If anyone wants me to infodump on headcanons/theories I have for ANY of the Giggle Gods from Doctor Who (mainly Lux but I'm open to Toymaker and Maestro too)...
Recovered from jetlag and had a busy few weeks so here's are some more I can think of for all three off the top of my head - hope you enjoy!
All of them are under the cut bc I'm anticipating this to also be dang long (if you want some of my headcanons/theories/thoughts on Toymaker specifically, I've linked them here):
All of them together: The "Creative Giggle" (based on both canon details and my own headcanons/theories)
The Giggle is a form of the Pantheon's magic that has the capability to be used for both positive and malicious purposes.
The Giggle can be heard (a palindromic arpeggio), but can only be seen under very rare circumstances...
Due to its ability to warp subconsciously primal parts of the mortal mind, the Giggle has the potential to send any mortal/s who hears it into a state of perpetual madness (either immediately or gradually) - this is especially the case with the Toymaker in "The Giggle".
However, it should be known that each of the Giggle Gods (and their physical bodies) is associated with creativity in some way.
Toymaker = craftsmanship (in his games and in the toys/objects he makes)
Maestro = music (considered a form of creativity/art)
Lux = animation (his toon body being the product of animation, which is one of humanity's greatest artistic innovations and often relies on light)
With this in mind, it only makes sense to me that mortals whose lives are connected to creativity - either directly or tangentially - become the most common draws (and ultimately among the most vulnerable targets) for Giggle Gods.
This theory/headcanon actually inspired a fan OC I designed recently: ArcoĆris (the God of Art), who acts as a "connecting force" for the other three Giggle Gods, his magic (in the form of "colours") acting as a conduit that can enhance all their own powers... potentially to very dangerous levels.
Bunch of miscellaneous headcanons (no basis in specific theories or canon details)
I genuinely wish they gave toon Lux more animation-based abilities, such as controlling zoetropes or manifesting colourful glowing shapes similar to the ones you can find in Len Lye's animations!
While I do imagine that Lux may potentially be self-conscious about his toon body at times (e.g. not being "attractive" or unable to "blend in" like Toymaker and Maestro), I also like the idea of him occasionally using his cartoony cuteness (especially the large eyes and chubbiness) to his advantage.
I like to imagine an image where Lux manifests a glass and uses it to "drink" light from a lamp like he's drinking water from a glass.
Given that Lux is a powerful god in such a (usually) small toon body, I can only imagine that - if he was able to also eat food and feel hunger - he would often have to satisfy a big appetite just to sustain his powers (possibly imprinted from the Mr Ring-A-Ding character, who I imagine also had a love of food?).
All three Giggle Gods often use hammerspace (Toymaker in his waistcoat pocket and his apron; Maestro in their sleeves, jacket/dress/other clothes and hair; and toon Lux in his hat and his tailcoat/trouser pockets).
Given their theatrical nature, I love to imagine how each Giggle God would "blow a kiss" using their magic: Lux manifests either a 2D-animated cartoony heart or colourful glowing dots (similar to the shapes in Len Lye's animations as said above), Maestro manifests a couple of smaller music notes (as seen in the canon show), and Toymaker manifests an ace of hearts card.
For some reason, I'd imagine that, when Maestro feeds on music, it tastes like strong coffee to them (bitter but often varied in other flavour complexities depending on the qualities of the music).
However, if anyone else was to taste that same music (mortal or god - semi-spoiler for my AU: yes, that does include Lux and Toymaker at one point), it would be extremely bitter to the point of being unpleasant.
As said before, I personally see Toymaker as pan. I'd also imagine Maestro to be lesbian (alongside being canonically non-binary) and Lux to be bisexual.
For some reason, I like associating Toymaker and Maestro with foxes (Arctic and red foxes respectively), and Lux with teacup pigs (and sometimes ants).
Maestro would 100% use magic to fix their makeup, clothes and/or hair if any of it ever got ruined. Same with Toymaker honestly. š¤£
it's really funny how the entire world basically just blew the fuck up six short years ago and nobody wants to admit that that may have had some lasting consequences lmao
like so much of Everything today is premised on the idea that the earth-shattering catastrophe which happened within living memory of everyone older than a third grader has had no meaningful material or psychological effects on the general public and i don't think that's good, lol.
"(some of) the top-line economic indicators (sorta) recovered (in most places) so everything is fine and we don't need to talk about it" is not a sustainable framework for interfacing with reality
It's important to remember that Storytelling, in any media, is communication.
You create stories to communicate narratives, emotions, themes, ideas, values, etc. Characters are narrative tools. They are very much like the kind of paint and colors you choose to use in a painting. It's okay to be attached to these characters and explore them - but remember that at the end of the day, they are not real people. They are Ideas. Concepts. Tools.
I don't think there is anything wrong with having an attachment to a character - I certainly have plenty. It's normal for characters to be relatable - in fact many characters are made relatable on purpose. Relatability is an important tool in media. It's a useful way of creating connection and encourages self-reflection and empathy.
Fanfiction and fanart exist and are easier to make and share then it used to be in the past. If you don't like how a character was written or used in a story, you are free to take a character and explore it in writing. You don't even have to share it either - I know we are encouraged nowadays to share everything - but it is okay to have writing you keep for yourself. You don't have to share any writing you don't want to.
You should never start harassing and bullying real people over them. Creators shouldn't be threatened over what tool is used in their story. This isn't to shame anyone - this is simply a matter of truth. No one is entitled to an artist's writing or work. Storytelling is so, so much more than just content to be consumed.
Its communication, and is what allowed humanity to connect with and understand each other. It's how we learned.
Don't harass people over how they use their characters in their story. If you have done that in the past, then stop doing it. Consider apologizing too, if you're willing. Don't treat people as criminals because they like or have an 'evil' or 'problematic' character - those characters exist for a reason, and are important tools of the storyline.
(A great example of this is King Candy from Wreck-it Ralph. He makes for a great foil for Ralph and Penelope - and the story would be so, so much flatter without him in it. I very much enjoy his character. Doesn't mean 'condone his actions'. He isn't a real, actual, in life criminal. Just means I find him interesting as a literary device. That and his character design is great.)
It's important not to come at someone in bad faith when criticizing a piece of work. Once or twice isn't a pattern, those are more than likely just communication errors. Mistakes. Of course, You are allowed to criticize a message of a story - but if you want your critic to be treated seriously - then you need to know what the actual message of the story is in the first place.
If you don't know or understand what a story is trying to convey - then just say so. If something comes across badly, you can respectfully let the author know, too.
I mean, the whole point of storytelling is communication - and if I know I'm not communicating what I want to someone - then I can work to fix it so that it does communicate what I want - either in editing or for future works. Communication takes practice. If you have a miscommunication with someone, are you going to jump in and hold that miscommunication against them or are you going to work with them to resolve the confusion?
Anyway, not sure where this whole rant came from. I'm really passionate about storytelling. I'm not an expert but I do enjoy learning about it, and watching videos and reading books analyzing the storytelling in tv shows, cartoons, comics, etc. It's very fascinating the amount of concepts and thoughts people throughout history have explored in storytelling. It's incredible humanities storytelling evolved to the point that we study the art of it.
Storytelling is one of many things that feels so distinctly human, and it sucks when creators are dehumanized and treated as lesser than the stories they tell and the things they make, you know?
If you havenāt read Lux by James Goss yet, In the novel, thereās a whole chapter dedicated to Luxās point of view.
And what it discusses isā¦ quite interesting for a god. The following screenshots are from the novel
Based on the chapter, Lux did not have any original malicious intentions. He entered the theater because he wanted to be worshipped by the people (which, understandable. Heās a god, after-all).
He only trapped the victims because he wanted what they had, life. And he didnāt know how to obtain that.
He also only ābecame evilā because the Doctor and Belinda refused to worship him and decided to fight back, which upset him.
Lux also had Reginald play movies for him because they made him feel warm on the inside. He even learned the waltz that Reginald and his wife did nightly to try and mimic the love they had.
All Lux wanted was to feel loved and worshipped by people. He wanted to feel alive instead of cold on the inside.
So ladies and gentleman of the jury, Lux is NOT an evil god. He just went the wrong way about solving his problems.
Reading someone responding to a very good post about the isolating nature of going through a tough time with "reach out!" I think has kinda put in perspective why some of the polite tritisms people use to help others don't really work very well and make me a little upset
I've had a lot of people before tell me that I could talk to them about whatever and I never do because they're usually strangers. I did do it once with a friend but after I unloaded all of that I got a "Oh that's not good. I'm sure you'll figure it out :)" which is just kinda..
dead dove.
and then I had to perform the emotional labor for them of pretending that I felt so much better, thank you!!
Think most people aren't willing to be vulnerable with people they're trying to help and it comes from a very egoistic "oh no poor baby needs some love and affection uwu" mindset that is... understandable? I guess. but also deeply annoying and dehumanizing which is the exact opposite of what folks need when their life sucks.
it's kind of the same thing when you work with people who are going through a tough time like community action, it's less about throwing things at them but making them feel heard and empowering them so they can actually use the resources you give them
the "teach a man to fish" proverb but acknowledging how dehumanizing suffering is
social pressure demands we not be a burden to others or society so when you're fucked and feel powerless and useless and less than, peeling yourself open to reveal that to someone else is humiliating and a deeply intimate action. With adults it's often not about saving them, it's about giving them the space to scream in fear and frustration without reprisal and acceptance and offering connection so that the person in question can feel human for 5 minutes. You can't really do that without being vulnerable yourself. And that's a lot to ask!! Because we've damaged ourselves so much vulnerability and weakness is seen as bad so it's hard to do. Like it's hard to apologize and admit fault or accept rejection but you need to do it!
Because people misunderstood what "Trauma Dumping" is we do have a major breakdown in human connection. People think they can farm good karma points by doing the bare minimum and if you ask anything else from them or ask them to stop inserting themselves in your problems with a simple "No Thank you" YOU'RE the bad person. Dead ass saw a post not too long talking about how you're socially responsible to accept help from others because you'll make them feel bad if you don't and I cannot for the life of me understand how we got to this point we can't recognized self serving behavior and thoughts within ourselves.
The give and take isn't always even because everyone can take different loads and have different problems and we are all dangerously overburdened but you're SUPPOSEd to help carry the burdens of your loved ones as they're SUPPOSED to help you carry some of yours. We humans are social creatures, it's built into our DNA. That's why we get along with other social creatures like dogs and cats and birds. It feels bad to watch someone in pain and good to help them but you're not special when you do so, that's just part of what defines us as human beings. We've misused and mangled it, but this is one of the most profound gifts we're given from birth that connects us to each other even when those closest to us turn their backs.
If you wanna be a savior, be someone who fights corruption. If you wanna help someone in emotional turmoil, be human. If you can't do it, that's okay! You're probably carrying enough already then but don't begrudge the ones you can't help for your inability or burden them with your insecurities about it. That's not on them. It's okay. You're okay.
