Nov 5, 2025
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Venezuela
seen from T1
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Germany
seen from Angola
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from Israel
seen from China
seen from South Korea
seen from Israel
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Canada
seen from Russia
seen from Germany
This is from a recent (rare!) Danny interview...
OKAY. I NEED TO KNOW, HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE MUSICAL EPIC BEFORE??? IT'S ABOUT THE ODYSSEY, IT'S BY JORGE RIVERA-HERRANS. okay no more caps i got excited, but you talking about the odyssey-coding ignited my brain about it. the song just a man is so bad coded i think - screamingallium
i have listened to the first song and thats it 😭 i have to be in a certain mood to look at adaptations bc im a bit of a purist but i will definitely check that song out! i think i made a post before about how i thought qbbh was more odysseus-coded than cbbh (who was straight up an achilles).
I wrote something earlier about how I didnt think it was fair of anyone, GC or TRA, family or not, to state that Terry Pratchett would have agreed with certain views when he isn't alive to back them up. I got some push back from people who think it's unreasonable for me to assume his family wouldn't know how he'd think and pointing out quotes from his works which prove otherwise. And it made me think about why I'd come to my conclusion.
Thinking on it, ordinarily I would agree with the argument that someone's family would be pretty clued up on their views, and that physical evidence of their views prior to death is enough. However, there's a reason I don't in the case of Terry Pratchett and trans rights.
First it's important to talk timelines. Terry Pratchett was diagnosed with alzheimer's in 2007 and died in 2015. Trans rights activism in it's current form really started to emerge in about 2010? And really started to gain warp speed momentum around 2015.
So what was the understanding of a trans person back in 2010? Generally, a very small group of people considered to be genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria for whom medical transition was the best option. Not many people are going to object to that. Indeed, plenty of GC feminists probably agreed with it at the time.
Fast forward to 2021 and trans can mean practically anything and doesn't require any medical diagnosis or intervention. Sex is being unscientifically peddled as a spectrum, rather than a binary, and there is an encroachment on women's rights based on this. There is also an increase in homophobic and misogynistic rhetoric coming from TRA camps and children are being encouraged to take untested medication that is otherwise used for chemical castration and cancer, rather than go to therapy. To summarise: it is a completely different beast to that which Terry Pratchett ever would have encountered back in 2007 and, quite frankly, by the time he died in 2015, given his alzheimers I doubt he would have been focused on such movements.
This is the reason I don't think it's fair to assume what he would have thought, personal relationship or no. While he might have said and written things that can be interpreted as being in favour of trans people, he had a pre-2010 understanding of what 'trans' meant. No one can know what he would have made of the more recent developments in trans rights activism, whether they knew him well or not.
"I wasn’t responding to meta critique. I’ve seen it, I totally disagree with it and think it’s completely wrong" has such a "I recognise that the council has made a decision but given that it's a stupid-ass decision I have elected to ignore it" vibe! Glad to see more happy Saileen shippers; I was baffled by my dash's lukewarm at best response too. But then, I never shipped Samwitch -- I just can't get over their (same-species) age gap and the fact that she was Crowley's (shitty) mom. Oh well.
Lmao nonny this made me cackle! It’s unusual for me disagree with my fellow meta writers, though on the rare occasions that I do, I try to hold my tongue because whilst sometimes we can engage in discussions with different viewpoints, I would struggle in this instance to find common ground. This is my own opinion of course and I don’t mean any disrespect. I just can’t see where this interpretation of canon is coming from. Each to our own though.
As I said I enjoyed SamWitch. I loved Sam and Rowena’s canon relationship. However people wanted to interpret it, I was generally pro their bond whatever canon chose to do with it.
To be perfectly honest, I tend to purposely forget that Rowena was Crowley’s mum. I thought that whole storyline was stupid and at first was lukewarm to Rowena as a character because she was a Bucklemming creation who had a weird backstory I couldn’t quite get behind. It was only once other writers got hold of her and developed her into a well rounded interesting strong and awesome woman that I fell in love with her a little bit. (full disclosure I despise everything about Season 10 except for Demon Dean and Castiel’s human endgame foreshadowing - especially Sam’s hair).
I also wasn’t bothered by the fact that she’s several hundred years old. Castiel is at least several thousand years old (if not millions depending on where SPN canon actually puts the true Earth TL as it’s always been vague about biblical vs scientific true Earth age) and I ship him with Dean so I’d say their age gap is pretty extreme. Rowena as a witch regardless of age was still a cute match with Sam, I just never felt as strongly for them having a romantic bond as I did for Saileen. I loved Sam and Rowena’s friendship. I loved their mentor/mentee relationship. I loved how Sam became her protege. I loved how they bonded over Lucifer trauma. They had a mutual respect and understanding for one another. The one thing I never actually saw though was a mutual attraction.
Again, this is all my own opinion. I’m not trying to invalidate anyone elses.
It’s just occurred to me...
People commonly mix up Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass.
a lot of fan theories are keen on making (mcu) Loki much younger*, making him more sympathetic by making him more "innocent" (and also probably closer to certain fans' own ages and therefore more relatable) and that's not really for me, I think. (which makes sense, I guess. I'm old.)
*younger than what? younger than he appears? younger than the approximate age of the actor they got to play him, I guess? Hiddles was almost 30 when he started playing Loki, far from a child, but some fanworks/theories are really keen on the idea of Loki being... well, a child.
there's nothing wrong with this. just observation, no judgment. I like a good alternate interpretation. mostly I am endlessly fascinated by how people's experiences and circumstances change the way we all interpret the same piece of fiction. 💚
idk i think the ‘realism’ aging badly is mostly a major problem when companies advertise games that turn out to be Style and No Substance, which are these big pretty looking things that just turn into unplayable garbage in the current year because there was nothing TO them to begin with, and the graphics they flaunted so much just... make it more obvious how laughable they are. idk maybe its just not a problem to me i guess, i understand and agree fully that stylized shit DOES age better on average. id just rather they choose a medium to tell a story and evolve as they go along, but the biggest problem is lack of creativity with that shit.