Water and Air can benefit from each other because their relationship is balanced from both an emotional and mental perspective. Astrology is clear on this. Not to mention the number of songs and poems that link water and air together. Whereas fire and water are fundamentally opposed, and their interaction only leads to destruction. So to say that Zutara represents balance, yin and yang, is nonsense.
Are you comparing Western astrology to Asian culture and its concept of Yin and Yang? What the hell? Are you aware that in China, Yin and Yang represent fire and water? These two have an interdependent relationship with each other. Or, Earth is Yin and water is Yang. But not air and water? Like...?
jade is defo gonna call dibs on mc in book 4 when they swim back to the dorm after jamil literally banishes them 🤤🤤🤤 like thats HIS club member he ought take responsibility for them yk? (mcs housewarden is literally right there too, in their dorm realm btw;; covetous FREAK) tail coiling around them and everything, let the moray characteristics slip in with the way he'll be hogging mc and refusing to share w his brother orr let him resist moray instinct and confront the dangers (read: literally any other person mc knows) rather than shying away !! a rival is a rival at the end of the day and moray eels are known to be both territorial and solitary..... yeah mc ur #cooked 😽
whether floyd is interested in mc by book 4 or not hes defo gonna cringe at jades behaviour like BOOOO 🍅🍅👎 my brother you are scaring the HOES but man... take him back to when mc was just another phytoplankton in the sea and it was just the two of them and no one else was in their orbit
ngh possessive jade 🤤 he must be lamenting how much attention mc has been receiving recently;;; he has to reaffirm his place as mcs first friend (?) asap ! they mightve been placed into scarabia by the dark mirror, but they chose him 😇😇😇 surely they must feel inclined to exert some possessiveness over him too, right?
and in a way, mc does, but in the sense that their strange-symbiotic-whatever dynamic they have with him is beneficial to them, but perhaps mc values their relationship more than theyd ever willingly admit, whether that be from an opportunistic or a sentimental standpoint but maybe im just delusional >< surely the countless of times spent in close proximity to jade has caused some attachment to take root;; chat i might be as delusional as yuu in this regard !!
summary mc is just a huge tsundere (this is real guys i have mc all figured out) /j
okok so i wrote this before part 5 but OH MY GATOS mc ur just as jade pilled as he is mc pilled.... fym when you finally confront yuu for crossing your boundaries you go and mention jade 😹😹 mc when the activity requires zero jade leech,, okay two fools both obsessed with each other go my interdependent divorcees!! he will not be reacting kindly to the concept of vil trying to get mc to switch clubs . like he was here first finders keepers vro
been feeling like this ever since hes been absent
HIIHIII avoids eye contact because ive lowkenuinely been marinating this... boy am i glad to see you with yet ANOTHER banger paragraph(s) this is like opening a fanfiction update you've been waiting for since the collapse of several ancient empires and realizing the chapter is forty thousand words long... 🤤🤤🤤
oh em gee you always deliver with da jade crumbs.. jumps around happily.. i kid you not book 4 will always be my absolute all-time favorite and i cant wait to MILK every single mc-jade interaction opportunity ill find.. mm you are so right i will ALWAYS promote my jade-keeps-a-mental-chronology list agenda, like he WAS mc’s first whatever and this scarabia hurdles gonna make the world's most catastrophic territorial instincts kick in. vro has been watching MC slowly accumulate acquaintances and he is nawt happy.. finders keepers it is, when you show up to the most giggly absolutely unhinged and deserves to be locked up yearner competition but jade leech is already there, pack it up fam 🥴
oh mc my poor cat mc thats literally drowning in the rain and clinging to a piece of wood.. they are LONELY and i will never miss an opportunity to enhance it, genuinely the type of person that think theyre nonchalant and mysterious but they’re literally chumbawumbabamba, pack it up chud..
There is a frame that seems to get disregarded or dismissed when a bunch of us get upset about what we’re seeing, which imo is the basis of the entire celebrity phenomenon—and that is that there is an *equal* exchange between fans and celebrities.
Celebrities are not celebrities without the attention of fans — without their attention, their engagement, their affection, and their money spent to consume their content.
So all this “they don’t owe us anything,” “they’re free to lead their lives however they want,” etc is disingenuous, because of course those things are true, they have free will and can do whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean they can magically extract themselves from the transactional math that defines “celebrity.”
A celebrity give pieces of themself, if you will, some form of public access to themselves, in addition to their performances, that creates the mystique, the mystery, the curiosity, the fascination, the fanaticism (literally the root word of “fan”), such as interviews, photo shoots, paparazzi pics, pr, public/brand appearances, and fans/the public give them attention, their attention spans, their money in the form of purchasing their content, engagement, affection, etc. Which, when harnessed, leads to incredible amounts of money, opportunity, fame, perks, lifestyle, and relevance for the celebrity, and massive wealth/equity for the studios, corporations, platforms, etc. It’s a symbiotic system. Fans enjoy the access and content, celebrities get rich and famous, and the industry types make bank and amass power. One does not and cannot exist without the other.
So it should be no surprise when fans are manipulated, gaslit, deceived, toyed with, taken for granted, flat out lied to, or taunted, that they get loud, offended, disinterested, or feel angry, resentful, disappointed, deceived, or betrayed.
“Omg you’re being parasocial!!” No shit, that’s the whole point, that’s the whole ballgame.
Hollywood is the capital, the supreme expert, the inventor, and cultivator of this industrial celebrity culture machine, which is built on the backs of fans. The studios, the labels, the media companies, the fame, and the stars themselves (the ultimate commodity aside from us as fans) do not exist without the fans and fandoms.
This is capitalism. Supply and demand.
So to say the fans have no say and no right when we are “the demand” in the equation, is to miss the entire crux of the Hollywood machine.
We can look at it as an economic exchange, sure, as a huge amorphous and generic interaction of content and fame with fans and their money. But on a granular social level, it’s an interdependent relationship between a performer and their fan. In our case, a relationship between Luke and Nic and us.
And like any relationship, there are ups and downs. And everyone in the relationship gets a say. And decides how they behave in the relationship, how they communicate with their words and actions, and how well they treat their partner. And everyone can decide if they want to stay in the relationship, how long they want to fight for the relationship, how many conversations they want to have about the relationship, in good times and bad, evaluate whether they are enjoying the relationship, vent to their friends about how their relationship is going, decide whether it is worth investing in, and post about their “love” life, etc.
Sure, any one of us individually doesn’t have much/any say or sway over what Luke and Nic do, but collectively, fans absolutely do have a say. Because without us, they literally would have nothing (no celebrity), and would be back doing community theatre. And you know this, because we’ve seen each of them scramble to cover their backsides when they get sideways with the fans.
So everyone is entitled to express their great happiness or great disappointment however they see fit because it is *their* relationship, they’re the one in it. It doesn’t make anyone a bad fan, it just makes you a fan.
And as for Luke and Nic, being in the other half of the relationship, they get to decide what to do with, how to feel about, and how to respond or not respond to the behavior, reactions, and feelings of their relationship partner (us).
Everyone gets a say through their words and actions. No one is a victim here, and no one is a horrible person or a horrible fan or a horrible celebrity for having their say. It’s all voluntary, choosing to be a fan or a celebrity. We as fans don’t have to partake in fandoms and Nic and Luke don’t have to be out in public if they don’t want to. There are actors who are veritable recluses. So everyone is here because they choose to be, everyone is participating in celebrity math.
Again, there are no victims. And so if fans owe celebrities something - attention, respect, affection, financial support of projects, you decide, then celebrities owe fans something too — presence, authenticity, access, gratitude, you decide. Whatever the equation, it’s an equal exchange, otherwise the dynamic, and the commerce, begins to fall apart. So if we think things are falling apart, it’s fair to ask and comment on what part of the exchange is faltering. It’s fair to have feelings about that. Because if Hollywood wants anything, it wants your feelings about its stars so they can monetize them. (Hence, “parasocial” IS their goal.)
In the end, there are only actions and consequences. Even when you don’t foresee the consequences, they are still yours to deal with. Whether you’re the fan or the celebrity, you’ll have to adjust, because no one is going to adjust for you. When you choose the choice, you choose the consequences. To me, it’s practically physics, a law of nature.
We all get a say, no one has to “shut up and take it.” Not Nic and Luke, and not fans. Because it’s an equal exchange. No one has the upper hand. Let the chips fall where they may. I think both we and Nic and Luke can handle it. There are no victims here, this is just celebrity math. So say your piece, or don’t—Luke and Nic have been saying their piece for a while now. Stay and fight for your relationship, or don’t. But don’t listen to anyone who tells you that you don’t have the right to, or that it makes you a bad fan or a bad person. The system isn’t that fragile, Nic and Luke aren’t that fragile, and neither are we.
On a final note, I want to say, Bianca, I think your blog is so beloved precisely because you let all of us have a say. And you don’t put Nic and Luke on a pedestal. We love them (most of the time lol), but they’re subject to the laws of nature and capitalism and celebrity math and fandoms just like we are. Scrutiny is expected. They make their moves, we make ours.
Xo to all of you guys. On the day after Thanksgiving, I’m grateful for all of you and glad we have this little corner of the internet to kick this stuff around.
Why Is Dating Scary?: A lesson in writing (part 1)
I've been waiting for this moment. For the perfect time to strike.
Or, well, maybe not exactly “waited”. I wasn’t even sure I wanted to talk about this episode.
But then people asked and I've got a reputation, I've got a name to uphold. So I cannot let this episode walk, or else the world forgets I’m cold.
and cynical and fastidious and that I love to ramble about stuff and-
______________
Obligatory disclaimers
I will be picky when discussing this episode. However, before you start complaining about how picky I am, please take into account that, if I really, REALLY wanted to be picky, I would’ve torn this episode apart word by word.
But I won’t do it, because:
Tearing something apart word by word requires a ton of work and writing this analysis is more than enough work already.
I didn’t fully hate the episode, so tearing it apart without pointing out all the things I liked would be unfair.
Let me also point out that:
Every critique will be about the episode and/or Mr. Sanders as a writer, not about him as a person, his family, or his friends.
Every critique will be about the episode and its characters, not about you, your family, or your friends.
If I point out some writing mistakes, it’s because I want people to learn how to write - and if Mr. Sanders by some miracle ends here, maybe he can learn something too.
I will also point out what is good and what is bad, because I’d much rather be impartial and honest, rather than pretend not to see stuff.
I will use any sort of language, so read at your own risk.
I will also analyze this episode by taking into consideration that:
This episode was not planned at all - it was something Mr. Sanders wanted to make Because Yes. The next episode that should’ve come out was supposed to be the season 2 finale, part 1.
It’s a canonical episode - and I already said in the past that, if the next canonical episode made me feel “meh”, I would’ve considered it negatively.
It took Mr. Sanders one and a half year to make it (it was supposed to come out in July 2024).
The episode hasn’t been written by Joan, but the writers are (as stated in the episode itself): Thomas Sanders, Quil Darling and “Our Patreon Writings Room!”.
______________
Patton and Janus’ relationship: growth sacrificed for jokes
These two are a blessing and a curse.
There are deeply enjoyable things about them, in this episode: Patton’s joke about the tardis the relationship is the perfect example of silly stupidity that makes me smile every time. Roman saying that Janus is Patton’s buddy who came “to bail him out” also indirectly confirms that these two help each other as soon as one of them is in some kind of distress.
But we also have more proof of how they’ve always been on the same page:
J: I might also add, as the one responsible for maintaining the straight façade all those years, dropping the act and adapting to your new identity was intimidating.
P: It did feel like you were leaving an old you behind.
Please notice how Patton’s reply to Janus’ statement does not show any surprise, nor disagreement: on the contrary, Patton supports his words, by admitting that Thomas changing his identity felt as if he was “leaving an old you behind”.
This indirectly confirms Patton was okay with maintaining the straight façade, and he was okay with Janus doing it. And that’s not me saying it, but the episode proved this point when Janus explained that “emotions are the driving force behind deceitful behavior pattern”.
Their relationship is basically a cycle: Janus does something enabled by emotions, Patton lets him do it because he wants to, Janus does it, Patton keeps enabling him and the cycle goes on.
It’s very fascinating how their jobs are so interdependent. And this makes the recent development (i.e. them interacting and working together) even more exciting to explore: if Patton and Janus were doing all of this without realizing it in the past, now that they consciously work together, their chemistry should be incredible. They should be able to understand each other at a glance.
And we got a glimpse of this during POF’s ending. When Janus dropped his sarcasm, as soon as Patton didn’t realize it. When, in the end card, one glance and a small nod were enough to understand each other so well.
But now, time has passed. Their relationship should’ve evolved. And we got an example of it when Patton finds out Janus impersonated him in the past, before CLBG:
P: Janus? How many times have you disguised yourself as me?
J: I won't sugarcoat it, Patton. That was the one and only other time.
P: Januuuus…!
J: Okay, I've done it a lot.
P: Why?
J: Emotions are the driving force behind deceitful behavior patterns. It can be the easiest route to justifying my actions. I'm sorry.
Ad this is pure gold.
Let’s start with Patton: Janus tells a lie with the straightest face ever… and Patton doesn’t buy it in the slightest. While in POF he wasn’t able to recognize his lies, now he can see them clearly. That’s a clever way to show how much he has grown and how well he can understand Janus now.
Then we have the umpteenth proof of how mature Patton is: instead of just getting offended, he asks Janus why he impersonated him. That’s the same thing he did in SvS, when he tried to get past the trial to help him reveal his true plans; once again, Patton’s focus is not on the behaviour, but on the reasons behind it.
On the other hand, we have Janus: Janus who, just like in SvS, takes Patton’s bait and admits the truth, the reason behind his behaviour. Emotions enabled him.
However, there is no accusation in his tone, he’s not trying to blame Patton - just like he didn’t in POF (“[Deceit]: He didn't mislead you on purpose, Thomas. I don't think the little guy... or... the big frog is capable of that sort of thing.”).
Most importantly, after explaining himself, Janus apologizes. It’s quite clear he doesn’t regret what he did - he was wrong, sure, but the intentions were good; he wanted to help Thomas, not to go against him.
However, he recognizes that impersonating Patton hurt him, hence he apologizes to him. And that’s a HUGE step forward, for someone so used to working by himself and ignoring everyone else. Someone who, mind you, described manipulating others as a “very funny wholesome prank” (POF).
This also proves how well Janus understands Patton now: in POF, he needed to see Patton’s expression to realize how hurt he was by his words. Now, he doesn’t even need to see Patton’s reaction: he already knows his actions hurt him. And apologizes.
That’s wonderful. That’s perfect. That’s consistent growth and big steps forward in such an important cooperation.
And then, we reach the ending of the episode:
P: Ah, Janus, I still feel like we have work to do.
J: Oh no, Patton. That went swimmingly.
P: Oh, really?
J: Oh, yes. Everything is fine.
P: Okay, if you say so in that strange way of saying things that you sometimes do.
Let’s all thank Mr. Sanders, people, for making my previous praises utterly worthless.
So, according to this stupid ass interaction, Patton can recognize a lie said with a poker face and monochord voice, but cannot recognize a lie when it’s said with the most sarcastic tone in the universe.
And no, it’s not continuity from POF, because in POF Janus’ sarcasm hurt him, and when Janus corrected himself, Patton realized it was a lie. So what, he realized before what sarcasm was, but now he magically forgot?
In addition to that, at the beginning of this episode, when Janus asked Roman how he could be so sure Patton was responsible for Thomas being so hesitant in the relationship, Patton’s reply was:
P: Well, I think Janus is joking. He's having a laugh, right? You're having a laugh.
Accompanied by a slightly scolding look.
So Patton can recognize Janus’ microexpressions and even distinguish between him teasing and saying the truth, but cannot recognize the thickest sarcasm ever?
That conversation should’ve never happened, not like this. Either Janus had to admit that yes, there was still work to do, or Patton had to recognize the lie and offer to discuss this topic in the future. But making him ignore a blatant lie is pure idiocy. And I hate it even more, because I know why this stupid conversation exists in the first place.
And do you want to know, too? That’s because Mr. Sanders had to close the episode and make these two characters leave, but he also wanted to end it on a silly note, so what better way to do it, if not by making Patton stupid again (by reverting his growth) and let’s call it a day?
This is one of the worst mistakes a writer can ever make: prioritize a joke over your character’s personality/growth. There is no joke, no witty line, no funny comeback in the universe that is worth sacrificing a character’s credibility or growth. Change the joke, instead. Delete it, if necessary. But keep your character consistent. The story is about your character, not about how many funny lines you can write.
______________
Janus: how to sell a credible character
I know a lot of you liked how Janus was portrayed here and thought he was perfectly fine. In a way, he was: all he said was coherent with himself and his mentality.
The problem I have with him is more subtle - and, for some people, more petty too. Because it’s a matter of appearance and behaviour.
Usually, this isn’t a big issue: a consistent personality matters more than details. But details are also what make a character more real. And when they drastically change with zero explanation, that’s a big issue. Because you don’t have the same character anymore - you have a new one. One the public doesn’t know.
That’s what happened with Janus. His mentality became simpler, and details about him changed. Details that made him the character he was. Details now different.
*
-> Appearance
I know, I know: “Bea, everyone already talked about his appearance! And personal tastes are not a valid critique!”
Don’t worry, dears, I won’t explain why Janus’ new makeup doesn’t work from an aesthetic point of view. I will explain why it doesn’t work from an anatomical/biological point of view.
Some time ago, dear @logically-asexual pointed out in their post that the black line on Janus’ face is supposed to represent the shadow of the upper jaw on the lower jaw. In humans - as well as all other animals in the world - these two bones connect through the temporomandibular joint in correspondence or slightly below the ear. But not above. Never above.
And this is extremely important, because:
The lower jaw needs to move.
The ear is not just what you see outside: the ear canal goes deep into your skull and is divided into the middle ear (eardrums + malleus, incus and stapes) and the inner ear (cochlea).
The ear is not just responsible for hearing, but for balance too. Hence, it should stay very very still to register any other movement from the body.
Now, what happens when you put the joint of a bone that needs to move, above a part of your body that doesn’t need to move?
You can probably see it by yourself that, by changing this small, seemingly unimportant detail, your character is suddenly unable to listen, to balance… and I am not even sure they have the strength to open and close their mouth, because the masticatory muscles need space and where should they fit, if everything is above the ear?
Moral of the story: every detail matters. You can be a film director, an artist, or a writer: every small change (especially from an anatomical point of view) means a lot of other, additional changes. And those changes can easily influence your character’s personality too!
How? Let’s imagine a character with really long legs. They may:
be more shy, because they’re used to being taller than everyone and always at the center of attention
try to make themselves smaller, because they’re used to bending down every time they go through a door
be used to be ignored, because they’re taller than everyone else and others tend to talk more with people around the same eye level
be the best runner or a great athlete
be more clumsy because of how tall they are
and those are just the first few things that popped into my mind, but they can easily be expanded upon, while developing a character and their personality. All from just one physical detail.
Back to Sanders Sides: I am not saying Mr. Sanders cannot make a character with a jaw above the ears. Sure, he can. But it won’t be Janus - or a character from this planet, for that matter. It would be an interesting alien species, tho.
However, since we’re talking about Janus here, we could’ve solved the problem very easily: by watching the old videos. Or by hiring a make-up artist who actually watched the old videos. Or if watching the old videos is such a cumbersome task for them, they could’ve taken a photo of the old make-up and used it as a base. I know it requires something like 5 minutes to do so, but I’m sure a professional can do it.
*
-> Tone of voice
Let’s look at this interaction:
V: That was not what I was saying.
J: Oh, was it not?
Seems fine. That’s what Janus would say.
But listen to how he talks. Focus on his tone.
OG Janus had a much softer, much lower tone of voice. His voice was deeper compared to the other characters. Now, not only is his tone as high as the others, but he ends the sentence on an even higher note. While OG Janus would’ve probably ended the sentence with the same tone (and maybe a more sarcastic accent), this Janus ends by putting emphasis and accent on the final word. The result is that his voice almost sounds “strangled”, because of how much it rose.
Something similar happens here too:
J: It's why I, too, want things kept hush-hush with Nico. Because, believe it or not, I have come to realize that no amount of social clout can outweigh the consequential aggravation.
Listen to this part and notice how, when the sentence is almost over, instead of lowering his voice, Janus raises it. The bold part is when his voice rises again.
This is weird for two reasons:
it’s not the typical speech pattern of OG Janus
it doesn’t make a lot of sense from a communicative standpoint
Speaking of the second point, why can this be considered weird?
In general, the key concept of a discourse is well explained and conveyed in the middle of a discourse. This is the part where we need a higher emphasis, because we want to introduce or explain something crucial.
On the other hand, when we reach the conclusion, the natural tendency is to lower the tone of voice and be more collected. This follows the natural “arc” of attention we see in narrative as well (introduction-climax-conclusion), and it also reaffirms our confidence: we already explained our point, so there’s no need to be redundant (unless we’re talking about an extremely long speech, but that’s not the case).
Therefore, by making this character raise his voice so much, not only did Mr. Sanders follow a speech pattern that is not the same as the one Janus used before, but he also failed to convey his confidence. And for someone characterized by confidence… that’s a pretty big characterization mistake.
*
-> Non-verbal language (and the importance of intent)
Janus is supposed to be mysterious and unreadable. However, there is a difference between having a poker face and showing such a confused expression you can’t even understand what emotion it is supposed to convey.
Let’s take this moment, when Thomas comments on the “early 20s” case they just witnessed:
T: But I did feel like I lost so much time. I was so emotionally stunted when it came to dating.
P: Well, us emotions do do our own stunts.
Right after Patton’s line, we cut to Janus: he looks on the side, furrows his eyebrows while squinting, while the sides of his mouth are upwards.
This expression is confusing. And please notice: confusing is different from inscrutable. If an actor makes an inscrutable expression, you don’t know what they are thinking, but you know they are thinking something. There is coherence: all the micromovements point toward the same kind of emotion/intention.
But if an actor makes a confusing expression, there is no direction and no coherence. The microexpressions go everywhere and contradict each other. It’s just like when someone writes: “He made an expression of surprise, joy and fear”. What kind of emotion am I even supposed to visualize?
If you want your character to express an emotion, focus on which kind of emotion they’re supposed to feel. Not even the best actor in the world can be, at the same time, three emotions at once. A character may be overwhelmed by emotions, but even in that case, there is something specific that “guides” the other emotions (depending on the context).
In this case, I am not sure Mr. Sanders himself knew what kind of emotion he was supposed to convey. How can I say that? Well, when I tried to replicate that expression, I was confused about what I felt, too. The closest emotion I felt was “bitter agreement”, so… maybe that’s what Mr. Sanders wanted to convey too? Maybe it was Janus’ way to say that, sure, emotional Sides do a lot of stunts because he did some too?
But, as you can see, this is just a guess. I am not sure. And when the public is not sure about something, there are two reasons only:
The writer is making a puzzle, and the public does not have all the pieces yet
The writing is wrong
I learned time ago that, most of the time, the confusion is due to the second reason. It’s very common and very normal: that’s why you need extra care while writing. The public is not in your mind, and they cannot understand every decision you made, if you don’t make them clear enough.
On the other hand, here is what happens, when the intent is clear:
J!P: Of course. Well, I know you're perfect, Thomas
There is a direction here, and you can see it by how fluid, clear, and readable the expression and movements are.
Janus!Patton says Thomas is perfect while shaking his head. His verbal language says one thing while his body language says the opposite. As you probably already know, this is a clear sign of lying - so Thomas is subtly confirming to his public that yes, this is not Patton, but Janus.
Simple. Clear. Straightforward. No guesses, no confusion. This is proof of good writing - and good reasoning.
And, you know, it’s not uncommon for artists to alternate carefully orchestrated parts to confused, disorganized parts. I did the same, too, so I recognize the signs. And I know it’s not easy to keep the same high standard all the time.
But hey, if it were easy, everyone would make art. That’s why art is so complicated to master - and that’s why experts exist.
*
-> The interaction with Remus, aka the past matters
Janus tried to silence Remus. He tried to silence Remus.
We’re talking about a guy who:
allegedly spent so much time with Remus, to perfectly mimic his voice and behaviour (see all small posts Mr. Sanders made years ago)
knows what Remus likes (see the “Sides needs a nice day” video)
plays with him (see them playing DDR in the 5-year special)
So, this guy knows Remus so well, but apparently he doesn’t know that:
[Logan]: You cannot force the Duke to retire a topic of conversation. (DWIT)
What am I supposed to say, here? “Oh but, you see, it’s because now Thomas is more honest with himself and…” and what? Being more honest with himself means forgetting that you cannot stop Remus from talking about whatever he wants?
Also, the way Logan made that sentence implied that you couldn’t have forced Remus to retire a topic of conversation, even before the whole “wanting to be more honest and deal with his own issues” thing.
So, it has always been impossible to force Remus to retire a topic of conversation, but now Janus has amnesia, so he forgot? And instead of using some other clever way to stop Remus (because I refuse to believe he didn’t find any, in all the years they’ve spent together), he keeps closing his hand like a fucking idiot?
This is not something subtle, like a different appearance of behaviour. This is a plain and simple characterization mistake. Janus, who supposedly spent years with Remus and knows him better than anyone else, suddenly forgot he could not stop Remus from talking - something that has been part of his character from the day he was introduced.
Please: if you write a story, check what you wrote previously. So your characters won’t end up forgetting things they were supposed to always know.
______________
Logan and Remus: making sense
Unlike Patton, who became a moron for the sake of jokes, and Janus, who changed so much to become another guy, Logan is coherent with himself and his own role.
When Roman tries to coerce him into joining their discussion, Logan says:
L: The topic of love does not interest me. Not that you’d listen to me anyway.
Everyone focused on the second sense, but it’s the first one that matters.
Why? Because he’s goddamn Logic, of course he’s not interested in love. Of course he cannot understand it. Love is an emotion: hence, the emotional Sides should be more helpful, not the one who is literally the opposite of an emotional Side.
And that’s not me saying it. Logan says it:
L: Oh, great, Scott. Okay, look, I have no doubt I could be of some assistance here, but this is venturing so far into uh emotions territory. And we all know how I fared with dating advice in the past.
(flashback)
“L: We are humans.
V: Yes.
L: As humans, one possible objective is to procreate.
V: Yes.
L: Therefore, would you like to copulate with me?
V: Yes.
L: There.”
Thank god, someone still remembers the past. And Logan uses it to prove his point, thus creating continuity between then and now.
But he also creates another connection. This time, with Remus’ point:
R: Logan, it's very simple. Thomas would like to fuck Nico.
When Remus appeared and started to talk, I paused the episode to say, out loud: “Finally! After all this useless talk, someone says the truth!”.
The conversation was slowing down. Thomas was desperately trying to find a reason why he wanted to have a relationship with Nico so badly. Then, Remus comes and he says the simplest thing ever: sexual attraction plays a part in this.
And of course it does! I highly doubt Thomas is dating Nico because he feels like he has to / is doing him a favor / it’s some kind of challenge. Of course he likes him.
And if he likes him physically too… what’s wrong with that? After all, as Logan said years ago:
“L: We are humans.
V: Yes.
L: As humans, one possible objective is to procreate.
V: Yes.
L: Therefore, would you like to copulate with me?
V: Yes.
L: There.”
Sex is one of the driving forces of our species. It’s part of us and our lives. It’s one of the ways we found - our cells found - to live beyond death. We give away part of us, of our genes, of our cells, to make an entirely new being, a creature who will carry what we gave them into the future.
But we also use sex to bond, to experience the beautiful sensations, to have fun. To share special moments with someone we love. Thomas is sexually attracted to men, and he clearly likes Nico: of course, he wants to be more intimate with him. And of course his mind created some dirty fantasies about this. None of us are holy, we all had at least one sexual fantasy in our lives, so there’s nothing wrong or weird in Thomas having some too.
Therefore, when Remus says that Thomas wants, deep down, to fuck Nico, I believe him. And when he says it’s not a big deal, he’s right, because it’s not.
In short:
Logan’s reasoning is internally coherent and it’s coherent for the kind of character he is.
Logan’s reasoning connects and elaborates on Remus’ reasoning (because both of them mention/consider the sexual component of the relationship).
Remus’ reasoning is internally coherent and it’s coherent for the kind of character he is.
That’s how you write something good: you remember your character’s personality and write something that makes sense in general and in specific.
And I’m happy to say that during the entirety of the episode, Remus is 100% coherent with himself and all he says is coherent with the character he is. But I can say it, because he appears for 0.2 seconds. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Logan.
And it’s all because of the goddamn young Sides.
______________
Schrödinger’s Sides
V: Did you just call him Vision?
T: Yeah, I did. Like the Marvel character?
L: Keep in mind, this was years ago before we were fully formed, before you even knew we had names. This conversation didn't even happen like this. It's just being presented in a way we can understand. We were probably very imprecise, generic entities at this time, which is perfectly understandable.
Okay, let’s analyze one sentence at a time.
-> L: Keep in mind, this was years ago, before we were fully formed, before you even knew we had names.
The young Sides come from Thomas’ “early 20s”.
Thomas was born in 1989, his early 20s can be considered the first years after he turned 20 (2009/2012).
In 2016, Thomas started Sanders Sides.
In four years, the Sides changed from these “still not fully formed” entities, to the ones we know and love. That’s possible: Thomas was still growing and developing his personality, after all, so it makes sense the Sides evolved too, and four years is an acceptable time frame for a late teen/young adult.
But why did Logan put such emphasis on how this comes from a time before Thomas “even knew” they had names? Of course, this comes from a time before he knew they had names. He started learning your names in 2017, Logan. And your name was the first one he learned, do you remember? I mean, in SvS, you remembered the exact second Thomas learned something new; now you forgot when he learned your own name?
-> L: We were probably very imprecise, generic entities at this time, which is perfectly understandable.
Why is Logan using the word “probably”? Doesn’t he know, if he were a generic entity? He’s explaining it as if the young people they’re watching are not them.
But Patton and Roman acknowledged that the boys are the younger versions of themselves. So they are Patton and Roman’s younger versions, but not Logan’s???
(And yes, I know they’re not them because Thomas joked about “ahah it’s not you, it’s a younger actor playing your role”, but it’s such a useless joke and it destroys the suspension of disbelief so much, I’d much rather ignore it than open this can of worms)
-> L: This conversation didn't even happen like this. It's just being presented in a way we can understand.
Pardon my French, but what?!
Why should the conversation be presented “in a way we can understand”? You had this conversation before, bro. You were involved in it. Why should it be different, if you were the ones having it?
I don’t know if this is some Doctor Who’s weird reference, but if it is, it’s absolute bullshit. I could've understood this, if we were watching a conversation between the aliens of The Arrival: it would’ve made sense to present it in a way we humans could’ve understood.
But we’re witnessing the conversations these same fuckers had in the past, and the conversation should be changed to make it more understandable for them? UUUUH???
So until now we have:
Sides that are supposed to be Thomas's younger versions, but they are not recognized by all their adult counterparts
Sides that are probably (?) generic and imprecise
A conversation that didn’t even happen like this???
We are literally watching Sides with questionable existence, engaging in a conversation that didn’t even happen. Non-existent Sides having a non-existent conversation.
What the fuck am I even watching.
But hey, since having the Schrödinger’s Sides who exist and do not exist and have conversations that are not recognized by their counterparts is not enough, let’s also mess with another concept that has been already introduced and closed before:
-> Left and right brain
Y!T: Left brain.
Y!L: Yes, Thomas.
L: Really, Thomas? Left brain?
And, referring to young Patton:
T: His name must have been Right Brain.
Again:
Why is Logan still so surprised? Bro, this young fella is supposed to be you. Don’t you remember the name Thomas gave you 10 years ago?
“Must have been”? Thomas, you gave Patton this name. Don’t you know what name you gave him? You are 35, this happened 10 years ago (more or less), not 200 years ago. Also: don’t you remember the name you gave to one side of your personality? I remember the name I gave to my plushies when I was 8, and you don’t remember the name of someone so important to you?
But also… left and right brain? Let’s ask SvS what does it think of this:
[Logan]: Let's see. I am the primary overseer of Thomas' language center. I am the director of activities for Thomas' right arm.
[Deceit]: Just the right?
[Logan]: The left arm is managed by Roman.
As you probably already know, the left side of your brain controls the right side of your body and vice versa. But there are also a lot of additional functions managed by both sides of the brain that can be summarized as follows:
Hence, Logan’s surprise about the name “Left Brain” is even more meaningless, because he perfectly knows he manages Thomas’ left side. He literally implied it in SvS, by mentioning how he controls Thomas’ language center and right arm! Why is he so shocked, when he already embodies the functions of the left brain?
At the same time, Patton being the right brain makes zero sense - even in the context of young, still generic Sides. The right brain’s functions are holistic thinking, intuition and daydreaming. You know, having visions. While Young!Patton was… collecting memories and giving advice to Young!Thomas. That it’s not something managed by either the right or the left brain.
I really don’t have an explanation for this. Maybe young Thomas is an idiot, maybe Mr. Sanders didn’t look enough into the difference between left and right side of the brain, maybe he just wanted to make a joke, maybe he liked “Vision” for Young!Roman and didn’t want to change the name… I don’t know. Pick your favourite explanation, people.
______________
Conclusion… for now
Yep. That’s only part one. Well done making this far, people! :D
However, I still have to talk about this episode, so we will meet again in a couple of days for the second and last part. Hope you will be ready for more writing talk and a more focused analysis on the concepts in this episode. And for Roman.
Spoiler: it will be as long as the analysis you just read.
The past two hundred years of attempts to build socialism is not just history. It reaches into the future. The process is ongoing. Our reading of the Paris Commune, the Russian, and Chinese revolutions has an impact on our strategies, and thus on our future actions. The past, the present, and the future are not just a chronological set of events. They are dialectically connected and interdependent. The transformation toward socialism is a process stretching backward and forward. The struggle is not just about the future, it is about the realization of the historical ideas of socialism. From the ideas of Marx and Engels to the struggle of the Third World revolutionary movements still have a hopeful impact, which drives us to act and realize those hopes in the future. Our struggle should not be led by utopian goals, but by strategies built upon historical materialism.
The recurrent debates about whether the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or any state in the process of developing socialism is/was a worker’s state or just an elite-ruled authoritarian state represent a mode of thinking that tries to fit the real world into a preconceived ideal. One imagines a socialist society and contrasts the problematic reality of building socialism with utopia. No matter how impressive progress is, it will always remain below expectations.
Anti-imperialist strategy must contain an actually existing counter-hegemonic force capable of challenging the dominant power structure. Western Marxists are often trapped in a utopian world where the idea of socialism is superior to the transitional regimes and modes of production—many of which have emerged in the past hundred years, struggling against a dominant capitalist world system. The Brazilian communist Jones Manoel writes:
Nothing is socialist transition, and everything is state capitalism…The contradictions, the problems, the failures, the mistakes, sometimes even the crimes, mainly happen during this moment of building the new order. So, when the time comes to evaluate the building of a new social order—which is where, apparently, the practice always appears to stray from the purity of theory—the specific appears corrupted in the face of the universal.
The transition from capitalism to socialism will be a long process. The transition to capitalism was a process that took centuries, from the Italian city-states, to the Dutch Empire, to the breakthrough of industrial capitalism in England at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Since capitalism developed globally, the transition towards socialism is also global. But not a simultaneous transformation; the transition contains many revolutions. The balance between capitalism and socialism has tilted back and forth since the mid-nineteenth century. The dialectical relationship between economic laws and class struggle creates tendencies and counter-tendencies, which interact with one another.
This transformational process has also contained socialist movements and states. Movements are a first step towards state power, but they are also a transformative power in themselves, changing our norms and values, as seen in the 1968 rebellion.
This process of transformation takes place within the framework of the world system of states. Although the economy of capitalism is transnational, its political system is divided into nation-states. The nation-state is thus an inevitable factor in the transformation from capitalism to socialism. We need the power of the state to defend the socialist project in a hostile world system.
Throughout the 20th century, there were several attempts to develop socialism within the framework of the nation-state, which inevitably clashed with the surrounding capitalist world. To defend their project, these states have been caught in the dilemma between supporting the world revolution, which in the long run is necessary for the success of building socialism, and the need to survive in the shorter run—exemplified by the Soviet strategy of “socialism in one country.” Historical periods do not follow one another in a clear-cut manner; they interpenetrate and combine over a long period. In the long transition from capitalism, different forms of “socialism under construction” have and will appear according to the different histories, cultures, and positions of each country in the world-system. As Engels put it in 1890:
So-called “socialist society” is not, in my view, to be regarded as something that remains crystallized for all time, but rather in the process of constant change and transformation like all other social conditions.
Instead of seeing each attempt to build socialism in the past two hundred years as mistakes, I see them as steps in a long transitional process. These steps have contributed to the transition by changing capitalism, and have acted as learning-processes for the forces of socialism. As we see advances and retreats, we must evaluate them in the context of the different stages of capitalist development.
The crises in capitalism occur when the development of the productive forces is blocked by the mode of production. The driver of the transition process is the class struggle, initiated by exploitation, which is necessary for the continued accumulation of capital. However, until now, capitalism has been able to solve the contradiction within the system. It has adapted—and rolled back attempts—to the construction of socialism. Thus, transition is a process of trial and error, and of trying again. Communism is a practical struggle with a bevy of trials containing the praxis of past revolutions from which we can learn.
-Torkil Lauesen, The Long Transition Towards Socialism And The End Of Capitalism Pgs. 278-280
The Dharma in Daily Life: Every situation is an opportunity for contemplative learning, not just in meditation, but in our interactions with others and the world.
"The Voice of the Other": Buddhism emphasizes that wisdom is often gained through relationships—with friends, teachers, and even challenging people.
No Chance Encounters: The philosophy suggests that nothing happens by accident; each experience has a purpose in waking us up to the truth.
2. Pain and Obstacles as "Training"
Weight Training for the Soul: Challenges are not seen as punishments, but as "weight training" that builds character and reveals our best selves.
Transforming Problems: The goal is to transform problems into blessings by changing our inner reaction, rather than fighting to control the uncontrollable external world.
The Three Poisons: Obstacles (like difficult people or financial stress) often trigger the "three poisons" (greed, anger, delusion), providing the exact opportunity needed to practice patience and compassion.
3. Key Teachings Life Provides
Impermanence: Life constantly teaches us that nothing lasts—not joy, not pain, not people. Recognizing this helps us let go of attachment and find peace.
Interdependence: We learn that our happiness is connected to the happiness of others, encouraging compassion rather than selfishness.
The Nature of Suffering: By experiencing pain, we are taught to look deeper, identify its causes, and stop adding a "second layer" of suffering (our mental reaction) to the initial pain.
4. How to Receive the Teachings
Mindfulness and Awareness: The teachings are received by being "wholly present" with what is, rather than arguing with reality.
Reflective Inquiry: Instead of blaming external circumstances, we are encouraged to ask: "What is this situation teaching me about my own mind?".
Gratitude: By viewing challenges as lessons, we can move from resentment to gratitude for what life is teaching us.
I just wanted to let you know how much The Hottest Cold War has meant to me. There’s something so beautiful about the vision you created for a kind of utopian queer polycule/community/chosen family that made me realize in my deepest heart hearts, this is what I long for.
I was talking about it with my therapist (that’s how you really know you got to a neurodivergent queer!) and trying to understand why this impacted me so much when I have always felt I didn’t really have the emotional wherewithal for polyamory. And through the conversation, I realized the parts of these relationships that really spoke to me. The loyalty. The mutual care. The respect for boundaries and different needs. The way they are slowly becoming interdependent. Not just individual couples occasionally interacting, but a community/a family.
I’ll never have “Sleepy Hollow Victorian mansion” money and of course real life relationships are even messier, but we all need models and dreams to aspire to, and I feel like your story gave me a powerful one. (Can’t wait to keep reading the sequel!)
Thank you so much! I truly love fanfiction as an indulgent medium and for me, indulging in the fantasy of a loving community that has all the resources they need to live the way they want to is a big one. I almost always wind up with a found family theme, following the ways people bounce off each other.
I'm so happy that it offers any insight at all! <3
Biases About Healthy Relationships in Western Individualism— and Why Rose Tyler is Still the Doctor’s Healthiest Romantic Relationship .
Something I see in even the rational and good faith arguments that Rose Tyler isn’t any healthier for the Doctor than anyone is the unfortunate and very sad rise of extreme individualism. High levels of attachment and emotional dependence on another person are not always unhealthy. Why? Because they don’t always cause harm and damage to either person’s well being so long as both partners are alive and healthy.
Sometimes, high levels of dependence, attachment, and focus create a power dynamic in which one partner exploits if it’s not fully equal. But that’s not the case in every real life relationship and it’s not the case with the Doctor and Rose. Individualism in western society has created an illusion that no one should be too attached or dependent on anyone. But that’s wrong. Any social species needs to have close interdependent relationships for their own well being.
I saw a post about how Doctorrose fans supposedly undermine ourselves by mentioning the fact that the Doctor would have done something as extreme or more extreme for Rose than the confession dial if she ever did die under his watch. The poster said this was proof that Doctorrose was unhealthy too. But I do not think it is fair to define the health of a relationship by actions taking surrounding death or any other separation that neither partner actually wanted.
Science fiction like Doctor Who allows us to imagine extreme scenarios and what they do to the mind and behavior. No real life human being has the power to burn a star to say goodbye to a loved one or bring a loved one back from the death through extreme measures. But as a powerful alien in a sci fi universe, the Doctor does. Imagine your healthiest relationships, either platonic or romantic. Can you honestly say you wouldn’t burn a sun to say goodbye if they were ripped from you alive or torture yourself and risk the integrity of the universe to bring them back if they died a senseless death far too young? Maybe some can say that. But I bet many cannot.
I do agree that Doctorclara was unhealthy, but NOT becuase of the lengths gone to in order to get her back. Maybe that was Moffat’s intention but psychologically that does not make the actual relationship they shared unhealthy. I only agree that relationship was unhealthy because of the high levels of stress and strife they experienced because of the relationship while they were both together and alive. And the great betrayal that the Doctor seemed almost think he deserved. In the Twice Upon a Time novelization the Doctor describes great peace at having his memories of Clara back. But that’s the most peace he’s ever had about the entire relationship and he seemed to know it was best to end it that way and didn’t seek her out again.
The Doctor’s relationship with Rose on the other hand, resulted in ever increasing happiness and improved well being for both people. As well as intense healing and growth for both of them. They had one major fight and a few smaller conflicts and grew and developed their relationship as a result of it. Relationship expert Dr. John Gottman (a highly respected psychologist and researcher) found that for every negative or difficult relationship interaction, a healthy relationship has at least five positive ones to balance it out. The Doctor and Rose far exceeded that ratio threshold. This was by far the most happiness the Doctor experienced in a relationship in their lives and the same is true of Rose’s experience.
I do not count extreme grief over the end of a mutual and balanced relationship(in terms of strength of feelings) as a sign of an unhealthy relationship. What matters is how the people interacted while the relationship was still there.
