Just finished Gideon the Ninth with a lot of expectation and I'm really disappointed :((((((
7 notes
·
View notes
Everything and nothing
325 notes
·
View notes
Actually I take back what I said in the tags of that “what would fix your blorbo” poll. 10,000,000 USD, in specifically that form, would potentially fix Horatio Hornblower. Untold riches in United States money, unaccountably delivered to a Royal Navy captain? What could it possibly be but the price of treason? They’d hang him for certain. And he’s always so angsty when people don’t hang him. He wants so badly to be punished for things nobody else thinks are that bad. Maybe if they executed him as the result of an anachronistically phrased Tumblr poll, maybe then he’d finally be happy.
69 notes
·
View notes
I was joking a while back that the actor they have playing KDJ for the orv movie was too handsome for him and a friend who's read orv was like "KDJ is actually secretly attractive!!" And I just felt my soul leave my body right then
SIGHS...
Okay. Buckle in. I'm gonna finally actually address and explain and theorize about this whole...thing.
I'm not gonna cite any exact chapters cause it's like 11:30 and I've got an 8 hour drive in the morning but I'll at least make an approximate reference to where certain things are mentioned. Also, this post is just my personal interpretation for a good bit of it, but it's an interpretation I feel very solid about, so do with that what you will. Moving on to the meat of things:
There is one (1) instance in the web novel that I know of which describes specific features of Kim Dokja (especially ones other people notice). This takes place when members of KimCom are trying to make Kim Dokja presentable to give his speech at the Industrial Complex (after it's been plopped down on Earth). This is when they start really paying attention and focusing on Kim Dokja's appearance since they're putting makeup on him; I still don't think they can interpret his whole face, but they can accurately pick out and retain more features than usual. If I remember correctly they reference him having long eyelashes, smooth skin, and soft hair. These features can be viewed as (stereotypically) attractive.
Certain parts of the fandom have taken this scene and run with it at a very surface level, without realizing (or without acknowledging at the very least) that this scene is not about how Kim Dokja looks. This is, in part, due to not realizing or acknowledging why Kim Dokja's face is "censored" in the first place, and what that censoring actually means. I think it's also possible that some people are assuming the censorship works like a physical phenomena rather than an altered perception.
I'll address that last point first. The censorship of Kim Dokja's features is not something as simple as a physical phenomena. It's not a bar or scribble or mosaic over his face. If that were true it'd be very obvious to anyone looking at him that his face is hidden. But his face is not hidden to people. They can look at him and see a face. If they concentrate on his eyes, they can see where he's looking. They know when he's frowning or grinning. They see a face loud and clear. But what face are they seeing? Because it's not really his, whatever they're seeing.
No one quite agrees on what he really looks like. And if they try and think about what he looks like, they can't recall. Or if they do, it's vague, or different each time. We notice these little details throughout the series. Basically, Kim Dokja's face is cognitively obscured. Something - likely the Fourth Wall, though I can't recall if this is ever stated outright - is interfering with everyone's ability to perceive him properly. This culminated in him feeling off to others; and since they don't even realize this is happening, they surmise that he is "ugly."
Moving on to the other point about what the censorship means: To be blunt, the censorship of his face is an allegory for his disconnect from the "story" (aka: real life, and the real people at his side). The lifting - however slight - of this censorship represents him becoming more and more a part of the "story" (aka: less disconnected from the life he is living and the people at his side). The censorship's existence and lifting can represent other things - like dissociation or depersonalization or, if you want to get really meta, the fact that he is all of our faces at once - but that's how I'd sum up the main premise of it. (The Fourth Wall is a larger part of the dissociation allegory, but that's for another post).
So you see, them noticing his individual features isn't about the features. It's not about the features! It doesn't matter at all which features got listed. Because they could describe any features whatsoever and it would not change the entire point of the scene. Because the point isn't what he looks like. The point is that they can truly and clearly see these features. For the first time. They are seeing parts of him for the first time. Re-read that sentence multiple times, literally and metaphorically. What does it mean to see someone as they are?
This is an extremely significant turning point dressed up as a dress-up scene.
---
P.S. / Additionally, I'm of the opinion that Kim Dokja is not handsome, and he is not ugly. He is not pretty, and he is not ghastly. Not attractive, nor unattractive. Kim Dokja isn't any of these things. More importantly, Kim Dokja can't be any of these things. The entire point of Kim Dokja is that you cannot pick him out of a crowd; he is the crowd. He's a reader. He's the reader. Why does he need to be handsome? Why must he be pretty? Why is him being attractive necessary or relevant? He doesn't, he doesn't, it's not. He is someone deeply deeply loved and irreplaceable to those around him, and someone who cannot even begin to recognize or accept that unless it's through a love letter masquerading as a story he can read. He is the crowd, a reader, the reader. He's you, he's me. He's every single one of us.
268 notes
·
View notes
one thing i've noticed about obey me's story is that it generally delivers on big dramatic narrative moments, but often neglects the surrounding scenes and especially the fallout. there is of course, the oft-talked-about lesson 16, feat. mc's death that never gets brought up again, but then there's also s2's amnesia arc, which ends things with "mc has the ring so everything is completely fine forever"
om has a habit of doing this, where a realm-wide (or heck, universe-wide) problem is hand-waved away by the appearance of a convenient fix-it, which is usually either an object or just ~magic~ (magic as a plot device in om in general is handled poorly but that's a story for another day)
in some cases they just don't address the fallout at all. at least belphie talks about what he did in lesson 16 - but, see nb s2, wherein levi floods the entire devildom, submerging entire houses, and they don't bring it up again afterwards. as far as i remember too, belphie's mini-arc in this season wasn't really given room to breathe, either
but here's the main thing (spoilers for nb lessons 38 and 39)
i've just done these two lessons and in hindsight lucifer's mini-arc feels like a lot of missed potential
honestly they could have excluded diavolo entirely - his main purpose was to stall for time so that the brothers could show up. the moment where he kneels was cool (more on that moment later), but the way they've written him in means that the angels kinda. don't get to do anything? at all?
look - raphael has a gorgeous character moment at the end of 37 where he cries for the brothers' plight. like you don't understand this had so much potential!!! he didn't really do much in s1 (and might not have actually been himself??) so i was hoping this would be his chance to shine, but instead he's on the sidelines. simeon gets the most to do, and even then it's really not much. luke doesn't do anything, unless you count those blessings he and simeon give mc, but they don't really factor in at all??
what especially doesn't make sense about diavolo's role here is that lucifer turns on mc after they step in to protect him. this is meant to be a pay-off to diavolo's less savoury motivation for saving the brothers, revealed in his arc in nb s1, but all lucifer does is say it, get mad, then completely forgets about it once all is said and done
if that's all they were going to do with it, why bring it up at all? from a character standpoint, it makes more sense for mc to shield one of the angels - again, raphael this could've been your moment. (alternatively it could've been a call-back to the og s1 where mc shields luke in the underground tomb)
the appearance of the brothers was welcome, but at the same time i don't quite buy that they all got out of their respective predicaments completely fine. (also where did mephistopheles go??) lucifer also calms down very quickly, which is a great moment for the power of family, but at the same time i feel like he would've needed at least a few more dialogue boxes of him registering through his rage that his brothers were there. eh, this is more nitpicky than everything else
the brotherly moment was 10/10 though. love these guys <3
but i hated the final resolution so so much. sure, have god forgive him, whatever. but why would you end it all with a "papa loves you"???? if it had been raphael or simeon saying it, maybe i could get behind this as a symptom of the celestial realm's unhealthy society, but LUCIFER, whose greatest fear was revealed to be his father in s3 of the original story?
om has never made it seem like god's relationship with the angels was anything other than controlling and borderline abusive, and for some reason (if the poignant flashback is anything to go by) they've done a complete heel turn into "actually it's fine because he loves the angels". it could be read as representing how children often still cling to abusive/controlling parents, but i doubt it - especially coming from lucifer, who started a war and lost a sister in direct opposition to his father
and i get the whole deal with "lucifer was so beautiful as an angel" but it feels really disingenuous to the brothers' arc (about settling into the devildom and coming into their own as demons) to harp on about it. like, fuck that, have lucifer cast away the angel form, or at least have some pushback from him in the aftermath. have mc tell him "you're even more beautiful as a demon" or something
then in lesson 39 everything's back to normal. it's a very cute lesson and i had fun in the moment, but it feels off. there's no discussion of what happened, everyone's completely fine. there's got to be some psychological after-effects to all of that, no? for lucifer especially if not the brothers who got frozen as well???
though lucifer's dragon gift was very sweet. i can't stay mad at that old man
102 notes
·
View notes
i think when it comes to the F+C finale it's important to see where the writers were coming from. And it's easy to do that, the lesson/moral they gave simon is fairly clear: Simon needs to appreciate his life because Betty sacrificed so much to get him here. alright, cool, that's good on paper.
I do Also think that the execution was poor.
up until this point, the crown has represented/could be viewed as many things. Alzheimer's, substance abuse, and anything else people have called it. In this series, a newer interpretation has arose: Suicide. And I'm certain the writers were aware of this. Depression and suicidal ideation are such strong themes in this series that they can't NOT be purposeful.
So their attempt at teaching Simon to appreciate Betty's sacrifice can ALSO be read as: Simon, the suicidal, on the verge of a relapse-man, gets put into a body of a child, (and that is very powerful imagery that does not help, actually) and is told nearly expressly that he fucked up in his relationship with the love of his life. He is told he should have sacrificed more for betty. And he says to himself: "Maybe i wouldn't have even found the crown". Basically it's simon pinning the blame on himself for his 1000 year curse on his mistakes with Betty. Which of course can be read as Simon's self loathing but the show does nothing to refute his statement, which i also have issue with. Simon putting on the crown was stated to be a Mistake. it was an accident. No matter what, the crown cursing him Was Not His Fault. Ever. It's not Betty's fault, it's not Simon's, it. was. a. Mistake.
regardless on if they should or should not have introduced these new flaws into simon's character, having simon learn his mistakes like This feels. icky. to me.
93 notes
·
View notes
rough sketch of a pair of tomb effigies depicting unidentified noblemen, Chapel of Saint Indech Gateside, Fhirdiad, after 1270
34 notes
·
View notes
Yes I finally watched Trigun
152 notes
·
View notes
‘Mike actually wanted to leave Button House for a while’ you know I didn’t get that at all. I believe the words he wrote ‘I love it here’ in s5e6 indicates that he does love Button House and wanted to stay. I get that people can have complicated feelings in real life, wanting to stay and wanting to leave, but these are fictional characters. They do not exist outside of the 30 minute television episodes and the words and actions shown, and this fictional characters feelings before the finale were clear that he wanted to make Button House work.
I don’t think fan headcanons justify the finale, nor is it that strong an argument to lean on headcanons to say the finale is good, actually, or makes sense, actually.
24 notes
·
View notes
i saw on instagram someones au of simon just leaning really really hard into the “my fiance is a god now” thing and basically being a weird obsessive golb priest about it and at the time i thought it was kinda dumb and cheesy but my perspective has shifted now. that rocks
36 notes
·
View notes
I think I haven't showered in 3 days
25 notes
·
View notes
i should be able to live doing nothing but engaging with my hyperfixations. all my mental problems would be solved like that
17 notes
·
View notes
I've been trying to figure out the best way to word this and I think I have so bear with me
Aziraphale loves Crowley. That's plain as day, he loves seeing Crowley happy, he loves receiving affection from Crowley. But I don't think he particularly likes making sacrifices or pushing himself out of his comfort zone, when Crowley has shown time and time again that he's willing to do the same for him.
I hope I'm not alone in thinking that this season has been showing us all the ways that Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship is sort of... inequal--Aziraphale doesn't respect Crowley's wishes about making changes to the Bentley and only stops once Crowley threatens to treat his belongings the same way, he's dismissive of his concerns about Gabriel, he's too distracted with his ball to listen to Crowley's warning about the actual small army of demons outside their door--all the while Crowley's TOP priority has been Aziraphale and making sure that he won't be harmed, by Gabriel, Heaven, or otherwise.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, because it makes perfect sense for his character, but I think that Aziraphale has always been portrayed as kind of selfish and hypocritical, and I think that's on purpose and it's something that he needs to work through before he'd ever be ready to take his relationship with Crowley to another level. I think he's started to take for granted that Crowley will always be there for him, and that what makes him happy will always make Crowley happy, when that's not the case. He said it himself: Crowley goes too fast for him. Despite all the progress he's made, he's still stuck in his desire to go back to a fantasy of "the good old days" that never existed.
43 notes
·
View notes
I do want to make it nice and crystal clear, in case anyone is less than certain: I love talking shit about bad choices made by things I love. I also am a writer, and tried my hand at writing a 'season' of a television show that I loved just for fun, and it was fucking hard. And the only deadline I had was self-imposed, and the only limitation on the locations and effects and costumes and etc was my own imagination. TV and film writers have a difficult job and the conditions they increasingly have to do it under only make it more difficult. Giving people no time, no resources, and unreasonable expectations is going to lead to worse storytelling, and I'm in full support of the writers' and actors' strikes.
And I'm going to give the Duffers infinite shit forever for some of the choices that they made, as the showrunners, about what kinds of stories they want to tell. They've earned it.
23 notes
·
View notes
This sounds so weird but I feel like we’re in this wave of media criticism where if stories aren’t “realistic” or aren’t “complete reflections of the real world” then people brush it off or it’s seen as generic or “low content”.
There’s nothing wrong with liking realistic stories that are dark and gritty, or stories that are dark satires of common genres (such as The Boys with its satire on the superhero); but a story that’s light and comedic and uses tropes can be just as much of a good story as stories that decide to deconstruct those tropes and explore the darker paths they can take.
I’ve legit seen “characters just don’t die in the story :/“ or “this is so unrealistic” used in media criticism for stories that are fantastical in nature. What measure of realism are you using 😭? And is character death something necessary to make a story good?
It just feels like media criticism or literacy has turned into “if a story doesn’t have the specific things that I like then it’s bad”, which is not how you analyze things. It’s fine to not have intrigue in a story if it doesn’t interest you, but just say that instead of trying to make a reason for the story to be bad.
51 notes
·
View notes