#idk if anything I said just now even made sense but a lot of ppl seem to Get what I was going for (u included anon) and I appreciate that!! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ginger-berrie · 11 days

Text

SO I JUST SAW FALSETTOS LIVE FOR THE FIRST TIME

HOLY SHIT OKAY. HEY GUYS I JUST GOT BACK FROM SEEING FALSETTOS. LIVE. MY FAVOROITE MUSICAL EVER. I HAVE WORDS TO SAY.

So firstly I of course have to say this musical is fucking phenomenal and if u havent seen it even on youtube you HAVE to. onne of the best musicals ever wrutten. ignore any typos in this my hands r still shaking and im not editing htis. OKAY.

The actors. It was a college level production but the actors were so so talented. My favorite performances were from Mendel and Jason, who both pulled off their roles INCREDIBLY. Mendel was like a carbon copy of Brandon Uranowitz he had his mannerisms DOWN. All the nervous ticks, touching his face, being generally so awkward all the time, even his face was just perfec t for the role. And Jason was played by an adult femme-presenting person but they were so good as him!!!!! their voice fit him perfectly and she also perfectly encompassed Jason;s awkward childlike nature. The entire cast was incredible but those two really stood out to me!!!! Everyone's singing voices as well were fantastic, especially Trina's—she KILLED the high notes and even sung up the octave on a few lines !!!! including the "but still the bastard divorced me" and she still belted the "you must exorcise a devil" even AFTER Im Breaking Down. In fucking sane.

THAT BEING SAID THOUGH. Even though i enjouyed every second of it I do wanna make some more analysis-related directing critiques because im fucked up and evil about this show . im so sorry just let me speak here meaout. Stating right now though I've only seen the 2016 revival (about 2 dozen times) and not the original 90's version (been meaning to watch it just havent gotten the chance) so i reserve all TRUE judgement until after I see it!!! maybe some of these choices were in the original but tbh if they were i still like how the revival did it better. okay i swear im not just one of those ppl who is like "tHaTS noT hOw ThEY dId iT On BroADwAy" calm down. thanks <3

First of all. Some of the scenes lacked energy !!!!! Thrill of first love had no homoerotic choreography!!!!! they just kinda sat there on the couch looking morose and barely looking at each other as if they truly just hate each other and feel ANYthing towards each other anymore at all. But thats not the point!!!!!! They dont fully hate each other theyre just lacking the excitement that they once had and it's been replaced with nothing but disagreements and sex. When Whizzer and Marvin do their gay little dance theyre not just dancing and being gross and sexual theyre also FIGHTING!!!! they still care about each other they just dont know how to act!!!! and marvin's a bitch of course. Marvin was still very much a bitch. But because of the lack of energy in this song there was a bit of a lack of chemistry between the two as well, which carried through the whole show. I feel like it's important to see just how gross fucked up n nasty these two are about each other to see how its truly affecting the other people in Marvin's life. Even their chemistry during the chess game was lacking. They just kinda felt like they really hated each other. Which isnt the pointtttttt. Guh

Trina (or the directors idk) also made some choices I wasn't 100% on board with but they were more subtle. Mostly in her tone about Mendel. Up through Please Come To Our House she seemed to really really like Mendel. Like it was clear she was attempting to woo him. But then when he was proposing, and when they were maknig their home together, she just seemed. Unenthused. I know Trina truly doesn't really love her life, and just needs the stability of a nuclear family, but it was odd to see her not even attempt to keep up the facade on her own. Her and Mendel were similarly lacking in a lot of chemistry because of this, which, maybe to some of you makes sense but to me i do want to see them be close even if Mendel isn't absolutely the best.

LAST CRITIQUE OKAY. This one is BIG SPOILERS if u havent seen it yet but probably if ur reading this far youve already seen it okay. The fuckign bar mitzvah!!!!! There was no acknowledgement from Whizzer to Jason as he was reading his Torah !!!!!!! He just layed there in the hospital bed, facing AWAY from the audience so we could only see the very top of his head (which was on purpose for a quick change but) and he didnt get up at all to thank Jason or even acknowledge him :( for all the audience knows maybe he didnt even see Jason get bar mitzvahd. screaming crying throwing up.

OKAY IM DONE W BEING MEAN HERES A BIG CHANGE I REALLY LOVED !!!!!! as well as some smaller changes that i also really liked or were jsut neutral things i noticed

For most of act 2, up until Days Like This, They had this really cool circus imagery? Now once again idk if this is in the OG, but they had a picture of each cluster of characters set up on either side of the stage, and each of them was doing some sort of circus act both in the pictures and on stage, especially during A Day in Falsettoland. When a character was having their point in the song, they'd sometimes cut the lights briefly and suddenly the characters would be struggling to perform their little circus act, and each of them had a differnt one respectively and they all represented their immaturities/flaws/struggles:

Jason was on stilts, representing his need to grow up and perhaps his perceived mental maturity compared to the other characters

Trina was balancing/spinning plates on sticks, representing her need to keep balance and order in her life

Marvin + Whizzer were fencers because of their lingering animosity, yet newfound respect, for one another. Fencing isnt a dangerous sport, like you dont actually hurt your opponent in it, but it;s still a fight and youre still pointoing a weapon at them. guh. (AND BTW they did this during the racquetball scene and HOLY SHIT. I just gotta describe this one. Racquetball number 1 They had their little racquets as they were singing to each other but then when they got really into the game the lights would cut and then theyd be FENCING each other instead!!!!! and then the lights would cut again and itd go back to racquetball!!!! BUT THEN in the racquetball number 2 when it cut to them fencing ONLY MARVIN HAD A SWORD. WHIZZER STILL HAD HIS RACQUET. GIUUHUHGGHGHGHGHGH.;..,.,/;;'.';.;'[[[.)

Then the lesbians from next door were like a duo balancing/acrobatics act where they were always leaning on each other and picking each other up which was cute but also like. Charlotte would start falling in one direction and Cordelia would have to scrambke to catch her. I always hail them as the healthiest couple in the show but sometimes i forget they have problems too, like Cordelia;s insecurity and Charlotte's stress over the virus of course.

And finally Mendel!!!! was the fucking ringmaster!!!!! He had a hoop and a top hat and every time he was trying to calm down Jason (Everyone Hates His Parents), or Caroline, or Trina (A Day in Falsettoland), he would appear with his hoop and top hat, to show that HE is the one who needs to "control" other people's lives, or at least he feels the need to direct them. Mendel of course needs to feel like he's smarter than everyone else and like he's the only one who can help people. It really drove that home and it was an insane realization to come to. Phenomenal directing choice idk who came up with that but. bravissimo to you

Now miscellaneous stuff i liked or noticed!!!

They didn't have the big ol foam block. just some couch ends that they moved around to be diff pieces of furniture. If you've ever seen Waiting In The Wings' analysis on falsettos you might have seen a comment in the youtube section discussing how in the set design for the revival, the lack of real furniture through most of the show represents the lack of maturity of the characters, and as things get serious for them, more real props and set pieces get added. Like the chess board, the decor for Mendel + Trina's home, Whizzer's suitcase, the whole hospital room, etc. They didn't lean into that with this but i think that's fine! its not a necessary detail in my opinion and they did their best with what they had!!

Marvin didn't hand whizzer the suitcase after the chess game. He just grabbed it, and packed it himself. I was waiting for him to slam it into whizzer's chest or something. but no. Whizzer just picked it up and walked off. okay. Neutral bad change imo

Marvin's performances of What would I do and What more can i Say were. Breathtaking. Marvin actor if you're out there reading this your voice is lovely and carries so much emotion in your solo numbers. I Did Cry. a little bit

god their group number harmonies were AMAZING. All of the cast members' voices blended together so well and it was absolutely beautiful. the whole show was beautiful and i adored it i swear. I jsut need somwhere to put my feelings

THE ORCHESTRA FUCKED. IT FUCKED

Okay its getting late now and im fading quickly BUT IF U READ THIS FAR UR INSANE. This is for me and nobody else i just eneded to feelings dump. tl;dr: i fucking lvoe falsettos this was one of the best nights of my life i love you actors i love you pit i love you lighting i love you run crew i love you sound crew i love you musical theatre

#falsettos #falsettos 2016 #musicals #musical theater #musical review #rambles #ramblings #shiksa caterer #short insomniacs #hypochondriacs #yiddish americans #spiky families #radiologist #intellectuals #nervous wrecks #sigh #falsettoland

74 notes · View notes

soracities · 1 year

Note

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?

#this is so much longer than i intended but yeah. those are my very long 2 cents #tbh i also think social media makes it worse in a way especially bc “transparency” has become a form of public vetting which is insane to m #me* transparency and honesty are not the same thing ans its ludicrous that this is where we're at and while we all have to live with this #demand for transparency i do think it affects writers differently bc the whole art as mirror thing comes to the fore in this argument #why would you sit with your feelings about a book when its easier and more accessible for you to @ the authors twitter handle #but anyway #ask #anonymous #book talks

399 notes · View notes

cool-person-yey · 6 days

Text

ok but what are the puter voices trying to say????

or: my theory on what the fuck Chester&Norris have going on

so first of all, the voices are trying to communicate with the OIAR through reading the incidents, that's something that basically everyone has noticed, now here's the thing: what are they trying to say?

we only got one Augustus case ( at the moment I'm writing this) so I'm gonna leave him out of this.

anyways, now to the good part, first off let's start with our favorite whiny little toad:

Norris

Norris speaks in episodes 1, 3, 8 and 12

my theory is that Norris is trying to warn them of the consequences their actions (and choices because this is the "at the end of the day, you just need to make a choice" podcast) could have.

in episode 1, this one's a bit obvious, but it shows the consequences ( only " some parts" of their loved one coming back) of them trying to get the person they loved back.

in episode 3, it shows the consequences ( the guy turning into a fucking tree) of the ' statement giver' ( can't think of a better name sorry) killing his ex.

in episode 8, this one I'm not 100% sure tbh, like yeah the consequence is the guy getting a part of their body eaten, but the cause I'm not so sure. maybe the fact they accepted to go in the building ( even if they didn't understand why they did it. something something even if the choices are shitty you still made a choice), or maybe something relating to the ex-wife they mentioned earlier in the incident? that'd be a bit of a far reach, but I'm not discarding anything. It could also be just the fact that they applied and got hired for the job.

in episode 12, the consequences ( whatever the fuck that was. I'm still not over that) of Gwen giving Mr Bonzo that envelope. do i even need to say anything else?

now, to our beloved Archivist Spooky Computer Voice!

Chester

Chester speaks in episodes 1, 5, 7, 9 and 11

my theory is that Chester is trying to warn them to not fucking mess with that type of stuff, and if you're going to, fucking be ready

in episode 1, this one's a bit obvious, RedCanary choosing to explore the magnus Institute, and that resulting in... well, we still don't know yet it but it sure as hell didn't go well. that was a very clear " do not go to the fucking magnus institute manchester" and what did they do? go to the fucking magnus institute manchester

in episode 5 a warning about being desensitized to horror, the characters ( especially Alice) have mentioned dozens of times how they just don't get scared that much anymore, that episode was showing that that isn't always a good thing. also the more obvious don't trust spooky shit but eh

episode 7 it's a bit tricky, I'd say it's a warning to either a) hiring new people (aka Celia? maybe Chester doesn't trust her? idk) or b) trusting people, just like, in general?

episode 9, a warning about making choices, and how ppl are gonna make shitty choices bc they're in shitty situations— but hey, at the end of the day, you still made a choice. or simply about Spooky Artefacts™

episode 11 this one seemed to be very much targeted at Alice, and it seems to be warning her about the paranoia that a paranormal experience can give you. And considering Alice's earlier comment about being followed, I'd say the tattoo being the boat bring hunted by something is definitely something to consider.

but well, this is just a theory, a magnus protocol theory.

seriously tho, i love this initial point of every series cuz i can just make up a lot of connections that in the future prob won't make sense but like, we don't have shit so might as well make up our own lmao.

that being said, maybe i got a few things right! only time will tell. my goal is to say as much random theories as i can until i get atleast one (1) thing right.

thanks for reading all of this, and if you have any addition that you'd like to make feel free!

#tmagp #tmagp spoilers #the magnus protocol #tmagp theory #tmagp speculation #tmagp norris #tmagp chester

49 notes · View notes

etherealkissed88 · 5 months

Note

i asked you something and you not only were mean, but you are also making fun of me on twitter. i felt so embarrased that i had to delete my account. you made me feel so bad. i did nothing to you. you had no reason to be so mean. english is not my first lenguage so i also have trouble communicating, i understand half of what you post here. karma will hit you so hard.

lets quote what i said “no i dont believe they are possible 🥰 which is why i have a whole page dedicated to manifesting stuff 😍”

this isnt mean, this is sarcasm. you communicate very well actually but heres the thing: i looked at ur account and you repost a lot of loa content. if you read all those posts especially the ones about desired appearance which is what you were asking about, it doesnt make sense for you to ask me “do you believe its actually possible to manifest a desired appearance.”

and do not use your language barrier as an excuse to make me feel bad because i rly dont. if you were so bad at communitcating, you wouldn’t be able to communicate to me both this time and the previous time, plus y would u read and repost loa content if u had an issue w language? i know you understand loa but when ppl keep searching and searching for outside answers and validation, it doesnt get them anywhere. believe me - ive “coached” ppl who repeatedly asked me the same questions over and over again despite my whole account and posts being right there. they still struggle because they only ask questions and never apply.

the same fingers you used to type the question, you could have used those same fingers to scroll thro my page like you did with the other content creators. i get it if you are new to loa (even tho you could have read the content that was already there and even tho u already reposted content answering ur own question) but as someone who creates loa content everyday, its disrespectful from my point of view that i work hard for these posts and ppl dont even look at it and instead ask the most limiting questions ever. its almost like “why would i waste my time w these posts”. if you dont understand this, its bc you arent someone who gets 20 repetitive asks everyday meanwhile their answers being right on my page. it can be stressful and so annoying.

now back to my original answer: “no i dont believe they are possible 🥰 which is why i have a whole page dedicated to manifesting stuff 😍”. if u think this was mean, its bc you knew the answer was yes, it is possible. why else would i have a page dedicated to manifesting if it wasnt possible to “actually manifest a desired appearance”. my answer simply guided you to your own answer and to search my page if you still had (better) questions. what i said was literally not mean😭 and if you still believe so then thats fine bc its never that big of a deal. and i wasnt making fun of u on twitter, i simply said the exact thing i originally answered you with💀

idk if ur a beginner in the law or not but either way, you should know that anything is possible w the law. if u didnt know that, then now you know (and ik you know based on ur reaction to my original answer). and karma isnt real so it will not “hit me hard”🥶

im sorry if you rly have a language barrier issue but from my pov, that was the best, most appropiate reply i could have given. even other loa content creators can agree bc they know how ppl can get in their asks inbox. reread this whole thing if theres still an issue.

and dw u can just make another account like you did just now🤭

94 notes · View notes

starrynightzie · 9 months

Text

I mostly wanted this acc to be specifically for art, not rly for anything else but i need to get this off my chest. Obviously if you’ve been on twitter, you’ve probably seen a lot (and i mean a LOT) of hate towards gay ships/shippers recently, (first w togachako, then w stsg) i wanna address all the weird shit thats been happening w jjk dudebros lately. Idk what it is but they’re rly upsetti spaghetti abt even the mere thought of stsg being more than platonic besties, going so far as to shoot down any hint of them being romantically inclined in the slightest - so i thought that i’d take it upon myself to provide poof that stsg has queer, romantic subtext since ppl are being extremely obtuse abt them, all for the sake of protecting their friendship from us evil gays. (other shippers do this too but im mostly focusing on dudebros bc they’re the ones primarily acting like assholes to us for no reason, like yeah, sure, some stsgs are extremely cringey & weird but that can be said for ANY shipper in ANY fandom. When you’re in a fandom as big as this, of course there’s gonna be some bad eggs, it’s inevitable.

ok so. !!DISCLAIMER!! i do not speak japanese, so if i say something incorrect then please correct me. i’ve done enough research to be sure that what im saying is right, but im only human, and sometimes, i might be wrong. so, take what im abt to say with a grain of salt. (just in case).

first off, it should be stated that gege akutami, the creator himself, is an avid bl fan (and ik what ur thinking, ‘oh, that doesn’t mean anything! just bc u read bl, it doesn’t mean you’re likely to write gay relationships into ur own manga!’ which is true, gege HAS said that he doesn’t want to write romance in jjk. HOWEVER, as much as i love stsg & see them in a romantic light, i do definitely think that the reason why their relationship feels so ambiguous is bc gege intentionally made it that way. i think he made their relationship up to the individual’s interpretation. And for ppl who’re thinking ‘why would he do that?’ well, he doesn’t like writing romance, right? so this is the next best thing he could do. and also i have to point out (in case ppl get defensive), gege literally does not and will never care if ppl ship stsg or not, again, he’s a bl fan and if anything - all of the evidence that im going to talk abt proves that he most likely ships stsg himself, so… 🤷‍♂️

2. i’d like to talk about s2’s op & ed which are HEAVILY romantically coded. If you don’t know, the op was written to be from gojo’s pov & vice versa with geto for the ed, the op in particular is a very special case. The song is explicitly abt reminiscing the past , wishing gojo had noticed geto’s sorrow sooner and it also mentions a ‘silent love’. the word ‘love’ being used here is ‘koi’ which EXCLUSIVELY means romantic love… now, since this song was specifically written with gojos pov in mind, doesnt it seem kind of weird to have the word for ‘romantic love’ in there?? (koi can be referred to as ‘young love’ or having a ‘crush’ on someone…. hm… ThAts WeIrD.) instead of using ‘ai’??? which would make more sense if stsg were just besties bc ai is more general and can be used towards friends & family.

and then ofc there’s the whole theme of ‘blue spring’. director park (who directed s1 & jjk 0) has stated in an interview that geto was gojo’s last warm spring of youth. now if you dont know, spring of youth/blue spring means a time in a young person’s life where they have hope and happiness… in animanga, it often means falling in love too… so judging by this, it seems very likely that gojo perhaps developed feelings for geto during their teen years together. Director park has also mentioned in an interview that gojo & geto’s relationship goes beyond ‘friendship’ & being ‘familial’. 👀

3. another clear indicator of gojo being in love w geto is the whole ‘love is the most twisted curse of all’ spiel he said to yuta. ‘but he could mean platonic love!!’ idk, considering yuta had romantic feelings for rika and hes discussing them with gojo & gojo knows this, dont u think it’d be a bit weird for him to mention geto here too? if they were just best friends?? (that’s not even mentioning the fact that gojo & geto’s relationship is supposed to parallel yuta & rika’s in jjk 0…)

4. and then ofc we have gojo saying his last words to geto, which were censored. now, correct me if im wrong but the ONLY times ive ever seen inaudible dialogue being mouthed to another character is when its a love confession mostly seen in romance anime. and like, there’s also no need at all for gojo’s last words to be censored in the first place. (although, i do suspect that his last words may play a major role in the future when he faces kenjaku.) what solidifies it for me being a love confession is that, 1. geto blushed after gojo said whatever it is that he said to him, (only in the manga tho, idk why they didnt make him blush in the movie but its whatever.) and geto replies with, depending on the translation, ‘at least curse me a little at the very end’ or ‘you should at least curse me at the end’. which heavily implies that gojo said something extremely sweet & heartfelt to him as his final words. and if thats not enough to convince u that gojo’s last words were indeed a love confession.. gojo’s eng VA HIMSELF, said that his last words when translated into english means three words… im not saying that gojo’s last words were specifically ‘i love you’ or anything like that, but i am definitely sure that whatever he said was a love confession/something very romantic in nature. bc why else would gege choose to draw geto blushing?? that wouldnt make any sense.

gojo also killed geto on the 24th of december, which in japan, is the most romantic day of the year & couples in japan treat christmas eve as kinda like a separate valentines day. even in the jjk manga recently, gojo offered to fight on dec 24th & kenjaku mocks him by saying how romantic it is… even gege himself acknowledges how romantic christmas eve is in japan, this enforces the idea that gege must’ve chosen dec 24th for a reason, bc why else would he have picked an extremely romantic date as not only the day where he fights kenjaku who is inhabiting geto’s body, but also making it the day geto died?? yall have to remember that all of this has been planned out by gege, none of it is a coincidence… he didn’t just come up with all of this on the spot, he’s been planning this stuff & thinking about it for literal years.

5. and finally, probably the BIGGEST piece of evidence there is, geto & gojo’s character songs. gege chose romantic break up songs for BOTH of them.. like im sorry but if stsg were rly truly only best friends, he would not have chosen those songs for them, it just doesnt make any sense.

conclusion: obviously, this probably isn’t every subtextually romantic thing about stsg’s relationship but these are all the things that i’ve noticed. again, if you see their relationship as purely platonic then that’s fine but don’t be assholes to people for seeing romantic subtext that’s quite clearly there. if i have missed anything out then please let me know and i’ll edit them into the post.

#jujutsu kaisen #sorcery fight #jujutsu gojo #gojo satoru #satoru gojo #geto suguru #suguru geto #stsg #satosugu #sugusato #jjk analysis

56 notes · View notes

kenjakusbraincum · 4 months

Note

Bout that painter s/o that one anon mentioned, imagine reader gained immortality since they're Sukuna's and got separated when he split his fingers and never seen each other since then.

Back to modern time where Yuji became his vessel, Gojo thought of taking the kids to an art museum. Idk just for fun he said and the trio had a good time, seeing naked sculptures,

(i bet they did that one meme where four ppl copied a sculpture that dramatically fainted and the other catches them)

And other pieces of beautiful art till Yuji wandered a bit to far and reached a quite corner of the place, only a few ppl were there. Gojo and the others were nowhere so Yuji just looked around for a bit when he saw a big painting, portrait even on the exhibit. Except, its a portrait of Sukuna's true form that got him froze. Four arms, two face and a mouth belly. He doesn't even know how to react, either scared or in awe bcuz the portrait was beautifully breath taking.

Sukuna, who was watching the entire time since he valuable arts and cultures, also left almost speechless bcuz he knew, HE KNEW, who painted this. H-how? Why is there a portrait of him in the art museum? And by looking at the date it was painted was many years ago, the painting basically ANCIENT. That explains the glass around it.

Since all painting have a tittle, he looked over to it and it wrote, "My Master, My Muse" Signed by-

"Beautiful isn't it?"

Yuji jumped from his spot and saw a stranger looking fondly at the portrait before them. He thought of responding but they just smiled at him and he got that sense of deja vu washing over him. The stranger just looked at him but at the same time, he feels they're not. Like, they are looking at someone else.

Meanwhile Sukuna was just stunned as he felt the stranger looking straight into his soul. Those same eyes as they focus on painting him in Heian era. Before he could blink, the stranger just walk away and as they did, Yuji studied their appearance for a bit. Modern clothes but a lot of paint stained, especially the red color that was turning brownish like. He blinked and they were gone.

Dying as i wrote this, coughing and all(vows fr coming for me) i had time for this but not for my drafts😭

Please this is SO CUTE!!! 🥺 His pet/lover/s/o eternalizing HIM through a painting despite the fact that for some he would be remembered forever anyways...

Yuji as a poor bystander who is completely confused and doesn't understand anything in this situation, and Sukuna who is just getting a thousand year old wound reopened as he remembers the good old times when someone loved him so much they made a beautiful painting of him 😭

Anon thank you for sharing these scenarios and thoughts with me!! Pls let me know if you're doing any better now 🥺 (if you don't i'll be scared vows got you a little too realistically if you know what i mean..)

#asks #vows

25 notes · View notes

pinkmoondoll9shihtzu · 4 months

Text

WeLL here we are...i want to write s/t quick to remember the year by. cus 2023 was probly one of my most significant years of life, even tho from the surface it may appear not much changed for me, 2023 laid the foundation,,,

firstly, january 2023 i began learning to make music, which is crazy like!!!! it has absolutely given me a new reason to be lieve in myself like i nvr had b4. its like unlocking a new area of my heart, and inutuion.. its so FUN, so so fun ohhh the fun i have, provides me w a brighter outlook for the future as i will always have this melodic part of me activated,going forward. ive learned so much in just a year. idk i just love it it makes me feel wise and complete i feel like an alchemist. i cld rly say a lot on the sense of security music has made me feel in my heart :'0 but i have some other things to get to;

summer 2023 i started doing yoga which has also changed things for me dramatically i think ive released a lot of built up stagnant energy from my body & aura. since i started i feel immensely more balanced n able to work thru my emotions as they come up. ngl when ppl used to recommend me to try yoga i thout it was hippie shit but its real lol.. im finding sm contentment in day to day life than i ever thought possible, easier time being present, yet another thing i will continue for the rest of my future that 2023 has given me.

these r good things but it must b said that this year has been Soooo rough for me in certain ways, mostly due to interpersonal relationships.. some ppl had to b let go from my life this year in ways i rly wasnt expecting & for a lot of the year things were just, foggy. however as things draw to a close im feeling immensely grateful like.. every1 im close to rn are all peaceful souls & we uplift each other, i see now why the ones causing drama naturally had to fall away. even if it was painful process im feeling so supported rn, & reciprocated TwwwT <3333

idk it just felt like as i was progressing w musical understanding, yoga stuff , as well as the past few months trying to use tea and herbs to get my organs in order, i feel that.. my energetic field is rly repairing itself & so a lot of old attachments just cant keep up anymore.

i have to say, well, erm, i am really in love w slimbo and its different than anything ive ever felt in my life. we've been in love for a long long time & i dont talk about it often as i am protective of this love. but god, its just, the purest bond ive ever known and our love for each other is deeper all the time. we r both life path 27/9 & the first time we met it literally felt like.. reuniting, it felt like a celebration..i had never noticed such warmth from someone. i cld never be in such a secure place rn if it wasnt for slimbo & every day im so grateful like dude i owe you my LIFE. idk how to explain it, we are just One. slimbo is my angel i cant wait to spend 2024 & forever with <3

if u read this far....ur a true PMDhead, thanks for being oomfies w me out here on the big wide web, i hope you bloom this year, & this can be a shift in the right direction for all of us <3 i believe palestine will be free. happy new year everyone, GANBATTE VIVA 2024 <333 -PMD9LL

22 notes · View notes

dnpbeats · 2 months

Note

Just going a little more into the whole thing about understanding young dnp differently now that we have the whole story, something else I have been thinking about so much is queer rights movements and legislation in the uk. Im a good decade younger than them, when gay marriage was legalised I was 12. I was old enough to understand what it was, but i didnt really have any sort of understanding of how it affected me bc i hadnt even started to figure out who i was yet. To me it feels like so long ago, i feel like ive always had it, which is an immense privelage. But dan and phil were not only already in their mid twenties and in a 5 year strong relationship, they already had an active career on youtube. Watching ditl in london, that was the year gay marriage was legalised in the uk. That was who they already were as people and as creators. I cant imagine what it would have been like when the bill passed. They were still so closeted, but that was also such a big win for them and the whole community. I wonder if at the time it still seemed like such a far fetched thing anyway, bc i cant imagine they were even close to wanting to come out yet. Idk if they thought at that point they ever would. And then i think about the fact that they had been in a committed relationship for 5 years at that point. I cant imagine what it would be like to be with my self-proclaimed 'soulmate' and know that you can not legally recognize your relationship. To not know if you ever would. Which then makes sense as to why its not necessarily a priority for them now. Idk, its like you said. Its strange and a little sad to know now who they were then, but in the end it all worked out. They made it to the other side and i could not be happier for them.

oh wow yeah!! im about the same age as you I think, and yes it was much the same for me in the sense that I was aware of same-sex marriage legislation being passed but I had no real grasp on like, what that actually meant for people lol. this got me curious so I went back and tried to see if they ever even talked about same-sex marriage being legalized in the UK. from what I can see they didn't tweet about it at all, and im assuming they didn't make any other statements about it? then in 2015 when it was legalized in the US, they did both tweet, but quite impersonally (I mean I get why im not saying they should've been making grand statements or anything like that). like even setting their relationship aside for a moment, I can imagine it was incredibly difficult for them as two closeted gay men to navigate how to address things like this publicly—obviously when it came to the UK they didn't even address it at all. but im sure it was a huge deal for them to see it legalized just in the sense of what it represents. but even with this landmark that represented lgbtq+ ppl being more generally accepted, they were still closeted, so there was only so much they could say. like I would love to know their thoughts that they couldnt express in 2013/2014/2015 on what it meant to them! but also how it affected them that they couldnt share their thoughts

but then yeah I do wonder how it was for them in the context of their relationship. bc like before it wasn't even a possibility that they could get married. and then they did have the option, but actually not really because they were still closeted, so even if they wanted to they still technically couldnt without outing themselves. but obviously just knowing you now have the option when you couldnt before meant a lot to them im sure

#dan and phil #anon #ask #d&p

15 notes · View notes

nightcolorz · 3 months

Note

I'm so sorry I don't mean to be rude or coming for you or anything but can I ask a question? Didn't you have a post about gender recently and you said the amc iwtv show was about gay MEN? So why are you tagging Louis art with female terms? Again, I'm so sorry, I just don't understand and I think I'm probably missing something. I'm trying to learn more about gender things but it's very confusing for me. Thank you for your time 💚

dont apologize anon ur not being rude! I'm not rlly sure how to explain this, I'm gonna try my best 😭 so sorry if this is only more confusing. At least the way I see it, AMC iwtv and the tvc books handle gender very differently. Tvc vampires r described as not rlly having genders bcus of there vampirism and lack of alignment with humanity and mortal concepts of the gender binary. The way Anne rice saw it was since their genitals no longer work they r no longer male or female and so since they r so disconnected from the societal expectations around gender along with this bcus of how gender roles r always changing and vampires r outside of time, they r essentially gender neutral. The amc show (at least of now) doesn't seem to be going this route, although it does play around with gender norms and stuff, the vampires do seem to be cis men essentially (obvs ppl can have there head cannons and my read doesn't invalidate any trans reads of AMC iwtv that exist). But since they do just have cis normative sex with each other, vampirism doesn't rlly change there sexualities or gender expression, and they do identify and present gender the way gay men would, I don't see the amc vamps as particularly gender less the way the tvc vamps r. I made a post about this B4 that summarizes my thoughts much better then this or the post ur referring to (which was kinda crap which is why I deleted it 😭).

But anyways, I call Louis she/her pronouns on art (specifically Kate @loelett art love u babe) bcus Kate and I rlly like this aspect of the books, and since we talk about the gender fluidity in tvc a lot we've started using she he and they pronouns interchangeably for the vamps (mostly Louis cus Louis is Kate's fav character so we talk about him the most lol). When I call Louis she/her pronouns or feminine terms it's not cuz I see him as a woman or perceive him as particularly feminine, it's more cuz I see him as genderless so using any pronouns for him is natural to me. I usually call Louis she her when I'm especially excited about him 😭 idk maybe bcus of the cultural association with she/her + feminity and softness/loveliness and affection (like the way u call a boat she/her y'know? Or a beloved car), or maybe bcus most of my close loved ones r women so using she her is natural when it comes to compliments and affectionate terms for me. Anyways I hope this makes sense or clears things up, tbh I am very surprised that ppl I'm not friends with even perceive my blog at all sometimes so I never considered how I may have been confusing ppl 😭

#Tvc #Asks

9 notes · View notes

time-is-restored · 11 months

Text

ted lasso 3x11

got through the latest episode tonight, below are unassorted ramblings abt a kansas ending (which i, despite being almost certain is where the show is heading, am still ardently rooting against):

so i was talking a little with my family abt the extremely likely kansas ending*, and was mentioning how much i really don't vibe with it. i said smth like 'i mean, what's even there for him in kansas?' to which they said (fairly, and rightfully!) 'his son!'. like, that's a pretty bulletproof argument, so i guess im just writing this to figure out why i feel like even that isn't. idk. enough?

[*though if that is the ending, what's the point of the cliffhanger? it's the most obvious + expected outcome, how would it be a 'reveal'? idk, some part of me is still praying for one of those classic Twists™ ig]

like. we've known that ted has a kid since day one. we've known that he loves + misses that kid since day one. according to the text, the number one reason ted left kansas was as a last ditch effort to save his marriage, by giving michelle as much space as humanly possible. they were divorced by the middle of the season, and ted chose to stay at the end.

so like. idk. am i missing something? did he just stay bc he felt an obligation to the team? and now that they're doing well (absurdly, breaking the bounds of belief well), he feels okay moving on? like many ppl have already pointed out, that's a pretty standard plot line in these kind of stories: the mary poppin's style exit stage right. but, say ted goes home (potentially even without beard???? agh??). what's happened to him, these past few seasons? what's different now?

like, it kind of feels like im only gonna be hurt by reading in between the lines here, but kansas doesn't seem to hold a lot of good associations for ted w/o the bedrock of his + michelle's marriage. he's reduced to a morose, spaced out mess within 5 minutes of talking with his mother, he very nearly goes through the Extremely fucked up move of paying someone to spy on michelle after seeing her + jake together for an afternoon, and ofc if anything even remotely reminds him of his dad he gets triggered really badly.

and of course, maybe the idea is 'well, he's started to cope with that all now, and he's starting to talk openly with his mum + grieve his dad, so he has the tools to return' but like. does he???? his support system are EXTREMELY london based. setting aside sharon since he could always telehealth w her, all of the positive progress he's made in his 'home' life seem to exclusively come after he talks w his support group at richmond.

he ended up admitting he was mad at michelle after speaking with the diamond dogs, he was pulled out of his obsessive spiral by rebecca, and he was able to put words to his feelings abt his mum by talking w jamie. to be clear, those are all massively positive things for ted to have done, and i think they at least make a good case for ted progressive positively w his mental health (even if its all gotten a bit tell don't show in this last season). but like. what happens when all that's on the other side of an ocean?

to be clear, from the perspective of real life, it absolutely makes sense that ted would want to return to his son. but on a narrative level, im just. i feel like im being expected to take certain things about ted + henry's relationship for granted, when the text itself hasn't even tried to make those things apparent.

is henry miserable or even generally upset when he has to leave his dad/go back to his mum? not that we ever see! im pretty sure the only time we've seen henry explicitly upset is when ted was ignoring him while he was like five feet away which, yeah, mood! and last we saw, henry even sees more enthused abt richmond winning the whole thing than ted is, so its not like he thinks his dad is just going away to do absolutely nothing of import.

do ted and henry not spend a lot of time together/talk very often? technically we don't see enough of ted's daily routine to know for sure, but the casual mention of playing roblox seems to imply they spend a lot of time together! and ofc none of their phone calls ever have the vibe of 'i haven't spoken to you in ages, here's ALL THE THINGS you've missed!'. they're almost all abt stuff that happened that day.

is ted struggling with being away from henry? well... yes, duh, but i don't even think this season's done particularly well establishing THAT (incredibly obvious and free) piece of ted characterisation.

is ted capable of feeling anything other than vague nostalgia (ie: all of his annecdotes being set there) or extreme distress wrt kansas? apparently not! like, seriously, what is there for him? does he have any friends? a job? family that isn't his mother? where's he gonna live? does he miss the weather? his neighbours? like i am literally on my hands and knees give me ONE (1) concrete opinion ted has about the fucking place that isn't about its FOOD (<- ESPECIALLY coming off the back of an episode where ted was able to experience texan food So Authentic™ that it inspired a literal career-changing epiphany?? like HOW are we supposed to take that as anything other than 'ted is at his best when he acknowledges BOTH of his lives rather than cutting one out in favour of the other'???).

idk. i guess my real problem this late in the game is i can see so many POTENTIAL versions of this show, but what ive been given doesn't feel like it matches up with any of them.

i can imagine a story in which ted's avoidance + variations upon running-away tactics for dealing w conflict get thoroughly deconstructed and challenged while in london, so at the end of the show he's finally emotionally prepared to return to his life in kansas even though it's never going to be a fairytale picturesque no-problems-ever ending again.

i can imagine a story in which going back to kansas isn't good for ted, and will be a major sacrifice, but it's a sacrifice he will be making with the support of his new friends + family, and something that he is determined to make in order to be there w his son, all meaningfully juxtaposed w how he feels his dad 'quit' on him.

i can imagine a story where ultimately, the life that ted's made alongside richmond is just as important to him as his life in kansas, and so he + michelle work out a more equal and long-term custody arangement* with henry (it definitely seems like the 'you get him for the whole year and i get him on school break' was something haphazardly worked out while they were both still under the assumption he'd be in richmond for less than a year), and they alternate who goes to whose home for holidays and shit.

[*side note, why hasn't that come up at all? i'd personally think somewhere around the six month mark of working overseas i'd want to have a talk w my expartner + kid about a schedule that isn't so much of a 80/20 split? like, it's fine if henry moving isn't on the table at all for one reason or another, but at least take the time to actually SAY that??? like, what does michelle do for a living? why is SHE so happy to stay there? give me Literally Anything here gang!!!]

...but ultimately what ive actually seen on screen feels like it fits into none of those categories. eleven hours (in as many episodes!! HOUR! long! episodes!!!!!!) in and i feel like i know infinitely less about ted + his mental state than i did in s1. like, from episode to episode, the writer's aren't sure if he's stuck, or progressing, or going through that classic recovery 'one step forwards, two steps back' dance, or just completely and utterly depressed. there's no continuity. nothing that happens to him in one episode seems to have literally any bearing at all on the ted in the next episode. if u scrubbed all of the notable Ted Scenes™ of any overarching plot references, and shuffled them all up, i genuinely think you would end up w a plateau of scenes totally indistinguishable from each other!*

[*of course, this is my main critique of s3 for like. literally everyone, but it's paticularly damning when im left feeling this lost about the main fucking guy.]

i don't know. i guess after the past few weeks of being really genuinely hurt + angry + upset abt the choices made this season, the feeling im left with near the end of it all is. underwhelmed. and im really not sure what 3x12 could possibly do to change that feeling... even if i am still regrettably, but sincerely rooting for a last minute switcheroo.

#mine #ted lasso spoilers #ted lasso meta #ted lasso critical #ughghghghhhh. breaking up w a show is emotionally exhausitng one hasn't hit me this bad since s10 -> 12 of d*ctor wh*.#the potential :( the blorbos :( all doomed to languish in a fucking. lifeless enclosure. w no prospects or hope or vision for fucking #anything interesting to happen to them literally ever. bluuuuuuuh.#the only thing keeping me sane through all this is unironically the fact that the WGA are striking rn. i hope they all get $600 million #dollars and lifelong permission to rock up to execs + ceo's office with a Fucking Bat.#:(

28 notes · View notes

imraespace · 3 months

Text

HELP hi guys😆😊 I have a funny story to share(it has a serious topic(?) just anemia so don't worry too much abt that) it will probably be long idk and also it's the reason I didn't updated the megumi smau yesterday so I say blame the discordians!

ALSO why did I blink and saw that I have 441 followers it probably went up but I'm too lazy to check.

okay anyways so my friend and I have this small server on discord it was originally my kpop server I made back in 2022 bc I wanted txt friends but then we kinda shut it down last year AND NOW ITS BACK UP! so we talk a lot in that server and SHE ASKED ME to pretend to be boys on the Greg bot yk the phone bot thing! so I was like oh okay! BC PPL ALREADY THINK IM A BOY ON MY REGULAR ACC so I used my second acc and created a whole other person(his name is ezra and he's a bleach fan.) right and it was harmless when we went on the Greg bot right made some mini bro friends right! I think someone actually wanted us bc they asked for our ig but um anyways.

EVERYTHING WENT GOOD UNTIL these two girls.

to understand my story better I have to over share on some stuff. my race is black and I'm anemic so since yk that my story will make some sense.

firstly when we said hi I said "yo" bc idk boys say that and my friend she had gave up on being a boy I just continued bc being a boy is fun.. AND WHEN MY FRIEND SAID HI she was like "HELLO" and boom drama started BC APPARENTLY THEY WERE LIKE "ik this call abt to be ass" and started talking abt how she said hello in all caps and my username (it was fw.ez HELPME) and I didn't notice them talking abt my friend first and only saw when they talked abt my username so I was like "dang dawg I'm.not even a boy" bc i thought yk harmless prank! but apparently I was using the word "dawg" wrong? WHAT😱 AND THEN PROCEEDED TO CALL ME WHITE. WHITE PPL CANT USE THE WORD DAWG? AND THERES A RIGHT WAY? so I was confused at first then I understood what they meant and told them im black I think they short circuit but still carried on with their arguments so I got mad and my chest began to race bc my anemia sometimes affects my emotions and I will get a tad bit emotional! so um I couldn't think straight I wanted to tell them some very bad words in dialect but they wouldn't even understand me so I was like I bet yall annoying as hell and it shut them up apparently AND YK MY FRIRND WASNT EVEN ON DISCORD I HAD TO DEFEND FOR MYSELF AND HER AND SHE CAME BACK AND WAS LIKE what's happening. GIRL. I told her what was happening and she called them dumb HAHAHA anyways then we came off the phone but THANKS TO THEM I HAD A RACING HEART AND A SEMI WEAK BODY with cold fingers and toes so I couldn't do anything I was going to write a new chapter for the megs smau bc I forgot to do it eariler in the day but I couldn't even think straight so I was up until 4am😒 with a racin heart and random emotional changes with my mommy gossiping abt some game we play(romance club it's like episode but better i recommend that you play the story called song of the crimson nile hehehheheja) and now IM HOME FROM SCHOOL BC OF THEM��😒😒

lesson of the day- ignore THOSE discordians!😉

oh and um a megumi update later when I'm feeling better🤫😉😉

#imraespace -♡#funny story but its just me ranting a bit #imraesrandom

10 notes · View notes

bigmack2go · 4 months

Text

I dont like the headcannon of davey being jewish.

Why? I am glad you asked!

Now listen dont get me wrong here!

Representation is so important especially for religions because in that department even the most popular ones r being bullied these days and then that religion isnt just any but the most hated one in history. The religion that was blamed for practically anything bad that has happened in the last 500-1000 years. In ww|| children didn’t even know this WAS a religion. In Germany they were taught that the word “jew” stood for a monster, like the wird rabbit stands for an animal. Idk if this makes sense but they LITTERALLY didn’t know any better which i personally find makes it worse. The ppl KNEW that they were wrong, and that they couldn’t convince poursouled children of anything unless they made up lies. The thing those children hated was justified. Anyone would hate a monster that only brings evil upon us. But they conected it to a name that describes something else.(the movie jojo rabit brings this accross extremely well and truthfull! It’s available on netflix and i think on prime!) And thats the problem. They knew they were wrong but they needed someone to blame for their own failures and problems. ANd WhO bEtTeR tHaN tHe OnEs ThAt HaVe BeeN aT bLamE fOr ThE pAsT 700 YeaRs???

This began with the germanians spreading Christianity around Europe when jews were still a majority. It was generally a seen as a sin to get along with a Christian, and as we all know in the middle age there have been some babaric events towarts (but also by) religious ppl.

In thirteen-sixty-something the thing got to a whole new level when in (i think it was italy but idk) a fountain was moisted with bacteria and brought back black plague for a lot of people, which obviously got word all around the world quickly. And with that obviously also rumours. The thing is that those rumors were LOADED.

Thats how the hatred toward jews specifically began. People thought they were witches that poisoned their food causing them all to get sick.

(Sry i didnt mean for this to turn into a history lesson hahaha)

So yeah. Representation is so important and I totally stand behind that!

That being said however i genuinely don’t like it with Davey and here’s why:

Im have no problem with the headcannon itself and obv not with people having thah headcannon. What bucks me is how that came to be.

It just feels sooo cliche taking the one character named david jacobs and saying he’s jewish.

I mean

Seriously

David jacobs

David. Jacobs.

David and jacob (lemme guess his sisters name is sarah hAHa- oh wait-)

Like it might be just me but that’s loaded with stereotype.

This might sound weird and/or mean but i genuinely get the feeling, the only reason ppl hc him as jewish is his name.

On top of that theres the fact that i generally just feel like its forced at this point. Again. I stand for representation with everything in me. but people just decided (rather than felt/knew) they needed to represent jewish folks and picked out ONE (1) (s i n g u l a r) character (LITTERALLY NAMED DAVID JACOBS!! Idk if u can tell but im getting rly worked up abt this)and said his family is jewish.

(Then if course theres the fact that i cant deal with the fact that he would have been killed at least in wa|| if not earlier due to being an non-arian jew but he prolly would be killed in one of the worldwars anyway so thats not much of an argument lol)

THATS IT! TYSM if u read this completely!

I also wanna take the opportunity to compell everyone to support palestina!!!!! I’ll put some links down below!

As a Christian i am lucky enough to not be bothered with shit by people i cant deal with but not everyone has that! So here’s just a gerneral reminder to educate and support people of any minority!!!

I will put some links so u can read up about the history of discrimination towards religion and jews!⬇️⬇️

1 Wikipedia article generally summarising antisemit!sm

2 definition

3 antisemit!sm+ history of rivalry between Christianity & Judaism

4 on discrimination and hate/ harassment towards religions in school and workplaces

5 discrimination WITHIN religion

6 some facts

7 using religion as an excuse to BE descriminating

8 read about judaism as a religion, rules and beliefs

#reminder that i have no clue is the numbers here are correct!#i dont mean to spread misinformation!#im just telling of my mind what i remember from history lessons!!#anyway this turned into a historry lesson and i didnt plan on that lol #feel free to correct me #i will cladly change this to fit accuracy!!#also this isn’t me telling you that your hc’s are wrong #its just something i wanted to say #newsies #newsie strike #newsies 1992 #newsies musical #david #davey #davey jacobs #david jacobs

11 notes · View notes