this is how jojo characters named shit like calzone margarita act when their stand that’s called kool aid and frozen pizza (soda and frosted paninis) uses reflections of the sun on raindrops to create spacial anomalies within a 3 meter radius of their fist that they’ve dislocated and thrown to the other side of the room and is now literally murdering someone by turning their esophagus into an airplane
See if you were a real Jojo stan, you’d know their stand would be called Gin and Juice after the Snoop Dogg song (renamed Vodka and Tonic in the American dub)
whats your thoughts on why and what diavolo did to his mother?
god it's such a weird out of nowhere thing and it raises so many questions. i mean obviously the point in the Story is to be out of nowhere and scary and unnerving and make us wonder just what's wrong with diavolo(/doppio?) but leaving aside the nuts and bolts in favour of some character work...
i go into this a bit in BNGN but keeping someone alive and hidden in that state for any length of time with no medical equipment or expertise is Difficult. this would not have been a minor project! diavolo would have had to put a lot of work into this so we can assume from that that this was very, very important to him. we see that diavolo didn't object to murder when his back was to the wall, and hiding a dead body would have been much much easier.
there's two angles to approach that one. 1) diavolo did this to cause maximum prolonged suffering. he was very angry with this woman and wanted to punish her at length. we don't get much in the way of reasons why this would be, but i've got a couple of guesses. diavolo might have resented that after her sentence ended she did not take over care of him, but we don't really get any insights into what that relationship was at all. for all we know she visited every weekend until mysteriously disappearing. another possibility could be in diavolo's DIDesque condition; p5 argues that this is likey due to trauma, but we never See or even hear about any actual trauma and araki is not in the habit of cutting that stuff, but we do hear about a pretty weird and probably stressful birth. could diavolo have remembered this, blamed her for it and felt she deserved punishment for it?
i'm not sold tbh. we never get any indication that diavolo sees his condition as anything but a benefit, and from what we see of him he tends to go for the kill rather than the pain and leave the torture up to other people. but he does resent the past and if he saw his very birth itself as a traumatising mark on his soul... personally though i prefer reading 2) diavolo did this because for him this is some kind of show, if not of affection, than of some kind of possessiveness. possibly this is him completing his little nuclear family, all of them under one roof. maybe, as a person with two souls, this is the closest thing he can imagine to loving someone outside of his own body (diavolo and doppio are, in a sense, bound and buried within each other). possibly some desire not just to erase the past but to have it completely under his control, in the form of an entire human only he knows is even there. the lock of hair, i think, is a deliberate thing left there by him to signify some form of connection, because from a narrative standpoint it's completely unecessary as a signifier of guilt; was there ever any chance that anyone else would be suspected of having done this?
i guess it comes down to cruelty, and whether or not you believe that it's intentional cruelty or the actions of someone whose major flaw is an inability to relate to or understand others.
in the context of the second theory, though, this notion of diavolo keeping someone who represents a bond with him and his past, maintaining their life even when it does not benefit him to do so... it does make me wonder what his original plans were for trish.
It's very interesting to listen to history lectures that first say that there was no slavery at a certain period of time, and then follow it up with something like: "women didn't have the right to marry at their free will, property was passed down from father to son..." and so on.
you are absolutely sure that there was no slavery, right?
Just because women were working doesn't mean they had much input on who they married.
Can't comment on other cultures but at least in mine who a woman could marry has up until very recently been controlled by family. This has held true regardless of class. Also women weren't allowed to own property until very recently either (depends on religion – Hindu Succession Act allowed women to become direct heirs and get equal shares. Travancore Christian Succession Act of 1916 which governed the Kerala christians did not let daughters inherit until it was overturned in 1986).
It also doesn't mean they were earning money. Yes, most women have always been expected to work, but they weren't necessarily paid. Slaves are also expected to work.* And even when women's work generated any kind of income, they didn't necessarily have any control over or rights to the money they earned.
To give just one example, in England, prior to the Married Women's Property Act of 1870, any income which a woman earned legally belonged to her husband. In fact a married woman, rich or poor, did not even exist as a separate legal entity.
Caroline Norton, who was instrumental in gerting this Act passed, also campaigned successfully for divorce reform. The following is an excerpt from her testimony to Parliament.
And while English women did gain some property rights in the 1870s, it wasn't until 100 years later that the Sex Discrimination Act actually made it illegal for banks to refuse to let a woman open an account without a man's signature.
Of course, this doesn't even touch on all of the unpaid work which women in nearly every time and place have been expected to do for their husbands. Including providing him with children.
*The whole premise that 'expected to work and earn money' = 'not a slave' is a pretty embarrassing argument to make in the first place. Slaves are absolutely expected to work. And indeed to earn money, albeit not for themselves. Though in the Roman world, for instance, it was also common for slaves to earn a small amount of money which they were allowed to hold and manage as if it were their own.
vaporwave
pixelskylines
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline
turnnoffyourmind
