Screaming into the Void

She/her, Finnish, translator (EN-FI), neurodivergent, pansexual. May rant about whichever hyperfixation has taken over me today. These currently include: The Persona series, Honkai: Star Rail, My Hero Academia, Hunter x Hunter, the Magnus Archives, and Shoot From The Hip. Also generally interested in video games, anime, languages, horror, and queer media.

[roseblossom01]

I am not a fan of the idea of stealing Akechi’s heart.

I see it occasionally as a theme throughout shuake works, and it never makes sense to me.

Akechi’s entire story is about agency, the ways he’s been stripped of it, and the ways he copes with that. To steal is heart is to reinforce the idea that his agency doesn’t matter.

Stealing hearts is a form of ego-death. The person before having their heart stolen and then afterwards are not the same. And so, in choosing to steal his heart, we deny him the chance to ever realize that he is good enough on his own, without having to be a different person. This isn’t to say he doesn’t have to change—he should certainly stop murdering people at the last—but we have to acknowledge that the capacity for good is inside him and wants to be brought to the forefront.

This isn’t even to say I disagree with stealing hearts entirely—I think it’s a stand in for violent resistance which I do agree with in some cases—but with Akechi it’s a pretty clear no go.

I think of the line, “why couldn’t we have met a few years earlier?” It’s a very honest line because it is a recognition of regret. As little as he allows himself to admit it, he does regret where things are. He does have the capacity for good.

Akechi’s entire life has been a series of difficult choices, milestones he holds onto as proof of his agency. His choice to kill, his choice to team up with Shido, his choice to shoot Ren. But in reality, these are not markers of agency. He didn’t choose to kill, not really. He was manipulated, first by a system that wanted him dead and then by a man who wanted him as a weapon. He never had agency.

To steal Akechi’s heart is to say “I don’t believe you have the ability to change, and I refuse to give you the agency to prove otherwise.” It is wrong, and it is a misreading of his character, in my opinion.

The true best option, therefore, is simply to give him stability and safety. A pleasant relationship with someone he loves, time to reflect on his deeds outside of the threat of the axe dropping, proof that he is worth loving no matter what. This, finally, returns him the agency he deserves.

[masochist-marmot]

Crowley=Mercury and Aziraphale=Sulphur

Disclaimer: This is a silly post to combine my newly found obsession (Good Omens) with my longer obsession with alchemy. Contains no real spoilers, just surface level stuff

In alchemy, Mercury and Sulphur are both substances and universal, metaphysical principles (two of the Tria Prima, complemented by Salt). Mercury is the principle of solubility, volatility and change (tied to the elements of water and air), while Sulphur is the principle of combustion (tied to the element of fire) and is what binds Mercury to a physical form (Salt, close to the element of earth). Before Salt was introduced as a separate principle of stability, Mercury was seen as the essence of matter while Sulphur was what gave it form.

Now you may be thinking: "Why is Crowley the one connected to wet elements while Aziraphale is connected to fire?" And I will answer by asking you to think less literally and think about what they represent. In alchemical works, Mercury can refer to a thousand different things (as you'd expect from something so difficult to pin down), and chief among them are the acids and solutions used to dissolve matter. Symbolically, this is just as often referred to as the Mercurial fire as it is Mercurial water. The point is in its ability to both change and inflict change upon others.

Meanwhile, fire (while certainly an active element) takes up the highest sublunary sphere, meaning that it sits closest to the heavenly Fifth Element or Quintessence that takes up the rest of the universe. Quintessence is, by nature, perfect and incapable of change. (As a side, most hermetic traditions don't have a concept of Hell, and both angelic and demonic entities inhabit the same plane. If anything, some occult traditions see our physical reality as the inherently evil place.) And Sulphur may be the principle of combustibility, but it only combusts when separated. Sulphur in a piece of wood is perfectly content holding it together until you set the log on fire.

Also, Mercury and Sulphur should be viewed as two parts of one whole. Since they are inherent in all matter, their balance would affect the end result (disclaimer: the earliest theories only applied this to metals but they later became universal). Mercury and Sulphur in perfect, harmonic unity would create gold, and later the Philosopher's Stone (a physical manifestation of Quintessence). Because of this harmonic unity, the principles have been assigned several symbolic and spiritual meanings. So Mercury and Sulphur (respectively) can represent Yin/Yang, Feminine/Masculine, Active/Passive, Mind/Soul, Moon/Sun, Darkness/Light, Anima/Animus, Silver/Gold, Queen/King and so on and so forth. I won't go into these dualities here, but I think most of them are fairly easy to connect.

Anyway, you might have gotten the gist but here I go listing random examples that solidify this in my mind.

They are one: They are only complete when together, and their opposing effects on each other forms a beautiful, harmonic unity.

Crowley represents change: Crowley is fluid, ever-changing, always on the move. He switches styles, he moves too fast. Much like Mercury, he's difficult to pin down.

Aziraphale represents form: His style remains relatively stagnant over millenia, he stays put in one place. Also, his efforts to change Heaven are the lamest status quo changes I have ever seen. (And while stability is tied to Salt in the Tria Prima model, binding and coagulation are tied to Sulphur, especially in older models.)

Crowley keeps Aziraphale from stagnating: What Sulphur does is coagulate, or bind things together. Without Mercury, there is no change or essence. Without Crowley, Aziraphale would be stuck to his rigid heavenly ways without an ounce of critical thinking. Crowley gives Aziraphale flexibility and the ability to make his own choices.

Aziraphale keeps Crowley in check: Although Crowley has a pretty natural moral compass, I'd like to think Aziraphale has contributed in bringing out the best in him. He has also given Crowley a reason to stay in one place. And we can see how lost and without structure Crowley's life is without Aziraphale. The way to give Mercury form is to bind it with Sulphur. You know how alchemists depicted this in their art? A serpent nailed to a cross.

Oh, did I mention that one of the most prominent symbols for Mercury is a serpent? Because it is.

Crowley listens to Queen almost exclusively. Queen? Freddie Mercury? I rest my case.

Okay so most of this was an excuse to ramble about alchemy, but also the Crowley=Mercury symbolism is so clear to me it's almost ridiculous. Aziraphale as Sulphur fits less cleanly, but it truly makes sense when you consider them a harmonious unity, especially with all the other religious and spiritual symbolism involved.

[masochist-marmot]

I'm glad to see that the TMA fandom is keeping the art of rickrolling alive in the form of Hello Jon, apologies for the deception

[masochist-marmot]

I need someone to make a compilation of Shoot From The Hip characters as the Magnus Archives avatars.

Spoiler alert: it would be mostly Tom

[masochist-marmot]

As a fellow English major, I absolutely adore Tom's nitpicks. Which is why I feel obligated to point out that his use of Shakespearean English is not that much more grammatically correct than the others'. You know what, maybe I'll address my grievances in the form of a letter.

Ahem.

Dear Thomas Mayo, I admire thy particularity with the language. However, it grieveth me to listen to thine otherwise majestic monologues, only to be greeted with an incorrect form of a word. It appeareth to me that in the course of thy many years of studying the Bard, thou never didst learn the proper verb conjugations. It doth not suffice to add an "-est" at the end of a word, for even archaic forms of the language had rules. Pray forgive mine impertinence, as English is not my first language. I studied the language, while thou hast merely grown up with it. But the next time the audience prompteth thee to perform a soliloquy in the style of Shakespeare, I expect nothing but perfectly grammatical Early Modern English. I beg of thee, get thy shit together. Thine sincerely, a mildly miffed linguist.

PS. I don't mean to sound mean-spirited, this is all in good fun. I'm not even a language prescriptivist, I just think it's funny to nitpick the nitpicker. My English is also far from perfectly grammatical. Like I said, I'm not a native speaker.

[masochist-marmot]

Luke Manning (from Shoot From The Hip) is very Kurapika coded, in that I think he's a cis man but I would buy literally any sex or gender identity.

[theomenroom]

when applied to drinks, "dry" means "without sugar". therefore it follows that sugary drinks can be called "wet". the meanings of the terms "hot" and "cold" when applied to drinks are obvious. thus the aspect of any drink can be determined.

for instance, green tea, freshly steeped and served without additives, is hot and dry, and therefore has an aspect of fire.

a mocha, on the other hand, while hot, is sweet, and therefore wet, and thus has an an aspect of air.

lemonade, which is wet and cold, has a water aspect.

finally, the drink which most epitomizes the earth aspect, being both cold and dry, is vodka

[masochist-marmot]

I can't believe Heated Rivalry s1e6 aired within 24 hours of Stranger Things s5e7. It's like the episode was sent out to heal the wounds left behind by the fumbling of Will's character arc.

[masochist-marmot]

It's wild to think that the Duffers were going to let Will's arc end with no post-coming out discussion with Mike. No matter how rushed and shoehorned in the radio tower scene between Will and Mike felt, it was absolutely essential to bring any sort of closure to these characters and their relationship. The fact that Noah had to be the one to push for it in the first place tells me that the Duffers bit off way more than they could chew, not just with this character arc but with the entire show. There were honestly far too many characters and plot points to wrap up in the time they reserved for them. Even better writers would have struggled to juggle this many balls without dropping any.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have some sympathy for the show runners, but I also feel like many of us gave them way too much credit along the way. This show has always been pretty messy (I hold the controversial opinion that season 3 was the worst offender before now), and the writing has always been a little tacky (maybe not "friends? no thanks. best friends" tacky, but not too far off either), and the scale became somehow too big and too small at the same time.

Either way, I stuck with it to the end, and now I plan to take it for what it was. A fine show, albeit a messy one, with an all-around unsatisfying conclusion.

[masochist-marmot]

Spoilers for Stranger Things 5 vol. 2

Okay so despite rooting for Byler, I always held the view that I'd be fine with whatever they did with the pairings as long as they based it in satisfying character arcs. But while I didn't need Byler to happen, I really needed the coming out to be handled better. Because what the hell was that?

The coming out scene was truly carried by Noah's performance, and I'm sure he poured a lot of his own emotions and experiences into it. I'm also sure that many people will be moved by it, and hell, I was moved by it too. But in the context of everything it was honestly absurd. What do you mean he had to summon everyone like it was a strategy meeting (because the motivation sure seemed practical enough) and then all his friends take turns exclaiming how they'll never abandon him like they're pledging their loyalties to the Fellowship of the Ring? "You won't lose me!" "Or me!" "Or my axe!"

I really, really needed to see a more intimate scene with only like his mum and Jonathan, and maybe later his core crew. And I wish it had been his own choice rather than a supernatural psychic threat forcing him out of the closet before he's ready. It literally did not have to be under threat either, since he had already been encouraged by Robin. I also needed a bigger acknowledgement from Mike. Because obviously the best friend he's in love with is the one he's most afraid of losing at this point, so hearing from him would have made a very powerful moment. But instead he's like the fourth in line to make his exclamation and join the group hug? While fucking Murray is watching??

A friend of mine tried to reason that maybe Mike chose that moment to become tactful and took some time to process, but it's difficult for me to believe that he holds any thoughts at all, since he somehow gained a negative presence in volume 2. Like seriously, the only time it feels like he's there at all is when he convinces his mum to let them handle everything. He complimented his (supposed) girlfriend's outfit in the same tone as you'd comment on the weather. I've never been more convinced that these two are no longer together. But I guess the writers had no time to either address that or write in any inklings of a romance. At this point, the only romance I believe in is Lumax. Rovickie is cute too, but promising to have a dinner date at Enzo's has me super worried for their survival.

I feel like this show has usually been pretty good at balancing plot threads and character moments in a way that they support each other both thematically and emotionally. But this volume felt like they were rushing to tie loose ends before the final showdown by halting the plot, having a Big Character Moment, and then rushing back to action. Which results in everything feeling disjointed and ultimately unsatisfying. Especially when the big plot doesn't feel all that exciting in the first place. The friend I mentioned above also said he holds the delusional (his own words) belief that Mike and Will still have their confrontation and acceptance in the final episode. But I don't think they have time for that with the way they've been writing this season so far, nor do I have much faith that the finale will deliver on any of our expectations.

In conclusion, I enjoyed what volume 1 set up, but I was pretty disappointed how volume 2 followed up on that. My partner called these pretty standard mid-season episodes, but that just means that everything's hinging on the finale. But who knows, maybe they'll pull a miracle?

[masochist-marmot]

Man, it's been 1,5 years since the "Death of the Crow" poem was included in HSR 2.2 and I still hate it with a passion so I have to rant about it (in a nerdy English major fashion). Forgive me.

For anyone familiar with Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven, it should be obvious that this is an homage to it. Or a rewrite. And I have nothing against those. My problem is that it tries to follow the original's structure while completely butchering everything cool about it and it drives me insane.

Disclaimer: I don't actually know how the writing and localisation was handled, so I'm giving the writers and translators some grace. They may have first modified the Chinese translation of the poem and then had to fit the same ideas into the English original. Or perhaps the Chinese poem had some other poem as a basis and they decided to use The Raven for the English one. I simply don't know. What I do know is that translating poems is really hard and a random collectible is not going to be a priority for anyone. Recognising all of this, I'm only here to tell you why I hate this particular text.

The breakdown

The Raven is written in trochaic octameter, which means that each line consists of eight feet, where a stressed syllable is followed by an unstressed one. To put it very simply, it's eight times "DUM da" per line ("Once upon a midnight dreary[...]"). This is not the most natural rhythm for English, and the inverse metre (iamb, or "da DUM") is more common in English poetry. In fact, it's iambic pentameter (five feet) that gives Shakespeare's writing its conversational tone. When trochee is employed as strictly as Poe does, it can have an oppressive effect, like the words are urging you to continue. To give you a better idea, I'll break down the first stanza of the original poem, which was included almost word for word in Death of the Crow. Bold marks stressed (and half-stressed) syllables, colours are used to mark rhymes, | to separate the metrical feet, and a (number) at the end of each line to tell you the number of feet.

Once u|pon a | midnight | dreary,| while I | pondered,| weak and | weary, (8) Over | many a | quaint and | curious | volume | of for|gotten | lore, (8) While I | nodded, | nearly | napping, | sudden|ly there | came a | tapping, (8) As of | some one | gently | rapping, | rapping | at my | chamber | door. “ (8) “'Tis some | visi|tor,” I | muttered, | “tapping | at my | chamber | door— (8) Only | this, and | nothing | more.” (4)

The first stanza of Death of the Crow basically only changes the pronouns (I -> you) and replaces the word "lore" with "dreams". The change does remove a rhyme, but I can look past that. The point is that it sets up a distinct rhythm with some delicious internal rhymes and repetition. It's setting this singsongy beat against a pretty ominous tone, as though something's lurking right beyond the veil of the words. Pretty fitting for Penacony, if you ask me. Let's see how the following stanza follows up on this.

Ah, do | you dis|tinctly re|member the | dew-doused | window | pane; (7) And a | dying | baby | dove laid | like a | shadow | upon | the floor. (8) Eagerly | you had | wished the | story | to meet | a hap|py end (7) Eagerly | you had | wished no | birds would | plummet|, their de|mise to | bewail. (8) Some soared | like shi|ning stars|, bound | for the sky... (5?) While others | found only | demise |, in dust | they lie. | (5?)

So uh. I did my best to divide this into beats but it doesn't really follow a regular meter so it's up to interpretation and feels unnatural. The point is that the lines begin by following the trochee set up by Poe but mostly devolve into irregular free verse towards the end. This is especially true for the last two lines that didn't even borrow the beginning from Poe. It's pretty difficult to fit words like "bewail" and "demise" into the trochee scheme in the first place, when they have a natural stress on the second syllable. Feels like they were chosen purely because they felt "poetic". Also, they seem to have completely given up on rhyming, except for finding the laziest end-rhyme I've ever seen for the last two lines. And I don't know how they managed to borrow the beginning of the third line ("Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow") but still somehow messed up the rhythm. Reading this stanza out loud is very unsatisfying. I think it's the inconsistency that gets me the most.

Okay one more stanza and then I've ranted enough. Because the worst stanzas are the ones where they've tried to stitch complete lines from Poe together with their own. Even without looking at the meaning you can tell where one ends and the other begins. Try it:

Deep in|to that | darkness | peering, | long you | stood there | wondering, | fearing, (8) Doubting, | dreaming | dreams no | mortal | ever | dared to | dream be|fore; (8) Worms have | stained | satin, | and flames | consumed | doves with | broken | wings, (8) A flame|-bathed ra|ven gree|ted you, | its voi|ce's rasp | that sings. (7) "Sweet dreams | are no | paradise | of mine," | you whispered | and sighed. | "When I | cast my | eyes a|round —" (9) Darkness | there and | nothing | more. (4)

Lines 1, 2 and 6 are Poe's (with "I" changed to "you"), the rest are rewrites. It gives me such whiplash when it sets up a regular meter after the previous, more or less freeform stanza, and then suddenly stutters again. It could be an effective stylistic device if it seemed intentional in any way. Line 4 also showcases the natural flow of a regular iambic metre ("da DUM, da DUM"), if only it wasn't surrounded by these irregular lines.

That's it, that's my stupid half-baked analysis.

Conclusion

After I read this Frankenstein of a poem for the first time, I grew a deep appreciation for Poe as a writer. So I guess something good came of it. But it bears repeating that I understand that a stylistic reproduction may not have been the highest thing in the localisation priorities, and the contents were the point. Doesn't mean I can't resent it for existing in the first place. I read it so many times for the Sunday lore bits just to get distracted and aggravated by the form.

P.S. The Raven has much more linguistic richness than this analysis would have you believe, and I completely glossed over all the half-rhymes and alliteration that contribute to the overall tastiness. I highly recommend you go read it and maybe even try reading it out loud.

[masochist-marmot]

So I've seen some neat queer readings of Stephen King's It claiming that Richie Tozier (and possibly Eddie as well) is gay in the novel. While he's irrefutably, canonically gay in the 2017 and 2019 movies, I don't think it was actually King's intent. How do I know?

Because Stephen King cannot do subtlety.

If Richie was intended to be gay, we wouldn't have to read into it. He would have some questionable instances of leering at men but in a charming way (/s), he would have borderline explicit moments of childhood gay panic, he would have the voice of a homophobic father ringing in his ears, and his bullies (not to mention Pennywise) would come up with a million creative homophobic slurs (just read the passage about Adrian's assault and its aftermath). King does not pull punches, especially when it comes to possible source of trauma or shame in his characters. Which is what the entirety of It is about. King may use more subtlety when setting something up, but in the end he can't help but lay it out in open.

I don't mean to say that you can't interpret novel Richie as gay, and I actually encourage all sorts of different readings of media. Death of the author, and all that. I obviously can't speak for King himself, but I honestly don't think he'd mind either. At the very least he seems to approve of the new movies. I also personally really like how the films dealt with Richie.

Was there a point to this? Not really, other than mildly bashing an author whose work I actually really enjoy.

[masochist-marmot]

Children's magical thinking: "I think there are fairies living in our backyard."

ADHD magical thinking:

"This episode is 30 minutes long but I bet I can watch it in 15 if I'm really efficient."

"I have to leave in one (1) minute so I'll just change my clothes now. Instantaneously, like a Sim. Luckily I know exactly where all my clean socks are."

"I know I have an early morning and it's 1 a.m. but I'm sure I can finish an arts and crafts project if I start right now. I'll get enough sleep if I just squeeze extra sleep in the remaining 2 hours."

[masochist-marmot]

Some anti-Byler Mileven shippers seem to have a weird double standard where:

Mike and Will have no romantic tension because it's never been explicitly stated, while Eleven and Mike's romance is taken for granted even though they've had very little screen time together in recent seasons.

Will isn't confirmed gay (???) because he's never explicitly said it, but Mike is confirmed straight by default. (And no one remembers bisexuals, which I take personal offence to.)

Mike doesn't have romantic feelings for Will because he's never said so, but we trust that he loves Eleven even when he's got a hard time saying it to her.

Making Will and Mike a couple would be forced and unearned, while Mike and Eleven don't even have to address their problems because they're meant to be.

Letting Will have Mike would cheapen their friendship and undermine Will's character arc of accepting himself, while Eleven's arc of accepting herself can and must involve a romance.

Will should be happy just to be accepted by his loved ones, while I guess for Eleven that's just a given.

Shipping Byler is misogynistic, but being anti-Byler is not homophobic. (And it obviously isn't always, attitudes and reasons vary.)

This post is not about what I personally think should or will happen with these relationships, and you can ship whoever you want. But it's very curious that the standards are very different for a queer ship than for a straight one. Queer relationships in media (and let's be real, irl too) are scrutinised very closely and require a mountain of proof to be taken seriously, while any two characters of opposite sexes will be seen as potential love interests as long as they share the screen.

Will doesn't even enter the minds of many people as a potential love interest despite having so much going for him. Meanwhile, the Jonathan/Nancy/Steve triangle is still going strong just to keep us on our toes. If Will was a girl, we would absolutely be considering him as a viable endgame romance. "First girl wins" is a trope, and while Eleven was the first girl, Will was the first girl.

I'll reveal my hot take now: I don't think Mike needs to end up with either of them. Mileven are definitely better off as friends and I honestly feel like the most romantic tension they ever had was when they were children. Eleven's early arcs were about being loved unconditionally and not for her utility, but she has since moved on to finding her value from within. (Vague season 5 spoiler:) Robin's speech to Will applies to Eleven too, and I actually find that they are thematically in a similar place now. I don't think either of them needs a romance to complete their character arcs. Keeping Mileven together in the end would honestly just feel like comphet stubbornness (unless they find a way to make me believe in it), and I'm somewhat afraid that getting Byler together at this point would feel rushed to a large portion of the audience. But whatever they do, I hope they stick the landing.

[masochist-marmot]

I've been rewatching Stranger Things and this is my take on the thematic undercurrents in each season.

Season 1 deals with loss and grief and how it manifests differently in different people.

Season 2 deals with PTSD and living with the past trauma as if it's happening right now, in flashes and now-memories. It's about your neural pathways reorganising to supposedly protect you, mirroring the root network under Hawkins.

Season 4 deals with guilt and shame and how suppressing your emotions may lead into self-destructive behaviour. Mirrored in how Vecna preys on his victims.

Season 3 deals with... capitalism vs. communism? How American values and patriotism will save the day? I mean I guess you could say that there's a wider theme about conformity and assimilation and how you should find your own individuality lest you become part of a flesh amalgamation where you have no mind of your own.

Except that embracing otherness and finding strength in being yourself are already underlying themes in the series as a whole, and the cold war narrative muddles them in a weird way. I mean, there's a Soviet base under the mall, which serves as a metaphorical heart of capitalism and individuality. The mall is where Max takes El for retail therapy to teach her how to be her own person. Even if malls are inherently symbols of conformity, assimilation and the death of local businesses run by actual people in favour of convenience. And it feels like they try to mirror this by bringing the flesh amalgam into this heart of capitalism and firing Fourth of July fireworks at it. Was the monster communism all along? Am I the only one who feels like they're trying to set up symbolism that falls apart the moment you think about it?

Look, I know the show is not this simplistic in its themes, and this wasn't supposed to be a serious analysis anyway. I guess I just really don't like season 3. It's a mess of a narrative that's incoherent about what it's trying to convey, and I vastly prefer the more psychological explorations of the other seasons. I wish they'd done more with the mind virus aspect instead of giving us Spy Kids with scary-yet-unbelievably-incompetent Soviet soldiers and a big meat spider.

P.S. Someone should make a deep-dive into what's going on with Mrs. Wheeler. I feel like she's living in a whole other narrative with a completely different genre.

[livingchancy]

a man who would go back into the closet for 15 years for you without even blinking, without even thinking there’s anything to forgive you for, fully believing all that patience and time and space and agony was completely worth it because he loves you that much and is that devoted to you. a horrible liar who spends 15 years lying because you aren’t ready to tell the truth yet. you might think that this man doesn’t exist but he does. and his name is phil lester

[criimsu]

phaidei week ☀️🍷

day 4: mythology (hades au!!)