🎶I need them all at once you see, cuz they're my personality 🎶 Hazel⚜She/Her (Main Blog is @pailettehazel) ⚜ Follow me on Instagram: pailette.hazel ⚜ On AO3: PailetteHazel
[Image description: a tumblr notification for 12:09 AM that reads “Feel the vibe of #virgil sanders. Find out what’s hot and new with #virgil sanders”]
Pretty sure Virge would HATE this wording for him, but I love it 😂
I need someone to draw the sasi living room from a birds eye view because sometimes it confuses me because I’ll imagine a character in a specific location, then another character will look at them looking COMPLETELY the wrong way from where I thought the other character was relative to the character doing the looking…….
⛪️: I Talked to a Catholic Canon Lawyer About Sanders Sides
An Essay on SVSR/POF’s Perspectives on Catholic Morality
It’s as the title says, I promise it’s not clickbait. If you’re familiar with my fanfiction “the smallest church” or have read my previous posts about Patton and his Catholic foundations, you may already know that I know a thing or two about Catholic theology more than the average person. For context, I’ve lived in the Philippines my whole life, and the schools I’ve gone to, from highschool to college, have required their students to attend subjects about Catholic Theology, morality, etc.
Even if I don’t necessarily identify as Catholic anymore, I still pick up on a lot of Sanders Sides’ religious themes because of my upbringing. In fact, it surprises me a lot of people do not find the series as an exploration of one’s own Catholic trauma, because the basic structure of the sides (the “Light” Sides vs the “Dark” Sides) is a result from internalized black-and-white thinking, something most Catholics unconsciously believe in.
Patton, in general, is a fascinating, well-thought out character that encompasses the misinterpretation of Catholicism’s morals and principles. This is explored in the episode SVS.R/POF, wherein Patton was badgered on his different takes on various moral dilemmas. Because of this, I’ve decided to contact one of my professors in college to sit down and talk about Patton: what Patton gets right, and what Patton gets wrong.
More than anything, Patton, like Thomas, is a victim of what my professor calls “midwit-ery”. Instead of being taught to read into Catholic code in a more thoughtful manner, Catholics like Thomas are merely taught to listen to what is being told to him, no questions asked. So, take this essay not as an attack on Patton or Thomas, but rather a place to better understand why these misinterpretations of Catholic code happen in the first place, and how they manifest externally.
(TW's: Religious discussion, Catholic guilt and trauma, discussions of oppression, racism, and misogyny, discussions of self-esteem issues)
A. Black-and-White Thinking
Black-and-white thinking, the ill of this current generation. Black-and-white thinking specifically refers to an extremist way of perceiving what is “good” and “bad” wherein something can only be wholly one or the other at any given time. This is most infamous in cancel culture, wherein people “canceled” are often labeled as irredeemable, “wholly bad” people.
Why I bring this up is that the foundations of Sanders Sides, its narrative, and its arcs are about this exact theme. The arc in between Virgil’s acceptance and the present-day focus solely on exploring what it means to be a good person, with SVS and SVSR/POF being the culmination of said arc. Within these episodes, the sides thoroughly discuss whether or not Thomas is a good person for wanting to attend the callback. They posit that selfishness and selflessness are an either-or debacle, wherein you are wholly bad for wanting to focus on the self, and wholly good if you attend the wedding of your good friends.
This is emphasized in SVSR/POF wherein Patton uses the trolley problem to visualize the issue of the wedding vs the callback. When I talked to my professor about the dilemma, he specifically mentioned how it seemed quite extremist for Patton to compare the conflict to the trolley problem, especially since the trolley problem includes actual death. It’s at that point I realized how terrible Thomas’ black-and-white thinking is, that declining the wedding invitation, to him, is tantamount to killing his own friends, making him a bad person.
Outside of this arc, the basis on which the sides are divided is also indicative of Thomas’ internalized black-and-white thinking. In DWIT, Logan explains, “[You have two Creativities b]ecause of your view of creativity and imagination as a purely good force. At a young age, you filed away products of your imagination as either welcome or forbidden.” It’s specifically that differentiation of “bad” and “good” that caused the compartmentalization of sides. And because Patton is in charge of Thomas’ morals, one can argue that Patton was to blame for this division.
Because of this, you have to understand how integral Patton’s role is as Thomas’ emotions and morality, as he is given the responsibility of how Thomas perceives himself as a human being. That is why much blame was given to Patton from SVSR/POF onwards on Thomas’ “restricted moral thinking”, because who Thomas grew to become was spearheaded by Patton.
In relation to this, the growing crisis of black-and-white thinking is quite a Catholic phenomenon. From what I hear, it specifically caters to Christian Evangelicalism in the United States. I’m not an American, but my professor is, so I asked him about it, and he describes Evangelicalism as something similar to secular, political liberalism. That is, there is a faithful adherence to eliminating what is categorically “bad” or “evil” instead of understanding the social complexity of specific phenomena. He specifically describes it as quite reactionary— something looked down upon by both activists and theologists alike, because it means you rely on gut feelings more than critical thought.
This kind of black-and-white thinking is pervasive in purity culture. Purity culture is notoriously known to be the “no sex before marriage” principle, but nowadays it’s outgrown itself to be more about protecting the dignity of a person or a group of people. A great example of this would be fandom, wherein fans, especially younger fans, tend to stray away from conflict, debate, or critical thought because they think it may taint themselves, the things they do within the fandom, and the characters they love.
Funnily enough, this is exactly what happened in the Sanders Sides fandom in 2020. Because the fandom was paraded to be the “unproblematic” fandom, people tended to stray away from complex topics because it was said to “disturb the peace”. This is why we have “unsympathetic sides” tags when other fandoms don’t, or why many POC were shamed in 2020 for speaking out against racism. Instead of entertaining nuance, complexity, and critical thought, purists opt to ostracize and separate themselves from parts of fandom they disagree with, similar to how Patton unconsciously compartmentalized Thomas’ personalities because he needs to ensure that he can stick close with the “good” sides, and isolate the “bad” ones.
I have no answers as to why purity culture is more ubiquitous today. Although, I posit that it has something to do with current power structures and white supremacy, as many colonizers throughout history weaponized Catholicism, especially the notion of purity, to justify their acts of oppression. My country is an example of this, wherein many of those who defy the authority of the church were punished or exiled. Today, many white people are still conditioned to believe they possess that sense of superiority, which is why they use meager things like fandom as a means of posturing one’s moral goodness.
This black-and-white thinking is a perversion of the Catholic notion of goodness and sin. When talking to my professor, I got the impression that sin isn’t as morally black as people frame it to be. Similarly, doing good does not simply mean making yourself a sacrificial lamb. While we can label our actions as “sinning” or “doing good”, Catholicism at its core does not entertain punishment as much as modern-day Catholics do. In fact, true Catholics should be considerate of the social aspects of sin— the idea that one may commit crimes because the social structures we live in oppress certain groups of people. Sin and goodness have always been complex, and should not be perceived at face value as being a wholly “bad” or “good” person.
B. Morality and “Feelings”
Something that SaSi fans often don’t bat an eye on is the fact that Patton encapsulates both Thomas’ morality AND emotions. This is actually a recipe for disaster, especially if you do not study the true intentions of Catholic moral teachings.
When you watch SVSR/POF, I have a challenge for you: Jot down every time Patton mentions the word “feel”. He mentions it a lot, both in reference to Thomas’ moral dilemmas and Patton’s own. There is a noticeable hypocrisy in words. On one hand, Patton berates Thomas for “feeling good” when fulfilling a good deed. On the other hand, when asked about what defines goodness, he describes it as allowing other humans to feel good, to avoid pain.
Patton’s confusion should be taken into account considering how poorly Catholicism is taught to its members. Because it was recommended by my professor, much of what I understand of Catholic morality comes from Grisez and Shaw’s Fulfillment in Christ, and in the first chapter, they specifically mention that Catholicism utilizes a nonlegalistic approach when discerning moral goodness. The main issue this presents is that many Catholics can bend biblical teachings to their will, even if Grisez and Shaw claims this looseness should allow for more deliberate understandings of morality.
What this all boils down to is the vagueness in which goodness presents itself as within the Catholic faith. Grisez and Shaw use the example of an umbrella. When you see rain, you automatically equip an umbrella because it is the right thing to do. To them, Catholic moral goodness should work similarly, where one would simply develop the notion of doing what is good based on the circumstance at hand.
Obviously, this is flawed, especially if one’s faith to Catholicism is incredibly surface-level. This is why my professor advised to understand the difference between intelligible and sensible goods, as described by Grisez and Shaw. What Patton does — act on impulse gut feelings — is subscribe to his sensible goods, enacting on what we immediately feel within a specific situation. But, Patton neglects the need to fulfill one’s intelligible goods— more all-encompassing and well-thought out needs, like Thomas’ mental health, one’s ability to communicate with close friends, etc.
Sensible and intelligible goods often overlap. However, a key difference between both is that intelligible goods subject one’s own senses and feelings to reason. You cannot simply enact something because it feels like a good thing. You need to rationalize it, deliberate the how’s and why’s.
Actually, Thomas, Patton, and Roman’s incapacity to level past sensible goods is partially Logan’s fault. Something I realized recently (which will get its own essay, I promise) is that Logan’s role as logic isn’t simply to be a direct foil to another side. Yes, Logan fights the other sides often, but that isn’t so much because he opposes them. More so, he acts as regulation. He ensures no side tips the scales towards their favor alone; he ensures Patton doesn’t ruminate on the past too much, he ensures Virgil doesn’t commit to fatalism, he ensures Roman doesn’t allow Thomas to live only in unrealistic fantasies. Logan doesn’t forbid it, but he’s there to moderate.
This is why, at the end of SVSR/POF, Janus and Patton states that selfishness is only good in moderation. Logan, as logic, failed to deescalate when it mattered. To be fair, this is mostly in result of some internalized epiphanies in LNTAO. Because he saw the merit of emotions-centric problem-solving, he released some of his grip on Thomas, but accidentally make him rely too much on his emotions. Now, Thomas doesn’t listen to him, which makes him less critical about his own black-and-white thinking.
An important thing my professor asserted when discussing about emotions-centric morality is that what you feel does not always indicate what must be done. It’s a direct criticism of what happens in SVSR/POF, during the part where Thomas compares moral goodness to food and sleep. An example he gives is, one can develop an appetite towards a particular kind of food. You can eat the food, if it’s your first meal. But obviously, just because you like the food does not mean you can have ten servings of it in one sitting. Likewise, just because you feel something is good does not mean that it is. You need to be deliberate. You need to think it out. If you don’t, you are left with a “just ‘cus” mentality.
C. Social Responsibility
One thing Patton gets right (to a certain degree) in SVSR/POF is the idea that our existence is intertwined with other people’s, hence making them our personal responsibility. What is correct to do is not always the easiest thing to do; that is something I agree with as an activist, too. But, on regards to Patton’s second example in the video (ie. Not saving a kingdom because it makes you feel good), my professor believes this way of thinking dissuades people from doing good. This is because, again, your feelings are not a reliable source for discerning one’s morality.
Patton perceives action merely as an extension of one’s moral needs, but in doing so, he neglects the seriousness in which we need to treat our physical/material and psychological needs. The reason why Patton is hellbent on Thomas’ moral pureness (besides the fact that, well, he is morality) is that morality, specifically Catholic morality, is quite Kantian at its core. Kantianism, in more comprehensible terms, focuses on developing one’s principles. The actions one does based on one’s principles do not matter as much as the principle that is formed due to such action.
This is why it is easy for Patton to dismiss the idea of wanting to save a kingdom just to feed one’s ego. He cares more about what it says about the self rather than see the good in the action itself. Like what Janus mentions in CLBG, Kantianism is quite idealistic.
To stray away from Catholicism for a brief moment, a lot of what Patton believes is actually something a lot of staunch leftists, especially Marxists, would contend. The reason why Marx claimed religion is the “opium of the masses” is because it distracts people from thoroughly understanding the material conditions they reside in. We put our belief more in the supernatural and spiritual than what truly exists. In Sanders Sides, this heavy focus on moral formation distracts Thomas away from praxis— the ability to apply what is learned in practice.
I’ll mention though, Catholicism and Marxism aren’t completely mutually exclusive. Many of those who belong in the global south have criticized Catholicism’s lack of social action. Liberation Theology is a great example of this. Latin American priests in the 20th century fought for Catholicism to be more considerate of the reality of the poor and the oppressed, making it one of the main proprietors of the Second Vatican Council. You know who opposes these movements? A lot of white evangelicals of the States.
Furthermore, let’s talk about when Patton states, “Doing nothing is worse than doing a good thing for the wrong reasons.” It reminds me of a reading I did in another theology class where it states that sin is more about the good actions we did not do rather than the “bad” actions we do. This is why Patton asserts that it is important for us to spend our time volunteering and “doing something good”. He thinks every time we don’t actively seek out doing so, we are sinning.
Of course, this is another one of Catholicism’s beliefs that has been perverted beyond belief. Why it was crucial for my past professor to bring this up is because, whether or not you are Catholic, he believes the welfare of society is a shared responsibility amongst all its people. Many Catholic priests and nuns are revolutionists. In a way, this perspective on sin intends to implore us to be critical of the state of the world, and not fall for fatalism.
Balancing out the two sides of social responsibility, my professor posits that it is always important to understand one’s capacity for doing something good. He states, “doing something costly does not mean you are doing something good”. In fact, he states that many ordinary things can be done with Christian or Catholic intent. Thomas does not have to become a martyr to do something good. It’s like what Patton says in SVSR/POF, he just… didn’t know. He did not update himself on Thomas’ present-day capacities.
So, I suppose that begs the question of— why does Patton lean towards self-sacrifice?
D. Sacrifice and Power
I asked my professor why many Catholics idealize sacrifice in an unhealthy manner. Of course, part of it is to replicate the personhood Jesus beheld at the cross, but I think we can all admit that Catholics do not follow this principle as much as they use sacrifice as a means to self-flagellate.
He produced an interesting answer. He told me that, because Catholics believe death brings forth eternal life in heaven, they do not believe death is the worst thing that could happen to man. This is why many Catholics, especially white Catholics, do not help the poor and the oppressed; Catholicism has made them minimize death to the point where they think it doesn’t matter if someone dies.
While my professor understands the importance of sacrifice, he asserts that death should not be idealized to achieve a common good. It’s one of the Christian modes of responsibility: One should not be moved by hostility to freely accept or choose the destruction, damaging, or impeding of any intelligible good. Opposite to Machiavellianism, the ends does not justify the means.
Furthermore, my professor states that it is a moral failure to not care for one’s own body. It is not enough to be morally sound. If you neglect your own health, whether mental or physical, that also does not abide other Christian modes of responsibility that seek to do good as soon as you can. An example he gave is that, when my professor first arrived in the Philippines, he started developing weird splotches on his skin. It is his moral responsibility and duty to himself to check them out as soon as he can to ensure that he is healthy. Just as much as it is a sin to neglect others, it is also a sin to neglect oneself.
Like I said earlier, one often sacrifices one’s own psychological and physical needs to sustain the moral, even if, in fact, they are all intertwined. This is Patton’s biggest flaw in SVSR/POF: he believed martyrdom was the only way to prove one’s good moral standing, even if it destroyed Thomas’ mental and physical health. This is, unfortunately, a common problem amongst Catholics— the idealization of suffering, because it was what Christ did.
Patton does not perceive Thomas outside of his moral obligation to others. Again, of course he does. He's morality. But that is why other sides exist. Logan in particular is established to care for Thomas’ physical health, as what was said in WDWGOOBITM. But, he failed at his job as someone who moderates.
This is especially exacerbated when understanding the control Patton has over Thomas and the other sides. Besides being cc!Thomas’ favorite side, there is something so coincidentally rich about Thomas' morality being a father figure. Gender inequality is still a prevalent problem in Catholicism. Reverence towards males, especially father-like figures, are unconsciously taught through mass and other religious activities because most church leaders are men. They are your fathers in the same way God is your father.
Many Catholics justify this gender imbalance using two biblical instances: the story of Genesis, and the perception of Jesus as a male figure. Firstly, because Eve is derived from the ribcage of Adam, many believe women are inferior towards women. That is a common misconception. No aspect of Genesis postures an imbalanced gender dynamic. Even the terms “man” and “woman” are mistranslations of terms meant to describe Adam and Eve, because the original words, “ish” and “ishah” just mean “man” and “person derived from man”.
Secondly, Jesus is perceived to be biologically male. This is heavily contested in Catholic theology, where gender scholars posit that many prophets tend to possess a third gender, one encompassing both male and female traits. Queer Catholics, for example, perceive the crucified Jesus’ side wound as something similar to a vagina, because it is during his crucifixion was the Church born. Many paintings throughout history even portray this side wound in this manner (Google it, I promise).
All gender talk aside, Patton's assertion and restrictiveness as a side are incredibly reminiscent of men, especially religious leaders, in Catholicism. He possesses that aura of being all-knowing, similar to priests, even if, deep down, he doesn't know anything. Because of this, it is also implied that many of the other sides struggled to go against his will before SVSR/POF happened. The other sides, especially Roman, revere Patton. Why else would they have this problem of black-and-white thinking, if they didn't listen to Patton unconditionally?
This also explains why Thomas’ mental health is in shambles. If Patton's idea of moral goodness is self-sacrifice, then Thomas’ breakdown in SVSR/POF is just a culmination of decades worth of putting himself down. This makes the current arc's focus on the “Dark” Sides’ acceptance more impactful, because we are literally watching Thomas’ ego death. He is going through an immensely life-changing paradigm shift, because the very foundations of how he perceives himself — how Patton perceives Thomas — is changing.
E. Conclusion
In summary, Patton is a very well-written example of Catholic guilt and trauma, reminiscent of surface-level Catholics who do not wish to understand their religion at a more scholarly level. The main things he gets wrong, which is also what a lot of Catholics get wrong, is 1.) believing the extremism of black-and-white thinking, 2.) using feelings alone as a basis for moral insight, and 3.) diminishing Thomas’ welfare by forwarding the notion of sacrifice.
The biggest takeaway that I'd like to impart is that your feelings are not a reliable source for discerning one's morality. Especially without understanding the true semantics of your Catholic beliefs, especially without logical deliberation. Otherwise, you give into a kind of belief system that serves as the base of operations for ignorant Catholics.
Small concept comic of the young sides. Not great because I don’t have my iPad rn but you get the idea.
I love the idea of Roman and Logan being very close at this time just because of the crazy brainstorm sessions that would HAVE TO take place in order to get to the point they are when we meet them in canon. Logan knows a lot about how being a fictional aspect of Thomas’ mind functions while Roman has a crazy power over the whole mind in general that is just sorta instinct for him and he doesn’t really think too hard on it. I just think they should team up a lot in the beginning.
I tried to keep the goals realistic enough that it may happen and it'll give me enough time based on my previous posts but asjkdbasdbjk fingers crossed
take this one with a grain of salt... i only had eye directions to go from so idk if it's like this or mirrored XD
I also have NO idea how Thomas can be in a corner... where is that corner?!
Thomas's closet (Early 20's)
Virgil and Patton are crouching on the floor with Janus and Roman standing behind them. Logan and Thomas are shoulder to shoulder.
Thomas's kitchen (Late 20's)
This was the easiest one... once i remembered how his kitchen looked like
And Lastly...
Thomas's bedroom
i have no idea where Janus and Virgil were standing in this one... because i could not get the scenes to connect in ma brain. all i know is that Roman is on the floor... likely before Thomas or Patton.
one thing i don't think remus' characterisation gets enough credit for is his function as a warning system for thomas' mental health
logan lays out explicitly (in both DWIT and WTIT) that thomas' intrusive thoughts feel more threatening or realistic when he feels unstable and like he has no control. if he's already spinning out of control in xyz ways, what happens if he loses even more control and acts on his definitely-real-not-fake impulses? etc.
that 'real' factor is very literally embodied by the duke showing up and manifesting each thought into video form (the closest to 'real' the sides can get).
WTIT is one of my favourite episodes bc of how well it exemplifies this. thomas' is at a SUPER low point w/ his mental health, and his living conditions have gone to hell. that's a deeply unpleasant way to live, and yet he doesn't have enough control over himself to fix it, so he's just sitting in misery. accordingly, the vast majority of remus' outbursts are about dangers related to the state of his house. sharp objects hidden amongst clutter, dishes becoming projectiles, his food being contaminated, an intruder getting in through an unlocked door, someone hiding in his cluttered closet. if the only avenue of insecurity he had was nico, the episode would have been much shorter (and would have involved 99% less rube-goldberg machines lmao).
as much of trying to wring meaning out of every one of remus' suggestions IS a terrible terrible idea, you can still find patterns in what angles of attack he chooses + when. remus has a remarkable knack for finding weaknesses!! someone doesn't want to think about things that upset them -> they repress those things -> remus ends up with a handily organised list of things he can throw in their faces to get a reaction. the circle of life <3
in the latest episode, everyone's reaction to remus bringing up sex (including janus!? friendly fire!!!) in a video about sexuality is like a big bold underline that the issue here is shame + struggling with self-acceptance. WTIT (in a much subtler, less talking-straight-to-camera way lmao) shows us logan's own sources of repression + shame -- helpfully for remus, he's been trying to deny he has any feelings at all recently lmao, so there's gotta be a lot to work with there.
i just think it's neat. remus' favoured sources of enrichment are a literal barometer for how well<-->poorly c!thomas is doing at any given moment!
(side note abt logan: i think more weight in theorycrafting could be given to what was happening just before the 'stop ignoring me!' outburst. logan's efforts at being communicative + understanding + ceding ground to remus tactics' as possibly being useful -- hard-won communicative + collaborative skills logan has been working really hard at developing! -- gets shit on and reduced to 'you're ignoring me :///'. a bad faith reduction of how hard logan is trying, completely ignoring how his solution would blatantly and objectively help thomas, because it didn't cater enough to remus. like... that's veeeery clearly a strawman MEANT to trigger logan's latent feelings of resentment directed at the other sides (+ thomas!). 'why does my effort come to nothing when they get twice as much reward for trying half as hard, why is how they feel more important than Actual Literal Reality™, why am i the problem if i put my foot down about any of this'.
crucially, remus spots this weakness before thomas gets visibly angry at nico, and sinks out before the phone-call is resolved. the anger logan experiences is super relevant, obvs, but i think so is the pain. anger comes after pain -- when somebody steps on your foot, anger is what gets you to tell them to back off. all of remus' scenarios for thomas involved pain (+ rejection...). being exposed to that pain over and over again w/ no resolution is what leads to thomas' anger. remus only hurt logan once (and we've HEAVILY emphasised that remus Could Not Injure Logan up until this point). so where did logan's injuries come from...? you get what i mean lol)
This is why I think orange is possibly a sense of justice - Thomas's sense of what is fair and what isn't fair to him and the anger, passion and frustration that goes with it and I think that's why Remus is REALLY excited to see Logan outburst with it. Sometimes shit isn;t fair and it sucks! And Remus knows this. He tries to rile Logan up in the Christmas gift video too- he wants Logan to go apeshit because if LOGIC breaks and finally says this isn't fair what the hell man then Remus's purpose, his entire reason for being, is validated, because he's been trying, in his Remus way, to say the same thing: you're ashamed of shit and you need to stop cause it's not fair to yourself and this shame isn't deserved. He's all that repressed stuff- he has no shame and doesn't care what anyone thinks about the thoughts he has because his being is sort of made out of all that stuff anyways. And the worse you shun him the worse his ideas become because he needs to be loud to be heard and his playground is full of elephants in the room nobody wants to stop trying to sweep under the rug. He's not JUST intrusive thoughts, he's all the creative ideas Thomas's brain doesn't want to think about and he has no other outlet. He's just manifesting that way because of he shame Thomas has for his sexuality and all that catholic guilt.
Even in the most recent video, the reason Remus pops up is because Thomas WAS thinking about wanting sex with Nico, and even if Thomas is like "that wasn't what I was going to say" he was still thinking it.
Thomas just can't stop pushing those parts of himself away unfortunately.
it took me a while to get to writing this post bc it was hard to gather my thoughts abt it, but something i've been rotating in my mind ever since the video came out is not only the fact roman didn't try that hard to defend himself when logan suggested something that went against his very core and propose; but even after everything was settled, when he tried for a moment to (very politely and calmly may i add!!) stand up for himself, he immediately backed down.
im talking about THIS moment:
after everyone (including even janus) thank logan and address his attempt at contribution, he looks at roman. roman, who so far has been uncharacteristically quiet. and what does he say?
"look, we can't all be good at romance, logan..."
"...but i would never advise thomas to give up on being logical, just because i don't understand it."
and look at logan's face in reaction to that. that line clearly strikes something in him, as it should. logan realizes here, i think, that by suggesting they remove from thomas's life something that is at the core of roman's being, he has unintentionally crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. this is roman defending himself (again - look how CALM he is abt it! how rational. he is being the most mature and level headed abt this that he can, even tho he is undoubtfully hurt and shaken), and logan SEEING HIS WAY. this is logan accepting his point.
but then, immediately after:
roman backs down. he steps back. he downplays it, tries to say something nice to logan to prove he can see reason or be a team player and not make a scene; he lowers his voice back down.
and you can see in virgil's reaction that he notices. and furthermore, he doesn't approve.
also interesting to point that roman's eyes flick over to thomas in the middle of this. and it is a quick movement; i had to slow him to 0.25 speed to even take this screenshot. and he does it again right after the shot of virgil too:
and after that we can also see that not only did virgil noticed, but thomas and janus did too.
patton, interestingly enough, is the only one not showing signs of noticing something is amiss; he whispers to roman that he could have "given [logan] a little more".
so, what is my point?
i think roman is containing himself on purpose, out of fear of being too much. i think he's afraid of demanding things for himself, even when it's important, and i think he's scared shitless of thomas not approving.
all of this things we as viewers already knew of course. but i think the others are starting to notice as well. god i hope this is all gonna blows up.
tangentwithtanner
izzy806
dailybridgerton
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
2087
titsay
gummygunk
