This is a very basic and simplified version of the Sun in each of the 12 houses. Later, I’ll make a more in-depth list of what you’re like if you have an Aries Sun, etc. in each house! And of course, this is my interpretations, other people may disagree!!
The Sun is where you want to be different than everyone else. It’s where you want to shine, and is a key part of who you need to be to be happy. This is something you have an affect on!! If it says you enjoy volunteering, for example, you will not be destined to volunteer in soup kitchens and the like. You will need to take the initiative to do this, and you will find yourself happier!!
Sun in 1st House - You like looking good and dressing up - You are aware of yourself and your needs; probably do buy books from the self-help section - You like to stay in shape - You have a big personality, people find themselves drawn to you - You stick by the rules you have in life; strong set of morals
Sun in 2nd House - You want to be rich, and probably famous as well! - Your charisma and natural leadership will help you further your career - You don’t need to rely on others for your self-worth - You are quite possessive
Sun in 3rd House - You value communication - You’re a tech person (lucky) - You like to make new friends and get along well with neighbours, family, heck even the man standing behind you at the grocery store! - You’re very intelligent, or want to be perceived as being smart - You see each individual tree for what it is, rather than the whole forest - You always have the newest tea; a gossiper
Sun in 4th House - You like have a showy house - You probably blog parenting tips, or read parenting books and pass the knowledge on to everyone you talk to - You aspire to be the best parent, or to be your children’s best friend
Sun in 5th House - Similar to the 4th house, you want a good relationship with your children - You tend to be very creative - You aren’t afraid to do what you love, despite what others may think of it - Your love affairs can be quite intense and fast-paced - You can be risky and impulsive; gambling is fun, but be careful
Sun in 6th House - You like trying out new diets and always have a gym membership, even if you rarely go - Your health should be very well! - You find enjoyment in even the most mundane tasks, like cleaning or washing windows - You enjoy volunteer work - You have divine hygiene
Sun in 7th House - You are good at personal relationships - Everyone you talk to feels special - Your relationships are intense, including the negative ones - In marriage, you and your partner typically get along wonderfully and are great at communicating and cooperating with each other
Sun in 8th House - You have a fascination with death, whether that be your own or others - You will come into inheritance, or marry someone with a large amount of money - Sex with you is intense, you give it everything you have, wanting to be the best partner your lover has had - You will suffer from great loss, and if you allow it, it can teach you how to grow and heal
Sun in 9th House - You are very intelligent and aware of the world and how it works - If you’re religious, you are devoted - You have strong morals - You love to travel - Your dreams tend to have more meaning than the usual person’s - You may not have a lot of knowledge, but you have a very deep understanding of what you do know
Sun in 10th House - You want to be known - You are probably involved in your community and enjoy politics - You have a very positive and powerful reputation - Fame means more to you than money - Your public face is quite different than your private face
Sun in 11th House - You have many, many “friends”, but may not feel like you are actually close with others - Quantity trumps quality, in your opinion - You have very big dreams and wishes for your future - You are also quite aware of yourself
Sun in 12th House - You want to understand the unknown - You are probably very involved in the occult, astrology, or something similar - You are more likely to suffer from severe mental health - You tend to be caught up in your own thoughts - You may be a philosopher, with lots of self-reflection - You have many romantic affairs, sometimes at the same time as each other
Wondering how to tell your friends about “Women of Xal” but there’s no easy place to gather information? Well we’re here to fix that with a reblog-ready post! (Kickstarter link here!)
SO WHAT IS “WOMEN OF XAL” ANYWAYS?!
“Women of Xal” is an otome visual novel currently live on Kickstarter. You assume the role of Xjena, who, along with five other girls, will be campaigning against each other to lay claim to a political position of power in a Matriarchal society. An all male harem comes free with your victory. An official trailer and playable demo is available right in the front of our Kickstarter page!
SO HOW DO YOU WIN THE CAMPAIGN FOR POWER?
There’s several ways to do this (or outright fail at it.) You can either play through the game as a benevolent friend to everyone and decide you don’t want the power that badly, or you can be ruthless and throw everyone you can under the bus. And there’s plenty middleground to go around. However, everything has a consequence, and there’s no easy ‘right or wrong’ answer to situations that become increasingly grey and complex.
BUT CAN I ROMANCE THE GIRL IN THAT GIF?!
Velvet (the girl in the gif!) is romanceable! Because you can make Xjena gay, straight, bi, poly, or ace! It all depends on your own preferences. There are 5 ladies to choose from, and five guys, with more on the way thanks to Kickstarter backers making romanceable OCs.
WILL THERE BE NUDITY/SEXUAL SOUNDS?
Not planned, and if happen to get a flood of requests for it, there will be an option to opt-out of said content altogether.
I CAN’T AFFORD TO BACK YOUR KICKSTARTER. HOW ELSE CAN I HELP?
If you hit that reblog button, you basically play a key role in saving my life. You can also play the demo and talk to us about it in my inbox or on our subreddit!
I WANT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS
My asks are open, and allow anons for the time being! (Shortcut Link)
Gods help me, I’m going to type up a Dragon Age thought that was bugging me this afternoon that might lead to Discourse.
Okay. So. The arguably dominant religion in Thedas is Andrastianism. It is, for all intents and purposes, a monotheistic religion with a singular Maker and His Bride, Andraste. The leaders of the faith are women (we’re not going into Tevinter because that shit’s complicated, yo). Andraste’s image is plastered up one side and down the other. So, you’d think that this world would have greater equality when it came to the sexes, if not tipping the balance toward women.
Yet, outside of Empress Celene of Orlais, most of the positions of political (not religious) power are filled by men. There’s a King in Ferelden and most of the Bannorn there are men. The leaders of the Templars the the players encounter are mostly men (except for Meredith in Kirkwall, but notice how she was the only one on that chain of command and how everyone in power beneath her were men?). The hierarchy is just full of men.
Now, there’s probably some fantastic in-world explanation that covers all of this. After all, Maric just happened to only have sons and his sons became the Kings of Ferelden (depending on your playthrough). Heredity and genes and all that. Yet, for all these characters ostensibly revere Andraste (Dragon Age Jesus mashed up with Joan of Arc, let’s be real), women are still relegated mostly to domestic roles.
Arl Howe gives a female Cousland crap about playing at being a man. There’s a thread of casual sexism throughout the game. Now, maybe that’s intentional. Maybe they’re trying to make some kind of Statement. Or maybe, just maybe, the creative team and writers can envision a world with dragons and magic, but can’t quite conceive of one without sexism inherent in the system.
Kind of always low-key irritated by the fact that third world as a term has now been so divorced from it’s original political context and basically been used by the west as a ranking/income system when it originated in the cold war as a way of describing postcolonial countries who refused to align themselves with the capitalist first world and the communist second world by being a third way out aka the anti imperialist non-alignment movement
What The Clone Wars did was present Duchess Satine Kryze as complicit in a type of genocide (cultural), if not outright commanding its action. People argue that it’s “just an oversight,” but all that argument does is emphasize a lack of understanding of context, and underlining a privilege that makes one blind to the implications of the show.
It’s an easy oversight to make when you see yourself in the New Mandalorians already. It’s an easy oversight to make when you don’t care for presenting a diverse society—because one already exists that happens to just not be mandalorian.
And that’s, ultimately, what happened.
And an oversight is one thing, but what happened with Satine and the New Mandalorians is not just one oversight, alone, in a vacuum. There are multiple layers to the issue that, together, create the environment for racism and whitewashing, and erasure:
making all of the New Mandalorians are a specific type of white (white people come in more variation than just pale, just blond, just blue eyed)
retconning the only prior canon representation of mandalorians (who are not white, and this is important in context) as no longer mandalorian
setting up a precedence within the universe that defines the entire political climate of Mandalore as “anyone not a specific type of mandalorian is exiled / ejected from society”
These three things, together, illustrate racism. These three things, together, illustrate whitewashing, and in-universe genocide. Isolated, individually, they’re pretty bad alone, but they’re small things. But these three things together, and they cannot be separated because of how deeply intertwined they are in the show and the canon universe of star wars, presents a clear and obvious act of racism and whitewashing.
And, to be honest, declaring the Fetts as not mandalorian was unnecessary. It was racist. It was whitewashing — by making mandalorians as a people defaulted to white and only white (at the time of the show).
To ignore this is to ignore the racialized violence inherent in that retcon. A group of people in a position of militaristic and political power stripped a nonwhite man and his son of their cultural heritage and identity.
The races of the sides involved matter. It matters because it’s reflective of racism in the real world, regardless of the intent behind these actions.
Bringing up Legends to combat canon is nonsensical, because Legends has no bearing on anything, anymore. But even worse: bringing up Sabine and her family as an argument against racism also doesn’t work.
Sabine Wren, and the entire Clan Wren, are all Death Watch. Satine Kryze exiled Death Watch, and bringing them up only highlights the racialized violence Satine Kryze committed: exiling a group of mandalorians who do not look nor act nor adhere to a narrow definition of what is mandalorian according to New Mandalorians.
So, @kanekikenunot and I were talking a few days ago about the possible symbolism between the original OEK and the Minotaur of Crete, and I wanted to expand on their post about it.
**just a warning, the two stories don’t coincide perfectly because there’s a lot of holes due to possible deception and backstabbing between V and the Washuu, so take all of this with a grain of salt
As the story goes, King Minos was given an impressive bull to sacrifice to Poseidon, but decided to keep it for himself. When Poseidon found out, he forced Pasiphae, the wife of Minos, to fall madly in love with the bull. They consummated, and the Minotaur was born. Being an unnatural beast– half human and half bull– it grew to feast on human flesh.
Horrified, King Minos ordered the carpenter Daedelus to construct a massive labyrinth built beneath his palace at Knossos, and banished the Minotaur to it’s tunnels.
The Washuu Estate and the ruins of Knossos.
In the scope of Tokyo Ghoul, the story of the Minotaur offers a possible explanation of the One-Eyed King’s origin.
For one thing, the 24th ward is frequently described as a labyrinth. However, Nishiki revealed in ch128 that the OEK dug the 24th ward himself, making him King Minos, and Daedalus, and the Minotaur.
This lines up with my theory that the original One Eyed King is actually a relative of V and the Washuu– one that was most likely the result of a shameful affair between noble families; a human and ghoul. Their shared offspring was miraculously born (possibly during a time when food was scarce, when alternatives were necessary), and with it’s single kakugan, was itself proof of their adultery.
The poor half-ghoul child was most likely hidden away the same way Eto was.
And, like Eto, the future king most likely lashed out once it was old enough. A human parent could fear for their own life, or that their “monster” child would be targeted. A ghoul parent would would find that their half-ghoul offspring was eons stronger than themselves. Both sides would have to worry about their secret being revealed, and so eventually the Minotaur, who’s true lineage was that of nobility (a one-eyed “king”), needed to be quelled.
Now, King Minos in antiquity had been demanding young sacrifices from Athens as revenge for the death of his human son, which served convenient in keeping the Minotaur at bay. Eventually, the secret son of Athens, Theseus, offered to go along with the sacrifices and kill the monster.
So here’s where things get super tricky. I’ll break it down like this:
King Minos = the founder of V, human
Minotaur = one-eyed half-ghoul, result of V and Washuu
Theseus = head of the Washuu clan
Theseus eventually defeated the Minotaur by decapitating it, and left for Crete to become king.
That sounds like the end of things, but with Furuta’s statement about “sustenance for the throne” alongside the doppleganger motifs (two one-eyed owls, two rabbits), I believe that the Washuu and V wanted to create a new “Minotaur” in order to continuously gain support from the humans who believed that they were being protected from the One-Eyed King.
The Washuu were thrust into a position of political power among humans and ghouls alike– and they enjoyed it. So long as the masses didn’t discover that they were responsible for the initial creation of the first One-Eyed King, and so long as they played their cards right, they could continue to forever create enemies and acquire more wealth.
V and the Washuu may have come into power over a stupid secret: an affair which created a Minotaur.
V knew their secret, however, so they rung up a deal: they would share their power in secrecy, with knives at each other’s backs, and soon their efforts to create a new OEGhoul brought about the demi-human warriors like Arima, to be sicced on whatever “enemies” they could find until quinques were invented.
The original “Minotaur” may have survived “Theseus” (remember, if the Washuu are like Rize, they have some seriously powerful regeneration), or a new one-eyed ghoul may have been created or found.
Either way, the original OEK was most likely a Washuu by blood who was driven into the ground by it’s own family, then used as a stepping stool to their power. It’s anger towards the CCG is something still harbored to this day, which is something shared between itself and the likes of other natural OEG’s like Eto.
Two questions! A) what would be good motives for a prince villain BESIDES tragic backstory B) Any advice for writing a redemption arc?
Wow, I’m in love with this ask. Antagonist motivations? REDEMPTION ARCS? Yes please!!
Okay, so the plan is, I’m going to address the first question first and the second one second. I think that seems reasonable. This might get a little lengthy, I can feel it in the wind, so we’ll see at what point we’ll probably need a Read More.
Question A: (Princely) Villain Motivations
1. Perhaps the most obvious is, well, power. I know a lot of people get pretty tired of the whole “powerful villain wants more power/land/control/riches.” But the fact is, it makes sense, particularly for an antagonist that was raised in power. Keep in mind the kind of childhood this Prince might have had, and all the things they might have been told since they were young. Since they were a child, and during their most formative years, they were likely told time and again how it is their duty as the heir and future leader to uphold the reputation, stature, and altogether power of the entire kingdom. That’s quite a lot of pressure to be under, and it’s hard to get out from under that idea.
Now I’m caught up in the psychology of this trope so here are some points that are somewhat related.
- The first thing they have to fear is looking bad. A Prince is a public figurehead, many are looking to him. That’s a lot of people to disappoint. And when your only counsel is potentially people who are leading you askew, it’s hard to avoid counting on the wrong advice while under pressure.
- These people they could potentially disappoint are both people they personally care about (family/friends) and people that they are responsible for (the citizens)
- Particularly if it’s family applying the pressure, then this care stands to lose everything they have ever known of they try to stand for what they actually think.
2. Noble Ends: Maybe this character kind of has some good ideas or intentions, but for whatever reason, the execution is less than the best- as in, noble ends but evil means. This can take a number of forms, but often you see noble-ends/evil-means characters doing things like putting other people in danger if it means saving one specific character, etc. For every character, this can be different. This particular character is interesting because they are in a position of political and military power, meaning that things are pretty high stakes within their personal lives, the interior of the kingdom, and in their entire country’s relationship with other entire countries. I’m sort of going of the assumption here that you have an idea of the kinds of things your villain does, just not why.
One of the most often quoted phrases I see about antagonists is that “every villain is a hero in their own minds.” Really take that into consideration for this option in particular, but really it applies to any antagonist.
3. “The Puppet King” Approach: By this I am referring to the trope where a political or powerful figure is actually just being used or manipulated by others with ill intentions. This can be the result of many things, such as straight up blackmail, or the controlling people having leverage over them (like hostages) or, if you want to connect it back to the first idea, through emotional manipulations.
- Blackmail: The controllers have something against them that, if revealed, could be disastrous for the character.
- Leverage: The controllers have something the character desperately needs or wants and are holding it over their heads.
- Emotional Manipulation: Borderline Tragic Backstory, and relating to the first idea, but the controllers could be telling the character terrible things in order to get them to do terrible things- perhaps they told them that they are useless or worthless if they don’t do these things, and this character craves the validation, attention, interaction, etc that comes with pleasing these people.
4. “They’re Not Evil, They’re Just Misguided”: Maybe this character is completely misinformed about the situation. This could be an elaborate manipulation on someone else’s part, or really no single person’s intention, but the product of the environment in which this character lives. It sort of ties back to “Noble ends and evil means”, except with a lot more deception and miscommunication going on. Keep in mind, they still have to make the choice to do some terrible things, so it’s not like they didn’t have bad intentions ever.
There’s also a few things you should keep in mind when writing a character like this.
First… if some of these ideas make it look like I am giving the “villain” something to be pitied, or like they have qualities or intentions that one could actually understand, or even an actual (gasp) tragic backstory, it’s because I actually am. If you want to write a good villain, and I mean a really good villain, they have to be just as complex and psychologically believable as the hero. Not only that, but it helps readers keep in mind that no one is just born with a gun in their hand and murder in their hearts. That layer of real tragedy is sometimes needed to show people that hey, this person fell real hard, and that is not just their personal tragedy, but a tragedy of the very world we all live in.
That being said, I am going to jump into my second thing to keep in mind… This villain can have understandable intentions, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t gonna do villainous things. Make them do terrible, horrible, horrendous, awful, unforgivable things. After all, they aren’t really a “villain” if they don’t do entirely evil things sometimes. Yes, it kind of sucks that this person became this way, but now it’s a little too late. They are a threat that needs to be dealt with now, or they will only breed more tragedy.
A villain’s “tragic backstory” only is meant to explain their actions, not to excuse them.
As for question two… I actually think I’m going to get back to you on that one. Redemption arcs deserve an entire post, because they are remarkably complex and I just can’t limit myself to only giving a handful of tips. I will be setting that post up probably later today, tomorrow at the latest.
Thanks for the questions, as always, and look for the redemption post on the horizon.
Anonymous asked: “What are some ways that a person could get into a position of political power?”
Let’s not get into today’s politics, please. We’re going to be objective here. So, I love books that talk about power and how people come into power, for instance, Lord of the Flies by William Golding.
What is horseshoe theory normally? Your horseshoe post says "corrected"
Capitalist ideology intended to make liberalism appear “neutral” and “above the fray”. In the capitalist political spectrum, it is true that liberalism is generally at the center (with some very slight leeway into center-left and lots of leeway into full right-wing), but that doesn’t make it “neutral”. Political centrism is merely ideology that challenges nothing about the status quo. (The left seeks change that brings about less class distinction and the right seeks a reassertion of old traditions that maintain class stratification.)
I’ve said before that liberalism is the dominant ideology under capitalism, and it’s true. It permeates our political landscape in how it sees capitalism as the end of history, how it contextualizes ideology as a “marketplace of ideas” where the best ideas inevitably outcompete, how it holds steadfast to giving “all viewpoints” a platform (with no class analysis or understanding of how dominant ideas remain dominant), how it believes that the system can be peacefully reformed to eventual perfection (even if there’s disagreement over what those reforms should entail), etc.
The horseshoe frames communism and fascism as though they were fundamentally similar in practice, if not in rhetoric. This is ahistorical, and it ignores what the true grit of politics has always been about since the dawn of civilization: class struggle over the gears that reproduce daily life (i.e. the resources and the means of production) and the accompanying social ideologies; in other words, power, as realized through control over the sources of social wealth. I took the horseshoe and grafted it to the way in which “liberal” and “conservative” are viewed as rhetorical opposites – but are in fact both the same in practice. Modes of production (feudalism, capitalism, etc.) have material interests that dictate how they behave, typically focused around those with a dominant class position and around the broader longevity of the system as a whole. Under capitalism, this is realized in both the capitalists (those with the dominant class position) and the state (the apparatus that looks out for the longevity of the system as a whole). In the end, I boiled it down to this:
I don’t know if it’s altogether perfect, since assigning positions to political ideology along a line or a compass is hard to quantify, but I think it’s certainly better than the original liberal horseshoe chart. Of important note, I wouldn’t say that social democracy is a “halfway point” between capitalism and socialism, nor would I say that of distributism. But in terms of ideology, I think they come close to mapping between the two modes of production. Mutualism or market socialism is probably a better “intermediary” mode of production between the two (it involves markets but with collective control of means of production and banking).
TLDR: It’s bullshit to write off political leftism and political rightism as fundamentally similar when they are founded upon opposing ideas about who ought to control social production in society. Centrism and liberaltarianism try to avoid this question, but they are just as ideological as either side – they assert that we should just “leave people to their own devices”, but their political ideology is one where capitalists control the means of production in top-down fashion as realized through private property rights, a fundamentally right-wing conception of society. There is no political “objectivity” – the centrist position inevitably supports those with power in society.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” -Desmond Tutu
So in general, do you like Satine? What do you think about people disliking her because they sense racist undertones from her character because personally while I used to worship her, I don't like her anymore.
To be honest, I have a complicated relationship with Satine Kryze. I love her as an interesting, nuanced depiction of a woman driven by an all-consuming desire to protect her people from continued violence—and ultimately failing because of the extremes with which she decided to pursue it. Even worse than failing, she set up the environment which would ultimately lead to civil war and more death, all things she meant to prevent and avoid.
I love her as a female character in a position of political power in a universe where that is so, so rare to see—but also, specifically, as a woman of high political power in a society (mandalorians) that has, traditionally, in and by fandom, been defined as grossly misogynistic, sexist, and hyper masculine.
And I deeply appreciate that, for the most part, canon has followed that trend: presenting different, varied women in positions of power within mandalorian society, all with completely unique personalities and motivations, strengths and flaws, and has gone out of its way to define mandalorians and mandalorian society as complex, as complicated, and as politically messed up as it deserves.
I don’t think that would have happened if Satine Kryze, and by extension, Bo-Katan Kryze, never existed.
All that said … I feel like people have every right to hate Satine. I’d even go so far as to say that I, personally, would never argue against hating her because of how her character was, at best, complicit in the violently racist undertones of the New Mandalorians government, and at worst, in direct support of what was, ultimately, an act of genocide.
I don’t think she’s forgivable, and I don’t think what the New Mandalorians did, and represented as a result are forgivable. But I also think that we … need flawed female characters, characters like Satine Kryze, whose own brand of extremism (and her pacifism was, in fact, extremist) contributed to her downfall.
And, ultimately, I wish there had been more nuance given to the political turmoil that was mandalorian space at the time. Because Satine’s position would, of course, be the “right” side from the point of view that the stories were told (from New Mandalorian perspective, from the Republic’s perspective, from the Jedi Order’s perspective), we weren’t really allowed to see the uglier sides that resulted from the philosophy of “exile everyone.”
Not all characters, and more importantly not all female characters, have to be remotely likable, nor do they have to be forgivable.
Fandom, though, has an apologist problem, and a white feminist problem, and Satine Kryze is, sadly, a classic example of both of these things rolled into one. So long as there’s a white woman in a position of power, she’s expected to be accepted as an icon and a hero — regardless of what her policies inevitably bring down on everyone around her. .
There’s probably a lesson in here, somewhere, but I’m not finding the right words to define it.
in that tag you’ll find mostly fic that either centers completely around his work or where it figures prominently in it
i preface this by saying this is my ideas/speculation, it’s how i theorize it when i write about his job. as usual this has nothing to do with the books, this is show theory
i’m also sure @amorverus has probably written some meta on this or would add valuable thoughts/insight
i view his job as having two parts. he has his personal business where he performs acts of magic and creates potions for clients. so this would be summonings, putting up wards for people, transcribing contracts or translating documents, protection and then potions for all sorts of ails or enhancements. all of this magic is clearly regulated under a code of what is acceptable and what isn’t. for instance we’ve seen warlocks peddling drugs which is prohibited and they are probably banned from practice and then from an area after they’ve reached a certain number of offenses. we also see warlocks doing dark magic that is also presumably prohibited.
while the clave seem to have jurisdiction and power over enforcing some of this (probably depending on who it effects) we see that magnus does too. so this i would say is the “second part” of his job, aka being the high warlock of brooklyn which is a leading position, a political position. he has the power to ban warlocks in his territory, he protects warlocks, he attends council meetings as a diplomat, a leader of the warlocks (at least for his specific area). which leads me to assume he also leads meetings between warlocks which i’ve written before. so as i talked about above, if they have restrictions and they have prohibited types of magic, they have to have some way of agreeing on those and discussing them, so i’m sure these meetings exist. the clave of course have their own prohibited practices and laws but otherwise it seems they have their own laws as well. so magnus would definitely be a part of that process to some degree and he’s obviously part of enforcing it. although it seems in at least one case he sent a perpetrator to the clave (iris).
so he does house calls to put up wards or deliver potions depending on the circumstances. he has client meetings to discuss spells or potions or other magical acts he might perform. in those meetings it would be negotiations about what he is willing to do, the price for his services and of course there would be a contract written up. some of those would be in person, some over the phone, others could be on location. he also seemingly has standing contracts.
i also like the idea of the warlocks having a community when it comes to magic, which i think has been hinted on, where some spells are shared for general consumption through books and etc., others are more warlock specific, and others are sold or shared in small circles. finally he’s an inventor when it comes to magic but also presumably when it comes to potions. since he’s very powerful though his magic and his potions would be potent and therefore sought after.
Thank you George R. R. Martin for creating some great politically powerful female leaders or in influencing positions that don’t fight each other for the attention of men, but for their ideals and beliefs.
Hello! I think I accidentally sent this incomplete ask before lol. I read an article about a guest star in Supernatural (can't remember her name), apparently she's been a big fan since the beginning. What worried me was that she said, "I think Sam and Dean will go out in a blaze of glory because that's what the actors want". I would love a happy ending tbh but I know what J2 want and I know that even though they're professionals, they still have a lot of say about what happens. Thoughts?
J2 don’t have a say in the overall story, they can change words here and there IF they’re allowed to (I still keep remembering Taylor Swift) so a huge decision like this ? No way .
The whole 12x22 grenade launcher being finally used to break down the walls, a metaphor for Dean’s happy ending, letting himself be happy and free and meaning they escape their death and win, happy and free, right AFTER talking about going down in a blaze of glory? Dean literally says hey no way I’m living through this.
For me that was all about saying a big F - U to the blaze of glory ending. On top of all the rest of the stuff about all of TFW growing, becoming happier, complete, sorting out their issues from the past… getting their happy endgame.
I mean MAYBE they would do some kind of resolution and happy ending where they die and all go to heaven together MAYBE but imo it doesn’t really fit with all this and the way Dabb is taking the show now with hunters/mol community set up, parenting, love, relationships etc and it has been tentatively heading since…. season 8ish?
It’s also just not… a nice ending. For so many people who talk at cons and in general people who watch the show and say they’ve had issues with self worth, depression etc. To show these guys go through all those things themselves and come out the other side, accept themselves, conquer the depression, have a happy ending and move forwards with their lives, is such a more powerful message than a blaze of glory and imo is much more of a powerful positive social and political statement given many of these themes which all centre around their emotional story arcs, as the whole show does.
People having emotional and mental issues, growing, learning, going through trials and tribulations, eventually getting out the other side and living a better, happier life thanks to their growth and the story we have followed for over a decade - now THAT’S a story worth remembering.
Do you think that Dumbledore supporting Grindelwald's ideas 'For The Greater Good' makes him a Nazi-sympathizer?
‘For The Greater Good’ was never Grindelwald’s ideology. As it is implied in DH it was Dumbledore who supported and emphasized this point and Grindelwald later appropriated it in order to attract more followers and promote the ‘righteousness’ of his cause.
Were Dumbledore’s ideas questionable? Was it naive to believe that they would be able to establish wizard supremacy in a way that would benefit the society as a whole without harming the muggles and oppressing other social groups? Definitely. But that’s what he believe in my opinion. He was an idealist and did not share what was later revealed to be Grindelwald’s actual vision. Actually, he and Grindelwald had parted ways when Grindelwald went for the wand and when he actually tried to apply his version of their plans.
In my opinion, Dumbledore wanting the wizarding community to be in a position that would allow wizards to stop hiding makes sense. He is not just hoping as a young, smart and ambitious man. His sister had been attacked, he’d seen up-close how the oppression that they faced could affect and destroy families. However, as much as he has been demonized by the fandom, the fact that he was a supporter of muggles, muggle-borns and half-bloods and did not focus on blood-supremacy speaks volumes. It would make sense for him to want to blame the entire muggle-community after his sister got assaulted (hopefully not raped too ?) by muggles and his father ended up in prison for it. But he didn’t. He still chose to see the best in people instead of generalizing.
Dumbledore never practiced any of what they were planning with Grindelwald and never supported the practical manifestation of those ideas. However he made two great mistakes:
1) He delayed facing Grindelwald and that had consequences to the rest of the world. He wanted ‘the greater good’ to
be his main aim
and he was open to redefining what that meant, and yet he could not act accordingly and put aside his feelings and his shame.
2) He never managed to let go of his idealism.
Thinking that the main reason that everything he believed in had not worked out because he allowed himself to be distracted by his feelings for Grindelwald, he tried to not emotionally invest in people. He was above all a politician. He tried his entire life to achieve social well-being by adjusting and readjusting the parameters of his ideas. He did not get too close to people in order to not be held back by emotional ties, he tried to stay away from political power… and he failed. He cared deeply about Harry, he also cared about Hagrid and maybe even about Snape in my opinion -even though I think he saw a lot of both himself and Grindelwald in Snape and was less guilty about how everything affected him because he kept projecting. He also cared about all his students and the entire wizarding community. He put social justice above himself and above his personal life but that doesn’t make him heartless.
As the headmaster of Hogwarts, Dumbledore still found himself in a position of power and of social and political influence. He made questionable choices; some of them good, others ambiguous and many of them plainly bad. His need for control took the better of him BECAUSE he wanted to have the efficiency he lacked in his youth; BECAUSE he was so terrified of the way in which his ideas had been twisted and he was hoping that they could still work if only he managed to monitor the situations.
Albus Dumbledore was a man of many mistakes and failures, but he spent his entire life trying to make up for past mistakes, including the way his beliefs had been used and distorted. I will never see him as a Nazi-sympathizer.
and i keep coming back to the fact that this da is a non-black poc. the idea that poc that are in positions of power in the political system will work on behalf of other poc is and has always been bullshit. this latina took a dive on a case where a cop shot and killed a black woman but went for blood when she had a chance to put a minority in jail. keep that in mind.
often to get to these positions, minorities have to sell their souls and their people out. none can or should be automatically trusted.