portrayed as their own person, not just an extension or part of mike. i interpret the “gasp” the body does with switches as a stand in for dissociation (since they couldn’t really have him just sit there and stare into space bc of plot/time reasons) and it’s very easy to assume the role of everyone in the system from their personalities and triggers. the best example of this to me is vito ! vito is a “tough guy” who’s triggered to front by his shirt coming off, it’s easy to put the pieces together and assume his role is a protector who formed due to sexual abuse.

obviously, the use of the outdated term multiple personality disorder, the very quick switches, the fact the writers obviously did not actually research DID and just wanted a silly crazy character, and probably more i’m forgetting rn, are NOT issues to just ignore because of the good stuff. it’s definitely NOT good or super accurate representation by any means, but i don’t think it’s exactly super bad either. it’s iffy but has redeeming qualities to it.

another plus about mike system in ROTI, even though this isn’t really part of the portrayal of DID as a disorder, is that mike has a love interest that isn’t written as a joke. i feel like having mike in a romantic relationship is a BIG positive representation wise. it’s really important to me that even though zoey is confused and weirded out when she didn’t know what was going on, once she found out mike was part of a system she became more understanding and didn’t give up on him. being part of a system doesn’t mean you can’t have a partner, friends, etc and mike being in a wholesome healthy relationship is a nice breath of fresh air compared to other media portraying DID.

NOW. LETS ADDRESS MAL AND ALL STARS. GOOD LORD.

all stars has an issue with watering down characters and making poor plot/character choices in general, and in my opinion it’s the worst with mike system. ROTI had questionable at times but ok DID rep with mike system, which is why it’s so disappointing that AS took the “evil alter” route and whatever the hell the button thing was… bc they were SO close with having ok representation and then they threw it all away for an overdone and harmful stereotype. mike system in ROTI is a MASTERPIECE compared to whatever the hell was going on in AS.

even when you take into account that in a real life system, mal is most similar to the role of a persecutor (an alter who sabotages the body’s relationships and causes harm to the body/other alters as a way to “protect” everyone in their eyes (oops ! i was wrong. a persecutor isn’t always a protector, however they can take the role of a persecutor and protector which is where i got confused. mal is a both a persecutor and protector to me)) which makes SOME of his actions explainable TO AN EXTENT, it’s clear the writers didn’t have that intent and just wanted a spooky evil alter, which is really disappointing. along with the button issue, which is just…. so insane….

i choose to believe for my own sanity that the button was sort of an emergency temporary dormancy button and that chester fr just lied/didn’t know and made something up. but that obviously isn’t canon, and IN CANON the body’s trauma and serious disorder was literally gone because of the PRESS OF A BUTTON and it is absolutely ridiculous. and it’s portrayed as a GOOD THING.

systems are systems because it is the only way the body and brain can maintain stability and live after serious repeated trauma. in a real situation with a system, if there was somehow a way to get rid of alters in literal seconds, the consequences would be ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS and unstable. obviously, integration and dormancy CAN be a good thing depending on the system, but it is a LOOONG and complicated process and watering it down to the press of a button in your brain is so inappropriate and insensitive. literally why did they do that. it’s just so disappointing to go from what mike system was in roti to what they became in all stars.

sorry u guys i am just passionate about this

#total drama #total drama revenge of the island #total drama all stars #td mike #td mike system #td mal #tdroti #tdas #chester svetlana vito manitoba #are mentioned briefly #sorry for being insane about this #dissociative identity disorder #keeb goes mad about total drama

[letmetellyouaboutmyfeels]

I noticed that your older fics tend to lean towards dom eddie/ sub buck while the more recent ones are switch buddie (which I love) so I was wondering if something in the show made you see/interpretate the characters differently or if your own writing preferences changed or if I'm reading way too much into everything

You're not reading too much into it and I'm honestly pleased and flattered that you paid enough attention to my writing to notice!

Yes, as the show has gone on, and we've learned more about the characters, I've come to the conclusion that Buddie would be more switches. I think it's natural that as you learn more about the characters that you shift how you write them - in my earliest fics for example I had the headcanon that Eddie would have had some (young inexperienced and fumbling) experiences with men, and that he'd be more into casual sex. Now I headcanon based on his behavior that he's more demisexual and wouldn't have really any sexual experience besides Shannon because of that need for emotional connection. I originally thought Buck would realize his feelings first, but given how season five went and then Eddie's reactions to Buck in season six I'm now of the opinion that Eddie realized his feelings a while ago and has been ignoring them while Buck, bless him, is fucking oblivious.

Anyway those are just two examples of how as a show goes on and you learn more about a character you shift your headcanons and perceptions about them. So yes! I've shifted in my views of how the boys would be in bed.

I do think that Buck would overall be more submissive and when he's domming, do so more as a service dom - Buck likes to know he's doing a good job and being there for the people he loves, and so domming for him would be about knowing he's giving Eddie what he needs, rather than enjoying being in control.

For Eddie, someone who has constantly in his life scrambled for control and had it yanked from him, I think he'd still overall prefer to be in charge, at least at first, and I think that'd only be submissive to someone he really deeply trusts. However given everything in season five I think he'd also find being submissive to be incredibly freeing if it's with someone he can trust to love him and hold him (metaphorically), and Buck is that person. Eddie is very much a caretaker and likes to feel he's trusted (lack of trust in his abilities is a huge issue in his relationship with his parents for example) so I think he'd really like domming Buck and seeing how much Buck trusts him to take care of him. It was really season five for me that gave me the shift in feeling Eddie would be submissive at times, given his whole arc with his trauma. I think given how important it was in his arc for Eddie to admit he loses control sometimes and needs help, submitting would be important for him as well. He'd just be pickier about it.

In other words - I think Buck's instinct in bed is submit, but he ultimately shifts to reflect what his partner wants/needs (and headcanon it's probably led to him being sexually unfulfilled before - how many times has someone wanted him to just pick them up and rail them and play that Big Strong Guy when that's not who Buck is?) and would also find fulfillment in giving Eddie what he needs because he likes doing that for his loved ones. And I think Eddie's instinct is to dom, for multiple reasons, but that submitting to someone he loves and trusts would also by very fulfilling and enjoyable.

Ergo, they switch! LOL

I think also in most sexual relationships when you're not explicitly sceneing (i.e. planning a scenario out with set roles) there's a certain fluidity to the roles of who's submitting and who's dominating. So there's that as well, it's not always gonna be clear cut who's in what role and it's going to move back and forth. Y'know?

Anyway that was an extremely long-winded answer ha ha but I'm delighted you noticed that shift! One's art is continuously evolving and when one is writing for the same characters over the years (four and counting for Buddie in my case) while continuously getting more information about them and seeing them in new situations and so on as we get with each new season/episode, there's definite shifts in one's portrayal of those characters. I'm flattered that anyone would pay attention enough to pick up on the ways in which mine's evolved.

#mads answers things #mads writes stuff

[roboticonography]

it's getting really upsetting to see certain corners of the fandom demonize peggy. do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Oh, if only this were a new thing, anon!

I’ve been in the MCU fandom since before there was an MCU to speak of. Shitting on women characters and the actors who play them has been going on forever. People posted about how they hated Pepper Potts, saying she wasn’t a good partner to Tony because she didn’t constantly enable his erratic behaviour, or sacrifice her safety to accommodate his trauma. They posted about how Pepper should have died in Iron Man 2, for the good of Tony’s story, and when Iron Man 3 came out, they said the same thing. It was fucking exhausting.

People also posted about how they hated Natasha Romanoff, how they hated Jane Foster, how they hated Wanda Maximoff, how they hated Sharon Carter. 

And yes, there were Peggy-haters then too. They called her a “karate-kicking fucktoy” and a “vengeful feminazi” and those are the most polite terms I can recall. They complained that she was too powerful, they complained that she was too feminine, they complained that she was pointless without Steve, they complained that she talked about Steve too much. And so on, and so forth, ad infinitum.

Now, to be clear, I am not talking about some of the very valid criticisms people had about the Agent Carter series - its writing, its casting, etc. I am also not talking about the very valid criticisms people have about the larger MCU related to representation, or lack thereof, across multiple fronts. I believe it’s possible to enjoy a piece of media and still have issues with some (or even many) aspects of it, and I enjoy reading posts that grapple with those issues. I’m not even talking about venting about a popular character you can’t stand: that has its place, though I’d argue that the place is probably not in the tag for that character. (I guarantee you, your “unpopular opinion” is never as unpopular as you think.)

I’m talking about misogyny. The same tired, rehashed, played out bullshit woman-hating that has existed in fandoms, so many fandoms, for at least the 25+ years that I’ve been active in them.

And that’s still what’s happening.

Many of the posts I’ve seen that fall under this category are expressing anger that one character or relationship or storyline or interpretation of canon is getting airtime, while another one, one they like better, is not. I’m not going to argue with anyone about that. You like what you like, and you're entitled to be annoyed if you don't get it. But if your argument is sound, you should be able to make your point effectively without calling the character the grossest euphemism for vagina you can find, or speculating on the exact sex acts an actor had to do to keep her character popular.

Other posts I’ve seen are just absolute buckwild conspiracy theory nonsense. The only thing I have to say about that is, yikes. Get well soon.

Tumblr, like other social media platforms, recognizes that they get more engagement if people are forced to play in the same sandbox, which is why it probably feels like you're seeing a disproportionate number of hate posts. And anyone who writes for money on the internet knows that hate clicks are often the juiciest clicks, and so they will write articles and listicles and polls with titles and subjects designed to get your blood up. It’s become increasingly difficult to avoid seeing other people’s ridiculous opinions. But that’s still the strategy that I find best helps me enjoy fandom. 

So if “certain corners” of the fandom are not to your taste, anon, then my advice is this: block, blacklist, and just don’t engage. Don’t feed the trolls. Instead, put that energy into positive interactions. Make art. Comment on things you liked. Find your friends, and have conversations that inspire you and amuse you, instead of ones that make you angry and tired.

Thanks for the ask! Take care.

#robot feels ways about things

[celluloidbroomcloset]

"I dunno - maybe I just resist the idea that Ed hated himself so much that he’d fuck someone as vicious as that."

I've only been loosely following the discussion these past couple of days, so I may be missing things, but I think that statement up there may be where the misunderstanding has been coming from? In that it's not a disagreement about the show itself, but just a different philosophical understanding of casual sex to begin with.

Who you have sex with does not intrinsically say anything about you as a person or imply that you hate yourself just because you fucked someone who may be shitty. (Which, Ed does canonically hate himself, that's a big thing about himself, but irrelevant to the point I'm making here in any case)

Jack was someone he had fun with and who was easily available, someone who he's initially excited enough to see again even after years because he's someone he's obviously associated with fun in the past, and sex here is just a different kind of fun, it really doesn't have to mean anything more than that or imply any damning thing about Ed as a person just because of his choice of partner for a hookup. I think that is in fact a pretty big part of it, that the kind of sex Ed had before Stede was always meaningless and lacking a deeper connection, just something to do for a fleeting bit of fun with whoever was around and willing, and he's tired of it by the time Stede comes around, and shows him that he can actually aspire to better than the only thing that's ever been an option to him in the past.

Ed enjoying rowdier fun and casual unattached sex is a value neutral statement, there's nothing inherently wrong with that by itself, nor does it denote anything wrong with Ed's character just because some of his partners may have been shitty people (other than maybe bad taste). There are many toxic things about pirate culture in general and Jack specifically as a person and in his relationship with Ed, but that aspect of it is not actually one of them.

Anyway, I feel like I'm talking in circles a bit, but I get the impression that's what originated all the discourse: people's issue seems to be not so much with your preference to interpret Jack as lying here, but the fact that your reasoning to dismiss the option that he's telling the truth seems to be coming from a place with some unfortunate implications about casual sex and the people who engage in it, that other people don't necessarily share, so for them Ed and Jack having sex does not actually grant Jack this undue power over Ed that you've been referring to.

I apologise if I'm out of line and overstepping here, I know this can be more of a personal matter. It just seemed to me to be a big blind spot in this conversation, so I thought it might be worth pointing it out to hopefully shed some clarity.

K, I'm gonna try to unpack this and be as clear as I can about what I actually think, because this is getting complicated. I've no clue if this is what people are actually taking away from this conversation, and a lot of what I'd originally said was unclear on my part and then ran away from me, so now there's a Discourse that goes beyond what I'd intended or meant.

No, I do not hold the opinion that casual sex is bad or wrong. Yes, it is a neutral thing. For some people, it's awesome and they love it; for others, it makes them feel shitty and they'd rather not do it. That's down to the individual. I am strongly of the opinion that everyone should do what feels right for them, as long as the people involved are consenting to it. Human relationships are complicated.

In terms of Ed: no, there is nothing wrong with him fucking whomever he likes (with consent). That includes Jack. If I ever implied otherwise, I am sorry.

Ed having had bad partners is not a value judgment on him. Ed thinking he only deserves bad partners and that the only way he can be touched is with violence makes me very sad for Ed. What I said in the previous post is entirely my emotional reaction; maybe I just see how fucking awful Jack is and I'd rather that Ed not have been subjected to his fucking awfulness. That's not blaming Ed for having had a bad partner, but preferring that he not have had a bad partner.

In terms of Ed's characterization, I think this gets more complicated. We see Ed desiring things that he hasn't gotten: intimacy, softness, gentleness. We see him wanting Stede to hold him, and not knowing how to ask for that except via a violent game. That implies that at least some of Ed's past has not been satisfying for Ed. He's not seeking out yet another casual fling but an intimacy that he has been denied in the past and that he wants. TBH, I largely read Ed as one of those people who does not actually want casual sex but does it because he wants closeness and pleasure and that's his only option. Is that the only way to read him? No, not at all. Just my opinion.

Jack does absolutely read to me as someone who mistreats his partners, and who does not care either about their comfort or their pleasure or, for that matter, their consent.

I've tried several times now to explain what I meant by giving Jack power, which I did not mean to do with the characters in-world but with Jack's power in the narrative. This was originally (I think?) in the context of Jack defining Ed's sexuality for the viewer, and that's where I think we may be granting Jack too much power to define who Ed is. Maybe this is still overly muddled, but I was never trying to say that if Ed and Jack had sex, Jack controls Ed.

All of this is solely my read of the characters and the way the show is constructed. None of this is prescriptive, none of this is "this is the only the way to understand these characters and their relationships and everyone else is wrong and bad." My frustration has been with myself, for kneejerk reactions and not being able to express my opinion on this clearly, and the way in which some statements have been taken out of context and seem to have gotten away from the original conversation, so that I'm feeling more than a little defensive about it. I'm also a bit frustrated at some of the hostility towards a differing interpretation of a scene in a TV show, which has also made me feel defensive. This, however, is a me problem.

A number of the conversations that have grown out of this I've found very valuable and interesting and I respect others' opinions, and despite appearances, all I really want to do is discuss these things with other fans. I really don't mean to be hostile at all.

#ofmd #our flag means death #edward teach #calico jack #stede bonnet #ofmd meta

[merrivia]

what do you think really happened in the bathrooms before laurent got damen whipped in cp? we know damen is an unreliable narrator and that laurent also can’t be completely trusted.

because the way damen described it in the moment (and later chapters too) , it seemed like he got aroused and paused his hands where he shouldn’t have:

“He had now progressed far enough in his undertaking that he encountered curves… “He looked down, and the wash cloth slowed”

“I promise you, Govart did a great deal more than simply enjoy the view.”

but then a couple chapters latter laurent says stuff like:

“Your style of grabbing your partner and kicking their legs open does stand out in the memory”

“I recall you being free with your own hands, not so very long ago”

so… what do you think happened? i love reading your opinions!

Oh this is something I have mused on before! Thanks so much for the ask and for saying you love to read my opinions.

As always, I want to preface my analysis by saying, textual analysis is down to personal interpretations, and it's really okay to disagree.

So let's unpick the entire scene!

I'm really sorry, this is going to be...very long 🤦🏽‍♀️

I'm going to go a bit further with this to begin with, to think about why Laurent actually engineered this scene.

Laurent is at this moment in a huge state of anger and pain. His need for revenge is burning deeply within him. He can be dangerously volatile, and deadly with it, and I think the fact that he is being forced to suppress any emotional reactions to this horrible act of psychological cruelty on the part of the Regent (the sending of Damen to him as a slave), is making things worse (like pressure building up and up, until the force of the explosion becomes lethal).

This is what Laurent says in Ch 14 of PG about his treatment of Damen in CP, at Arles:

Laurent was so angry at Arles, he can't find the right word to describe the intensity of it? Or perhaps it was also fear and the need for revenge and hurt and pain all intermingled with anger, which there is no word for? Either way he was incendiary with pure fury.

Quick recap: Previously to the scene in the baths, Laurent tried to have Damen raped in the ring by Govart, drugging him with chalis. But Damen won, and refused to rape Nicaise, a moment that confuses Laurent. Not only this, but the Regent explicitly told him not to hurt Damen as a form of keeping peace with Akielos and so Laurent waits six days until the Regent has gone to Chastillon to hunt boar, for them to be "alone".

I think it's a fairly well-known issue to readers and fans, that the reasoning for all this was surely grounded in Laurent's own sexual abuse and trauma and the need to inflict revenge on the man he blames on causing it by proxy (with the death of Auguste, there was no-one to protect him from the Regent). This doesn't make it right, but it provides us with a reason.

It is also clear that at this point in the novel, Laurent very much wants to prove that Damen is immoral and monstrous and that Laurent needs something concrete to happen, to be able to hurt him. Thus he conceives this plan.

The conversation between Damen and Laurent in this scene, literally makes me flinch. Laurent is so deadly and sharp in it:

Oh my god, the sentence "Laurent smiled" makes me so uneasy!

It is, of course, really pertinent that Laurent brings up Damen's refusal to rape Nicaise. That was a little crack in the way Laurent has constructed Damen in his head, as a brutish, thuggish aggressor (a Govart wrapped up in nicer packaging); a mindless killer; a monster.

I think Damen's first big mistake is getting pulled into this verbal knife fight, when he says "I'm quite cultured. Before I rape anyone I check to see if their voice has broken". Damen only said that to match Laurent- it's a riposte, meant as a sharp, sarcastic rejoinder, but I'm not sure that that's what Laurent hears. I think he would think as he smiled : 'ah, now Damianos, who thinks he is so honourable and clever, is starting to show the truth of himself'. It's really not a typically Damen thing to say. Laurent is succeeding in dragging him down off his moral high horse, and he's enjoying it.

The next thing Laurent does is equate killing with a sword to rape. This is a really common analogy, as swords and knives can be seen as phallic symbols. You'll see this interpretation in literary analysis and in psychological analysis of crimes and homicides, where the penetration of the body through stabbing via a knife or sword, is seen as a substitute sexual crime. I believe this is also Laurent's way of dragging Damen off of the moral high ground he was on, when he refused Audin's offer of Nicaise. Ok you won't rape a child. You're a murderer though, which is just as bad as a rapist. And let's see just how 'honourable' you are, shall we?

Additionally, I think Laurent is delighting in torturing Damen verbally, especially with the psychological stress it is causing Damen to talk of Marlas, veering him perilously close to 'discovery' each time.

The next part is very much about Laurent constructing a narrative about Damen in his head, as he paints a picture of Damen's psychology which makes him out to be a violent, pugnacious sadist.

I find that "new voice" of Damen's really interesting. I actually think no-one has ever spoken to Damen like this before? When would he have been so insulted and vilified, to his face? Also, I mean...Damen is a warrior par excellence, practically a demi-god, you'd have to be stupid to try and "goad" him into fighting you out of anger?

When someone does vilify you, it brings out a new facet of your personality. An angrier, vicious side to you. You know...just like the one that Laurent discovered in himself when the Regent villified him...(ahem, cough, parallels).

Now here comes the really interesting part.

What is Laurent thinking? He's filled with "dislike" but he's also "assessing" Damen, taking the moment to evaluate him. Moments before, Damen had weighed up the options of killing Laurent in the baths and had dismissed it. It would only lead to his own death. Damen acknowledges some men would be reckless and just "wring" Laurent's "neck", for the pleasure of it. A Govart type, for instance. Laurent took a gamble that Damen wouldn't (directly contradicting the way Laurent says Damen is stupid and mindlessly violent!), and he's "self-satisfied", a little smug and pleased with himself over the fact that he was right. Damen had expected "bravado" i.e. that Laurent would be scared, and would be trying to intimidate Damen as a consequence. Damen is yet to learn that being alone with Laurent is a dangerous thing (he realises this by chapter 7!). I think Laurent is also feeling self-satisfied, because he's waiting for the next stage of this set-up to begin.

Laurent's figured out that Damen finds him attractive already. Everyone finds him attractive, anyway. And so he's going to use his body and his looks as bait. If he can goad Damen into trying to assault or rape him, he will have every justifiable excuse to execute him or flog him to death...

Laurent makes Damen uncomfortable, by making him strip and undress him. It's a weird pantomine of lovers, undressing in front of each other or undressing each other. More importantly, it's what bed-slaves would routinely do for Damen, so they'd be standing nude before each other as a prelude to sexual acts in Akielos. That's what Laurent is banking on the atmosphere feeling like. It works too- Damen can't get his head around it; familiar patterns in an unfamiliar context.

Also, I just want to say how Laurent must have been very scared in this moment. He is very very good at hiding and suppressing his fear, dont get me wrong, but no-one would have ever seen his body naked like this as an adult, apart from Damen in this moment. No-one has probably touched his naked body since...well.

Damen gets pretty overwhelmed by the beauty of Laurent's body. The "flinty dislike" only stops him from probably grinning and openly drinking it all in with appreciation. Because he's certainly very complimentary in his head.

Sidebar: he's comparing Laurent's body for this kind of thing right?

Anyway forging ahead….

The next stage, is touching.

This is where Damen gets into real difficulties.

What I said earlier, regarding familiar patterns in Damen's mind, that, plus the heat of the baths, plus the intimacy of washing Laurent's body i.e. running his hands all over him, starts to get to him:

And..Damen, who has had his sexual desires catered to always in Akielos, who is a very sexual being in terms of his nature, cannot help but start to have very recent memories come back to him. He doesn't act on them quite yet though.

But that does happen in the next few moments:

So my interpretation of the "curves" Damen encounters, is Laurent's erm callipygian assets:

Now...this is very, very intimate. To wash someone's private parts. I do think Laurent had him start at his back, not his front also, deliberately, as he is trying to provoke him.

And Damen rises to the bait and does not act well. I think to him, it feels very sexual to be touching Laurent in his way, as Laurent intended, in a significant erogenous zone ...the place where he would....take him. The soap probably feels a little like lubricant. And Damen slows down, clearly looking. There's no textual evidence he does more than simply slow down, but stopping/pausing could be plausible.

That's Damen's second mistake. If he had stuck to practically and briskly washing Laurent, there would be no issue.

Laurent, of course, picks up on this flare of arousal...and Damen runs his mouth again with: "Too late, sweetheart".

I get a very strong feeling that this is part of the arrogance Laurent found unbearable in Damen from the start. He's been chained up as a slave and yet is still so big and strong, so good at fighting, so good at everything princely, so naturally charming and likeable (think of how Jord starts to warm to him pretty damn quickly!), that he doesn't ever seem weak, physically or emotionally. Damen sort of has still retained an air of 'nothing can really hurt me or scare me or get to me' and 'I'll obey you but we both know that's laughable really", that must really be pissing Laurent off. He's not seeing that Laurent is truly a danger to him. I think Laurent actually doesn't mind being underestimated by other people necessarily, as it probably fits into his plotting and planning e.g. Torveld not seeing how dangerous he is, for example, or no-one knowing how good a swordsman he is but his own guard, but it really angers him when it's from Damen. The "sweetheart" thing too, is Damen going from the start of the novel, what you think you have power over me? Please. So bringing that up again...is Damen's way of bucking against this control Laurent is trying to exert over him.

Trouble is, Laurent is really really furious now.

The third mistake Damen makes is catching Laurent before his blow can connect, and holding his wrist. From Damen's perspective, he just doesn't really fancy getting hit again in a way that would split his lip open. I think it's possible that he doesn't really think slowing his hands down for a few moments when he was ordered to wash Laurent's naked body is that big of a deal (this is highly debatable to readers!). He doesn't stop to think as to how this comes across to Laurent, and obviously is unaware of his trauma:

Damen is stronger, physically, than Laurent. When Laurent tries to free himself with the "little spasming motion" Damen doesn't let him go. If he was trying to get free, that really must have sent some suppressed part of Laurent into a panic. Or, alternatively, Laurent deliberately didn’t use his whole strength, just enough to signal ‘let go’ as a test to see if Damen would. Which Damen failed. Was that test completely fair under the circumstances? Possibly not? Depends on your perspective, especially with what Laurent did to Damen only the previous week.

Then Damen eyes him up, looking at Laurent's naked body, and his genitals. It's nothing Damen didn't see before, but there’s seeing and there’s looking and this would be both threatening and enraging to Laurent. When Damen feels the "tension hit Laurent's body", this is on the same spectrum as the tension that Laurent feels when he has sex with Damen later in the trilogy, (though different in form as it was consensual). Laurent’s history of abuse and his trauma are locking the muscles of his body up tightly (definitely extreme anxiety), because situations like this take him to the horrific, tragic, child abuse in his part.

Sidebar: Sorry if this is meandering, but bear with me. Akielos is a militaristic and patriarchal society, very obviously, with deeply embedded views of honour (Vere is also patriarchal, but a little less so, I mean there are no female kyroi but there is Lady Vannes who has a high political position). Women don't fight; men do. Had there been a woman in front of Damen, he never would have raised a finger to her, or held her wrist to keep her still etc.,- it's why Adrastus sends in a female slave to bathe Damen at the start of Captive Prince. Damen prefers women as lovers, we know, and Pacat has said in her 'dvd' commentaries, in the one from Ch 9 of CP, that he treats sex and all his lovers with respect. If you've never read them before, you can find them on tumblr and the bold text is Pacat's own commentary on her work:

Essentially I'm saying, I don't think that Damen abuses his lovers in any manner or would ever do what he's doing here in the baths, holding them in place. Pacat has constructed Damen as a considerate lover; this situation is very much one of strange, tense complexity.

Damen is bisexual and sees (a small selection of, mostly blond) men as attractive too, and has had them as lovers, but I think in terms of Akielon thinking and Damen's thinking, men are men. They are people you can beat or who can beat you fairly in a physical fight, and if you put yourself in that sort of situation with him (a show of physical strength/a fight, where one might win out) well, take the consequences. I think that, sadly, Damen doesn't get how this comes across like the precursor to assault to Laurent. Well, not yet.

The next moment is very interesting.

Laurent reminds him of it and says "But my voice has broken. That was the only prerequisite, wasn't it?"

What did Laurent think Damen would say or do in response to that? If Damen was a rapist, he would have just forged ahead anyway. It would not have taken much for a man of Damen's strength and size to overpower most people, including Laurent.

Instead, Damen reacts as if "burned", suddenly realising how it all comes across, and in that moment, that beat of time afterwards, I think that enrages Laurent even more. That there was space in his response for Damen to actually not be a rapist…

Because Damianos, the prince-killer, the murderer of Auguste, the destroyer of Laurent's life, was supposed to really show who he was, and Damianos did slow his hands when he shouldn't have on Laurent's body, and he did hold Laurent in place, against his will, like he was pinning Laurent down, and that's enough, he showed he is a monster, even if it wasn't quite to the extent that Laurent wanted him to, but it's enough, it's enough to prove it and now Damianos is recoiling with horror, as if he's innocent (could he not have meant to...no, Laurent knew what he wanted, it's what they all want)?

Laurent's anger explodes in this moment and with it unleashed, the flogging ensues. And I genuinely think the fact that Damen recoiled makes Laurent more angry rather than less, because maybe he sees it as dissembling but also because it might mean he's wrong about Damen and Laurent literally cannot deal with it and needs overwhelming anger to flood over that uncertainty, to obliterate it.

Now, let's get to the final part of your ask: Damen as an unreliable narrator and why Laurent seems to remember things differently.

Unreliable narration is more often seen with first person. The trilogy is told via third person narration, told mostly limited to Damen's perspective. It does range a round a little, as CP starts with Guion's, and twice, there are chapters/scenes from Laurent's perspective too (in the cell with Govart and when he frees Jokaste).

Third person limited perspective often does literally 'limit' what we know, through the eyes of that character, which is what we get with Damen. He is in a foreign land, has to keep his identity a secret lest he be killed, has been thrust into the midst of complex Veretian politics which he doesn't understand...it would offer us no tension or suspense whatsoever, if we didn't see Damen slowly come to realisations and conclusions as the text went on. He has some internal biases, of course (especially against Vere and Laurent to start) and character traits which means he sees things in certain ways (the way, at first, his mind thinks in 'straight lines', his inability to connect the dots around the Regent's abuse of Laurent). That is where some measure of 'unreliability' comes from, from perspective. But actually it's all part of his character growth and the slow unfolding of the truth, across all three novels. And some aspects of it actually form dramatic irony. We figure some things out way before Damen does! We can see his biases as part of the narrative. That's all intentional by Pacat, obviously.

Now, to truly connect with a character, readers have to believe in them. The reader has to trust that they are acting like themselves. That there is internal consistency.

Do we feel we can trust Damen to tell us the action of a scene accurately?

I do.

Because if you don't take what he says as given in this scene, then, in my view, you would have to assume he is only pretending to be honourable throughout the entire series.

If we thought that, it would undermine the integrity of the entire text and the love story between him and Laurent.

Damen's blind spots are around his own emotions and his pain, which he often refuses to acknowledge. For me, it elicits a range of responses from cute (huffily getting jealous, like when Torveld is around Laurent), to a sort of endearing 'really Damen??' (when he always thinks he didn't nearly die e.g. the flogging and Kastor stabbing him, and he definitely nearly did- Damen-'I'll just walk it off' of-Akielos) to really sad (all of his trauma around his father's death and the betrayal of Kastor).

I don't think he would blank out on groping Laurent or kicking his legs apart.

So this is what Laurent says at first:

Damen is embarrassed and flushes here, and internally, freely admits that yes, he was "unequivocally", or unambiguously, too free with his hands and he knows what he did was wrong, even if he wants to deny it. I think if anyone were to feel some doubt over Damen telling the truth, this shows Damen is reliably telling us what happens, as he is honest with himself, and knows there is no doubt he did act as Laurent says he did. It's not the same as Govart's rape of Erasmus, and he defends himself there, but he knows he was wrong.

Next there's this part, much later, nearing the end of the CP:

Damen's ego when it comes to sex (by all accounts well-justified, but still 😂) means he has to fling out a sexy little riposte again. Laurent does NOT like Damen acting as if a) they could freely have sex and b) that Damen's good in bed and would sexually satisfy him in a memorable way (not yet at least 🌚).

But...fascinatingly, this is the first time I have noticed how long it takes quick, sharp Laurent to respond! "Eventually", suggests a long moment! I think it sort of annoyed but also flummoxed Laurent, because the seeds of his attraction to Damen have begun to start to grow?

I mean, it took Laurent a while to get his answer and what Laurent says is, 'oh yeah like you'd be good in bed you barbarian, the only thing memorable about you to your partners is going to be rough and non-consensual handling’ which is horribly insulting but maybe not quite as definitive as 'I'd rather die than lie with rutting rapey Akielon swine' which (some variation of) really was an option! This is still really denigrating, but not that bad for CP Laurent? Maybe I’m being too impatient for the ship that is Lamen to set sail though!

There are a tonne of ways to interpret this, so I could be wrong but it does remind a bit of when Laurent's eyes narrow when Damen says "nice accent" when Laurent speaks Akielon in PG- like again, Laurent's not actually being his most lethal self, but is kind of recognising that Damen is being a bit Damen-y with him and is kind of being like 'excuse me?' but for Laurent that's actually mild? I mean by the time we get to that moment in PG, they're far closer, but I'm just saying I see a glimmer of that same emotion here?

Because when Damen says "That isn't-" and stops, I think he's about to say, "That isn't what happened, and you know it isn't." Laurent is deliberately embellishing to irritate him (and why Laurent says “kicking their legs open” specifically…I feel like is from what he’s seen happen in the ring before? I don’t think he’d casually bring up a factor of his own abuse like that? I don’t think so. Or I really hope not 😔). Damen doesn't have to finish his sentence though, because actually he knows Laurent knows that, and is just trying to provoke or anger him, so there's no point. Damen's insight into Laurent really is pretty good by the end of CP.

And that's it! We finally come to an end. I hope that answered your question in a way that feels satisfactory, and let's remember- my word isn't law, so anyone reading this is free to disagree! ✨

#captive prince #ask #damen x laurent #meta

[taylorswiftstylequestions]

For the anon worried about Travis, and any others who maybe have seen a few remarks floating around and aren't sure what to think:

The 'breeder' comment is a very good example of why seeking out context is important before getting upset about things you come across online. It's actually part of a very cute exchange with his family, where he and his brother were trying to make their mom pick her favorite on the podcate. Jason got their mom to name him (Jason) as the One She Would Save because he has kids, and Travis was joking that he needs to find a woman to give him kids so his mom will pick/love him. If you want to see the full thing for yourself rather than just take my interpretation of it (maybe you'll see the full context and still find my glasses far too rose-colored, as is your right), it's the New Heights episode from the week before the Super Bowl featuring Donna and Ed Kelce.

Despite how the fandom generally have been acting, Travis is in fact a human person with faults and a past and opinions we might not agree with, not a Perfect Unicorn Man ripped straight from a romance novel. We can't expect perfection from him, or anyone, nor should we. He will probably say or do other things in his life that some people won't love. This does not make him a bad person, or Taylor a bad person for dating him. It just means people are people, and people are messy and fallible and interesting and changeable and challenging. (If I may throw it back to one of my favorite things Sarah has said this year: "Support women's wrongs!" Same energy, even if the exact situation doesn't quite match)

If we want to find something to be upset about, we can go searching and find it for absolutely anyone, Taylor included. But on the aggregate, Travis seems to be a really really great guy. He's extremely hard-working, charitable, personable. He seems to make Taylor very happy, and to respect the hell out of her. I think we've found a winner here. Let's take the win.

---

I don’t remember the context of the sex before the fourth date comment, but I do want to say that with the breeder comment, it’s very clear in context that that’s not how Travis feels about women— he’s more making fun about how that’s the only reason his mom wants him to find a partner, so he can breed and give her grandchildren. He goes on to talk about how while he does want to settle down and have children some day, what he really craves is a genuine connection with someone. Prior to Taylor coming into the picture it was kind of a recurring theme on the podcast that Travis was lonely and really seeking out love, so the whole conversation fit into that. It’s totally reasonable if you don’t like that language at all and don’t want to engage with someone who said it even as a joke, but I think the reports of “he called all women breeders!” aren’t really accurate— at the very least that interpretation is missing a lot of nuance and context to make it sound as bad as possible when if you listen to the podcast it’s really clear that’s not what he was saying at all

---

Cheers to the TSSers putting in the thought and the energy and the care on the topic that I just simply cannot. It is appreciated and so kind.

[juliapark13]

https://twitter.com/JAKSAL_5813/status/1708803265733988485

and you still think this man has a partner ? He made it very clear he doesn't have ANY special person in his life , be it boyfriend, girlfriend whatever. He stressed that he just wants to work NOW and DON'T FEEL THE NEED. That means if he feels the need of a girl, he will get. And you still shipping Jimin with him thinking they are in some holy romantic relationship, life partners you say. Please, this man gives only one vibe- that he is het af and only into casual flings. NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS. If you are still not getting it idk what more say lol. I assume that girlie in the video was also just his fling who accidentally got caught.

Imagine seeing this

And interpreting it like the paragraph anon posted.

Anon, I would like to know if you are only pretending and trying or you are dumb af also in real life.

I don’t know when you will finally get if you are sure you’re right, you really, really don’t have to seek anyone’s validation.

Everyone can have own opinions, but I personally couldn’t care less about people who believe they are in an open relationship and dating someone else.

I can guarantee you Jungkook won’t feel a need of a girl.

Bye 👋🏽

#jikook

[redcracklestan]

Carulia ship analysis pt.1

Ok i decided that I’m gonna do an analysis of every ship (maybe more parts for each one) that are in the show, idk if anyone is actually gonna read it but anyway.

I decided to start with carulia because i have a LOT to say about this ship.

First of all I don’t like it.

I think that carulia is the kind of ship that, yes, is cute but is not gonna work at all. They have no chemistry, literally 0, they are very different, they would not complement each other well, and they have no “ship moments”

I’m gonna talk about each one of these points in order, maybe each one in different parts.

They have no chemistry

I think that it’s kind of oblivious that Julia may have a little crush on Carmen, but that’s all. Carmen sees Julia just as a good friend , or at least it is what i got from their scenes together.

They literally have nothing in common except that they both like history very much, but this is not enough to build a relationship off of that.

But to better understand what I’m talking about I’m gonna mention every episode that they are in togheter.

Becoming carmen sandiego pt.1-2

The first episode where both Carmen and Julia make the first appearance is in the very first episode, Becoming Carmen Sanediego pt.1 but they don’t interact, the only thing we can say about this episode is the fact that Julia is starting to think since the start that Carmen is actually a good thief that just steals from other thief, taking her parts since the start, but i don’t really see any romantic thing in that, just an opinion coming from a smart girl. In becoming carmen sandiego pt.2 it’s the same.

The chasing paper caper

Fast forward to this episode because here is when their relationship start to get interesting.

In this episode, we see carmen going after paper star that stole the Magna Carta. In order to do that, she has to follow paper star on a train and to follow her, but from a distance, because otherwise she would probably die. While she was following paper star on the train, she bumped into Julia, who was sitted on a dining table, probably waiting for devineaux. Carmen sits down on devineaux seat, and she talks to Julia ONLY TO KEEP AN EYE ON PAPER STAR. And then this scene happens.

SHE WAS WATCHING ON THE SIDE TO SEE WHO HER PARTNER WAS BUT NOT BC SHE WAS JEALOUS, BACAUSE THEY JUST MET. How can someone you just met be jealous of you??? Literally all forced, 0 chemistry.

The fashionista caper

In this episode carmen is in Milan (which i loved since i live here) and is trying to stop VILE from stealing the Medici’s dresses, and ACME is trying to stop carmen from stealing them too.

Here we have that scene where Julia tries to stop her before she can go on the catwalk in a very weak way if you ask me (Julia has a soft spot/crush on carmen it’s so clear)

And people are so brave to say that Carmen was checking her out romantically in the middle of a damn caper. See? All forced literally no chemistry. And in the same episode

Here, people say that she was protecting her because she loved her, WHAT. Maybe it is just that carmen is very empathetic, and she doesn’t want anyone to be killed? Maybe? Mhhh, idk this seems like a fair point to me. She would have done this for anybody. Everything here is so forced. Carmen clearly doesn’t reciprocate her crush.

The day of the dead caper

In this episode the only “carulia” scene is when Julia quits her ACME job to follow her other dream: teaching history. And she says that thing to chief

This could be interpreted in 2 ways: 1. Her heart is out of the game because she is going against her ideologies and morals for ACME 2. Her heart is out of the game because of carmen and honestly, like I said before i think that it is both because she has a little crush on carmen, even thought carmen doesn’t reciprocated at all.

The haunted bayou caper

Even here, the only “carulia” scene i can think about is the one where the following conversation happens: (i could not find any gif)

Carmen: devineaux, where is jules today?

Devineaux: that’s classified, but ms.argent is doing other things

Carmen: shame, she’s probably a better driver. And those are such nice cars.

Ok, how can this show any kind of romantic interest? How? She just likes to tease people, and Julia and Carmen are friends. They help each other, but nothing more. Again, forced and no chemistry.

The Egyptian decryption caper

In this episode carmen ask Julia for help to decrypt some old artefacts because she is the only one that can possibly help her, she goes to one of her lessons and she wait, just like devineaux did except she acted in two different ways

Ok, I'm gonna say that again one more time, she may have a small crush on her, but she was mostly surprised, and you can’t deny that. And even if it wasn’t, a small crush not reciprocated is not enough to base a relationship off of that. Another scene

Carmen is just curious about her meeting up with devineaux after everything that has happened, and I’d be curious too tbh. While Julia is just answering a question. Again, all forced, there is nothing romantic in that interaction. Going further on that episode, she is curious why devineaux is answering her private phone, NOT JEALOUS. But anyway, after she convinces Chase to go and save Julia with her, she ends up here

she would say goodbye to her plan to save her, like she did and would do for literally anybody, nobody esclused (like she did for zack and Ivy even though she had just met them) Again I see no romantic interest in that.

The dark red caper

Here there is also only one “carulia” scene and it is that

how can a fight scene be considered a romantic thing? how? again, all forced.

The interactive game, to steal or not to steal

Where carmen dances and Julia looks at her like that

again, this confirms my theory that Julia may have a small crush on Carmen, but she doesn't reciprocate. You can see that by the look in her eyes.

[edit] My stupid ass forgot to mention (thank you @emily-prentits for correcting me) that this was actually all in Carmen's mind, but I think this only proves my point more. because look at how Carmen looks at Julia and how Julia looks at carmen. You can see that even in her imagination, Julia has a crush on her, and i interpreted it as if Carmen noticed that (so it shows in her imagination), but Carmen again doesn't reciprocate, so she looks at her in a "normal" way

I want to specify that you can ship whatever you want this is just an analysis that I made, this is all for today, sorry if i made any grammatical errors but English is not my first language.

I will continue this analysis in the other parts idk when but i hope soon, bye!

#carmen sandeigo 2019 #carmen sandiego netflix #carmen sandiego #julia argent #ship analysis

[persephoneflouwers]

Lucky Again

I spent the last few days thinking about this song quite a lot. I haven’t paid much attention to it at first, probably the excitement felt a bit mitigated by the fact we knew the song already, but I’ve been binge listening to the album for a month now and every week it’s a new week obsessing with a different song, so now it’s Lucky Again turn. I haven’t read many analysis or opinions lately, because I’ve been pretty busy, so I’m sorry if this is something someone already wrote about or if it doesn’t really make sense. It does make sense in my head tho, so I’ll hope I can articulate my thoughts well enough to convey the message lol.

I think Lucky Again is a very comforting song, more like self-comforting. It is a love song, but to himself. And since when I started reading at it like this… Lucky Again has been hurting more than any other song in the album. Yeah, I said that about All this time too but yall know what I mean lol. They are very very very personal songs. Louis is so good at writing about himself and being so open to fucking stub your heart with a single word, but sometimes it goes a bit unheard. Not here tho, not here.

Anyway. Let’s start!

You give and give until it's gone away, Just tell yourself you've got another day

Starting with a bang. I usually read deeper than necessary but the incipit feels a bit tough, doesn’t it? He’s saying life can get consuming. It consumes you, your time, your energies, sometimes your feelings. You give and give until everything is gone and you go though your day by inertia, one day after the other.

You've lived that life, you just don't see it yet

Truth been spoken. When you are in your darkest place, it’s hard to appreciate what you have and usually you miss it when it’s gone (oh wait! Maybe you don't know what's lost 'til you find it 🎶)

I see how hard you've worked to be yourself

When I tell you I sobbed the first time this line clicked in my brain. Just imagine Louis saying this to himself… argh! I don’t know how to react. It’s like absolutely amazing he appreciates and values how much he has grown as a person and how many steps forward he has taken and how rough some times were. It’s amazing to see him acknowledging he came out of his own dark places or at least he has tried. I was wondering what Louis meant when he said in some interviews he doesn’t like when people pity him, and I see why. There’s nothing to pity here, it’s just congratulations for how strong and tough he is. Hard work always always pays off.

If you believe that guy is Superman, They're selling tickets at the cinema

The interpretations of this line are potentially endless, but it always hit me for how real it is. It spoke to me like the best way to say ‘it’s bullshit, but you do you’. It’s a recurrent concept in FITF, the disillusionment and the concreteness of reality. He’s not a dreamer in this album, always very optimistic, positive, mature but never not pragmatic. He sounds jealous at some point, like one of those things you say to your partner when they make a comment about somebody else, right? But it’s the way he sets this in a specific direction, he sets the tone with two words: superMAN and cinema. So it feels to me like he is talking about a famous person who usually gets idolised, and by extent fame, popularity in general. I am not a teacher, but I would say this is a rhetoric figure called Synecdoche and I absolutely adore it! So does Louis, by the way. The choice of words is interesting and telling. He’s using believe as something a bit negative here. That’s ironic for an abum called FAITH in the future, isn’t it? But it’s his way apparently. He wants to create a paradox, a contrast and it’s clear since the cover of the album, since it doesn’t strike as a faithful cover to me lmao

Whatever gets you through the darkest night, Just find the light, Out in the madness, hold tight

Now that I’m writing about it, every line in this song feels like a ring of a chain and everyone references the other like it’s 🤯. Sometimes when I listen to songs I imagine how the singer would speak to someone else. For this part, I clearly see future Louis talking to present Louis and that applies to any other timeline, it’s an inception of Louis talking to himself basically. He’s encouraging to keep going no matter what (whatever gets you).

Through the night… isn’t it a-m-a-z-i-n-g how consistent this theme is in Louis songs? He’s been singing Through the dark for months and look at her, coming back in disguise! Self references are hot, but this one gets the cake. Is he by any chance saying «whatever gets you through the night… we will find a way through the dark» etc etc? Love it. 10/10.

'Cause I'm a hard man to lose

This has always felt a bit… weird. Like imagine you go “im hard man to lose” in a song where you are basically saying you are happy you’re together again or something. It feels… arrogant? A bit? And honestly that’s not a ‘songwriter Louis’ move. I just don’t see it. And I know, it’s always about the layers with him, but what if it’s literal this time? What if he is saying “I am not the one gives up, I am not the one losing”? After all, he’s been pretty open here about how hard he worked, he has just said he has to hold tightly.

But I figured it out then made my way back To a life I would choose

He settled it for me in this line. He is not one to lose, that’s how he went back to the life he chose and he says it as proudly as he can because the thing is… it doesn’t matter how crazy it is (the madness and all that) but he would do it again. Despite all the shit, he would do it again. You can take it as a nod to his relationship of course. He changes the line second time with ‘I'm a hard man to find, but you figured it out and I love you for that’, almost pushing for a love story interpretation. But to me it feels more like he is talking about second chances, specifically in his life and work opportunities . The life I would choose part screams career to me and hits you in the face pretty hard if you think of how many obstacles he has been going through since the start of his solo career and even before during the band.

We were lucky once, I could be lucky again

He’s been using only you/I form til here. Now, I know this we can be misleading. It’s very natural to conceive a we as an us, like two people in a relationship or something, but see… that’s very Louis lol. He writes songs like stories and here he’s storytelling. Sometimes it even feels like a plurale maiestatis! I use it an embarrassing amount of time especially for non-formal conversations, and probably this is my bias of interpretation since English is not my first language but it’s curious the way he switches from a We (in past form), to I (possible future form). That’s why I think the we is used only to help with the story he’s writing about, the past he’s recalling while writing the song.

Before the world had got so serious, Before the time it got away from us

Layers againnnnn! Is this about his past maybe in the band or before that? Is this about… I don’t know, the pandemic? The world got pretty serious in 2020 didn’t it? And stunt-wise things haven’t been looking pretty bright since the second half of 2020 so… yeah. But actually I consider this a description of more innocent times. He seems nostalgic of. Still… he doesn’t seem to be willing to go back then again. He misses simple times, but has faith the future would make him feel lucky again.

It got away from us… is so strong. It’s powerful the way he never really blames anyone for the bad or the wrong. It’s just that time goes away. Very Heraclitus of him with the panta rei and all (an usual recurrent theme in Louis songwriting) and very it is what it is too. He’s very coherent in his songs, I love it.

I meet you at the favorite subway stop, We grab some food then meet the lads for one

Storytelling king strikes again. He’s so good in describing moments from the past. Like Saturdays is a song born entirely from past memories, so I really shouldn’t be surprised he does it in Lucky too, but still! Look, lines like this are seriously meant to paint a scenario in your head and he does it so well. Meet, eat and smoke with friends like a Netflix and chill ante litteram. It’s so straightforward. 11/10.

Look back on a time, I was lucky once, I could be lucky again

I love love LOOOVE the way he uses look back on a time, because he really kinda confirms how all he just did was recalling moments from a past life through lyrical narration.

What a gem of a song.

Also special mention to The unfiltered version of Lucky again with the “I’m lucky/I’m in love” whatever the fuck you meant by that, Louis, that was pretty sick and it should have survived the final revisions.

#lucky again supremacy #lucky again lyrics #all of them are just lyrical gems for me #lyrics analysis #fitf lyrics

[prettyboykatsuki]

sae has weirdly been my fav blorbo for a long time but when considering his type I've come to realise that he probably wouldn't be into nerdy or not conventionally pretty girls. + I don't think that sae is the type to commit at all like. he's just there to fuck around and then leave and if anything the fb trope would be more fitting for his character (imo). and everytime I read fluff about him it's just so ooc to me I can't help it 😭 I mean he does have a lot of toxic traits and could be considered 'a horrible person' but yea idk you always have this deep analysis of characters I was wonder what you'd think about sae and this topic specifically haha hope I didn't bother

i disagree with this characterization of him for a lot of reason

i don't pay a lot of attention to what the fanon interpretation of sae is and im sure this aligns with his image but i dont personally think that this assessment of his character makes a lot of sense. i do understand where it comes from though !!!

i believe that a lot of this miscommunication of his characterization stems from his relationship to rin, but i've broken that down as to why i don't think sae hates rin. in fact in his own way i think he views his own harsh behavior as a way to shield rin from reality (though it had the opposite of his intended affect) i also don't believe that sae is a vapid or shallow player off-field, and that's largely in contrast to his personality before he left for spain and after.

sae is always viewed to be cold, blunt, and serious but he is also deeply affectionate of rin in their adolescence. his major change happens while we're overseas and while we don't know yet what happened specifically - it's clear to me that something borderline traumatic happened. this type of change of character through rigorous training happens to kunigami through the wildcard system and this type of betrayal that leads to betterment is a theme in bluelock as well (i.e. nagireo)

im of the belief that saes arrogance and crass way of speaking developed largely as a defense mechanism as his goal of being a striker was shattered through playing in spain. in the same way kunigami views being a "hero" through soccer as a stupid ideal post wildcard.

sae is a normal guy outside of soccer. he even says that one of his major flaws is that he's pretty clueless about everything other than soccer. his least favorite food is fries, not because he hates the taste but because he can't have them because of his nutrition restrictions. his 'fetish' is ass because he thinks it can show what kind of an athlete someone is. all somewhat silly and ultimately regular things

all that being said - i don't think sae is a shallow person. i think he thinks very deeply and logically about a lot of things and he is indefinitely arrogant, but not shallow which is why i think it wouldn't make sense for him to judge on appearance. it'd be more accurate to assume that he's sort of dense and doesn't pay attention to people who aren't in his immediate circle. the assumption that he would make judgements on your appearance if you're just a regular joe-schmo doesn't quite connect to me. he's not insecure enough to do that.

on the issue of commitment - my only opinion is that sae is a character who values independence of sense of individualism in his partners. anyone with a strong sense of self is someone he is drawn to. this is why he likes isagi and shidou and often reprimands rin because he lacks a sense of selfhood and self confidence. rin only realizes that post the u20 match.

my point being that i think sae can and will commit to somebody but there's a lot more factors for a character like him that others like isagi or chigiri or kunigami who are naturally emotionally in tune with you.

sae isn't and will never be a 'romantic' person in the traditional sense to me but i don't think it means he's incapable of love or commitment. he has a hard time communicating verbally and saying things to your face but he remembers everything you said from your last conversation and pay attention to your hobbies. if you argue, you'll always find a vase of flowers in your kitchen with a note but you always have to call first. he's not Good about the emotional aspect because even if he puts in a lot of effort - it's never going to come naturally to him

BUT that also means if you're able to meet him half-way he's a committed and decent lover to you. he tries really hard to be and it takes some patience because he's sometimes too logical and hurts your feelings but he's there where it matters etc.

this is an essay SORRY KFDHJKSD. ive spent a lot of time thinking about him and giving him depth. and im not defending him necessarily because he is a massive douchebag for a lot of your early relationship. just not for shallow or petty reasons. simply bad at coping with his emotions and expressing himself because he's very prideful

#return to sender #bluelock meta #characterization tag #he is definitely chill w FWB set ups but its mostly bc of his career imo #he just like. from the bottom of his heart cannot be like lovey-dovey to your face #he'll call you like my love but only after ur in deep slumber and the words are between him and god ALONE #he thinks you're very beautiful but he says u look Okay (he saves every picture of you but only lets himself look when he's alone) #his contact is just your name in his phone (he has all the information filled out but only for yours) etc etc #he has a difficult time acting spoiled but never ever says no to your affection Ever even as a joke etc #bluelock manga spoilers

[youremyheaven]

Hi.

Please dont be offended but I'm just curious as I'm still learning vedic astrology.

So you said in your post about big age gaps that mercury and moon nakshatra men are most likely to marry younger women.

And when asked about Jk's preference for older or younger partner you said he can go for someone older,but he has saturn atmakarka in revati,venus amatyakarka in hasta and jupiter shravana.

Soooo what do you think about this?

I mean please dont be offended.

You are great.

i didn't say that as my personal opinion. Jungkook himself said he likes noonas/older women/wants an older partner 😭

The fact that he has Saturn atmakaraka itself is a very poignant significator. Saturn delays things and idk about his 7h placements but it can point to late marriage if 7h is in Saturn or aspecting it. It can also point to an older partner.

Saturn is debilitated in Pisces, so that's another thing. When interpreting a placement, we cannot interpret it independently, we have to interpret it within its placement.

He is Purva phalguni Sun, Magha Moon and idk if his AM/PM birth time situation was resolved so he's either Pushya Rising or Mula Rising

Either way, from his personality, style etc its very apparent that he's strongly influenced by his Magha Moon. He is Ketuvian, not Mercurial or Moon dominant.

Like you previously asked me whether he'd like a cute, doll like younger girl, nothing in his chart gave me that vibe explicitly but at the end of the day he's not someone I know personally so I can't conclusively say what he will or won't do or who he will or wont be attracted to

hope this clears things up<3

[magnetothemagnificent]

Hello, I have a question about "biblically accurate angels" that I was hoping to hear your opinion on.

At this point it's been made clear that the entire concept of "biblically accurate angels" is antisemitic and ignorant of the actual origin and context of those specific depictions of angels, and I'm just wondering what you think would be the most respectful way for non-Jewish people to address the issue.

What I mean by that is, do you think non-Jewish people should just stop trying to depict angels in that way because there is no way to do so respectfully, and should stop even trying to talk about "biblically accurate angels" at all because they just don't know what they're talking about anyway.

Or do you think that maybe if people educated themselves enough and came up with a less offensive way to refer to those depictions of angels then they could potentially engage with the concept respectfully?

I ask because my fiance is very enamored with the whole idea of "biblically accurate angels" and I'm just trying to figure out if I should tell him to completely drop it because it's antisemitic, or if I should try and find some resources for him to actually learn about how those depictions of angels fit into Jewish beliefs. He watched a video about "biblically accurate angels" made by W*ndigoon one time and I just worry that it's given him an incredibly skewed and innacurate understanding of the subject.

Considering that the Christian tradition of angels does include descriptions similar to those in Ezekiel, I don't think there's anything wrong with depicting angels in this way if you're not Jewish. My issue is with the "fandomization" of angels and the term "Biblically Accurate Angels". I wish people would stop treating them like Eldritch horror monsters, because they're beings people actually believe in. They're not cryptids, they're sacred. If you're going to talk about them, I'd rather the term "Ezekelian Angels" be used, or "Non-humanoid". And yeah from the little I know about W*******on, and of course their highly inappropriate channel name, they're not exactly the best source to get respectful, accurate information about other cultures and belief systems.

If your partner is interested in the theology of angels and their different interpretations, then he should look to Jewish sources on angels and the actual history of them and their depictions. If your partner can learn to not treat angels like cryptids or fantasy monsters, and can learn to treat those who believe in them respectfully, as well as be well-versed in the actual source material, then there's nothing wrong with him being interested in them.

However, if he's not Jewish, he shouldn't be learning about the angelic hierchy and their spiritual attributes in depth, the Mercava, or the Sefirot, as those are deeply embedded in Kabbalah, which is absolutely off-limits to non-Jews and requires a high level of learnedness, even if you're Jewish.

Some basic articles below about angels in Judaism:

Best of luck with your partner!

#jumblr #judaism #angels #jewish angels #religion #cultural appropriation #resources #jewish learning