・❥・𝓶𝓪𝓻𝔂

On one side is Shauna Shipman copying Jackie when she's alive, cheating with her boyfriend, wearing her clothes & doing everything to emulate her only to then physically consume her when she's dead because it is the only way in which she can actually have a part of Jackie still with her. She desires so much to be with Jackie that she literally wants them to be one being, one body. Her cannibalism is a coping mechanism for survival as much as it is a rejection of traditional human societal standards.

On the other side is Carol Sturka, who literally spends multiple episodes protecting, preserving, burying and defending the grave and body of her wife Helen. All within a world that now determines cannibalism as a logical, normalized practice and Carol as emotionally illogical for refusing the Hive mind which practices it and their so-called 'universal love'. Her refusal to let Helen be eaten and her refusal to join the Hive even though they are the last piece of Helen's mind that exists is because that would be a rejection of her and Helen's individual human decision to love each other outside of what humanity deems to be 'normal' or 'logical'.

One thing I don’t think people understand about Carol or her preaching about ‘individuality’, is that the individuality she is talking about to the other survivors is not coming from a place of traditional American individualism or the ‘American dream’. It’s coming from the fact that she is keenly aware of what is feels like to be the ‘wrong type of individual’ within society as a lesbian. Her having gone to conversion therapy is important! Her knowing what it’s like to have everyone around her smiling and telling her they love her and that’s why they have to change her is important!

While yes I agree with those who draw parallels to American individualism and the scene of the survivors meeting on the plane, I think it’s more complicated than that. Instead I personally see that scene with Carol and the American government crest behind her as the perspective of the other immune people (particularly bc they don’t want to listen to her). They see her as this loud American who doesn’t care about them or their families. Someone whose never known hardship and who has no qualifications to tell them what to do.

And honestly, I agree with them. If I was them, I most definitely would not want to listen to Carol either and I’d probably come to the same conclusion about Carol’s ideology of individualism that they have. It also doesn’t help that Carol is still an overbearing rich, white American lady who is not able to fully comprehend or articulate the connection between the hive and colonialism (unlike Manousos, where that is his first conclusion).

But (and this is a big but), Carol is not ONLY a rich, white American lady, she’s a rich, white American lady whose also a lesbian and who has been directly harmed by her loved ones and environment for being a lesbian. She even says it to Zosia in the hospital, “some of the worst people I’ve ever known, and they smiled all the time just like you”.

The other survivors however don’t know this, which I think is really interesting because it’s a great example of Carol doing the opposite of ‘American individualism’ in that she very pointedly does not tell the other survivors about her being a lesbian or experiencing conversion therapy. I say opposite because the enter point of American individualism is its marketability, the ‘American dream’ is quite literally an ad. If she truly was coming from a place of American individualistic superiority, her identity as a gay woman and conversion therapy survivor would be immediately used as leverage to try and convince the others to conform to it.

Instead, she keeps it close to her heart. This aspect of her that many would describe as the antithesis of the ‘American Dream’ (heck just look at how conservative American politicians refer to queerness as an ‘attack’ on American values/ nuclear families). At face value it’s obvious why, she doesn’t know if these people are supportive of queerness or not, esp since many of the countries they come from are very unsupportive (even in Diabete’s ‘equality’ speech, dogs and zoo animals are brought up but not queer people). That being said, I don’t think it’s the whole reason why.

Before the Joining, so much of her life and her love for Helen were things that needed to be kept quiet so that her book readers wouldn’t stop supporting her. Everything down to the very art she creates, is made with others in mind- made with the notion that her queerness is something that can push people away. When the hive took Helen away from Carol, along with all the memories of Carol’s secrets, that ability and consent to share that part of her life with other people was taken from her, forcefully outing her. It’s sad to think that even when almost every person on the planet now knows this secret, Carol still can’t bring herself to consensually share it with the last people on earth- the last of humanity.

It’s also probably why she tried to be so nonchalant when telling Manousos, making it be this passing comment instead of this huge confession. Personally, I think she was quite calculated with how she told him. He, unlike the other survivors, is on her side and is willing to work with her, so I think her telling him in this way was more of a warning, “Here’s this thing about me, it’s not a big deal but if you want to back away from me you can, it’s a big reason why I’m so alone and troubled”. I think it’s really telling however that he is supportive and doesn’t make it this big deal, because he knows and wants for others to have their own agency and personhood.

It all feels so realistic to me. Someone who is in Carol’s position, who outwardly presents as a very ‘protected’ role within society, knows that that protection and community can easily be taken away when the unseen parts of herself are forced out. I think the next season will have Diabete and Lakshimi becoming really important characters and when/how they find out about Carol being a lesbian will be very interesting to watch. Esp since it would probably throw their entire perception of her into disarray- that’s not even mentioning what their reaction to Helen might be.

I think a lot of authors feel the need to have the romance subplots in their books be this grand 'once in a life time' kinda love and I just don't think that's realistic for teenagers, esp Haymitch and Lenore Dove. For one, we don't actually know anything about how they fell in love- only how they met- and we actively see her not trust him with the rebellious/illegal part of her life (even though he's stated to have come from a family with that background).

We know why he likes her (she's pretty and sings and speaks her mind), but why does she like him? I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this simplistic dynamic if it's simplicity had been purposeful but that's just not the case- in the book they're in love, always have, always will be. No perspective/value-based disagreements to be seen.

With Peeta and Katniss it was beautiful to read about them falling in love over the course of the og trilogy because it felt like naturally shifting ebbs and flows in how they viewed each other as people, not just as love interests. It's the reason I think they're one of the best/if not the best example of a romantic subplot in YA fiction.

I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion but I think it would have been way more tragic if Haymitch's 'girl' had just been a regular high school girlfriend whose death haunts him not because he's so madly in love with her but because she was an innocent person. An innocent person who could have gone on to find real genuine love and a life of her own but was killed because of him. A character doesn't have to mourn a person they were romantically involved with for the sole reason that their love was quote unquote 'everlasting'. That sort of love is only created over time and through mutually experienced hardship- something these two characters have not gone through together.

To be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of his girlfriend being Covey either but a lot of other people have posted about why they don't like that so I thought I'd share this opinion instead cause I haven't seen anyone else bring it up. I'm not saying that I totally hate their dynamic, I just mourn what could have been an incredibly complex relationship and experience with grief.

I just finished playing this game with my roommate (they've played before but I knew nothing about it) and wanted to analyze all of the poems in the game cause I'm an English major and it's kinda what I do.

I picked probably over 15 Yuri words and 0 Natsuki words for this first day so I picked Natsuki first for reading the poems when I played:)

‘Eagles Can Fly’ by Natsuki

'Eagles Can Fly' is certainly the simplest we get on this day but I don't think that makes it bad by any means.

Here, Natsuki uses a couple different rhymes with 'leap' & 'seek' as well as with 'fly' and 'try'. She also repeats the 'r' sound with the words 'race' & 'run'. Though this poetic form doesn't create any set traditional rhyme scheme, it helps a lot with the flow/melody of the stanza. Her repeat of the word 'can' also has the intended effect of an ongoing repetition before being broken/taken away in the last line.

Syllables are used in an interesting way here as well, with line 1-7 following a 4 syllable structure and line 8 breaking this with a 5 syllable line. Though simple in content, it's obvious she put quite a bit of thought into the poetic format and how it might connect to the main thesis of her poem.

Her use of animals is also very distinct, with mammals at the start of odd lines and non-mammals at the beginning of even lines. Her using the word 'But' at the end both adhers to this format and breaks it down. If you can't tell by now, she's put a lot of effort into separating the first 7 lines from the last line. By only using punctuation on the last line as well, she's equating this poem with a single sentence- which I find very interesting.

Now to the meat/meaning of the poem! For the first 6 lines, Natsuki is specifically describing instinctual actions done by wild animals. When she says that 'insert animal' can do something, it's meant to be read as a fact. When she gets to people however, she says, 'People can try'. This is meant to call out the non-instinctual nature of humans and how the actions she speaks of when describing animals is not wholly natural to people.

She confirms this with the last line, 'But that's about it'. These last two lines 'People can try- But that's about it.' go really well together and I think they do a really good job of describing the 'trying'/non-instinctual nature of human actions. 'Eagles can fly' also lends to this meaning, with flying being the only thing humans cannot do without their own inventions.

I first posted this in a reblog on another post of mine about Santos and Langdon but I thought I might as well post it on its own. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this analysis(tw: self-harm/SH)

When thinking of addiction the first things which pops into most people's minds are alcoholism, drug addiction, and gambling. And while these certainly are all huge examples of addictions, it's important to note that addiction can take many forms.

The HSE/Health Service Executive (that's the public healthcare system here in Ireland) defines addiction as a "means of having a powerful urge to do, take or use something. This can be to a point where it is harmful to you or the people around you."

As we have been shown through her interactions with others, Santos is a character who views actions through a means of harm. To others, she is willing to tease and make deprecating jokes because- A. It helps her deflect from her own internal issues & trauma and- B. She doesn't view it as being overtly harmful. That being said, she is very finely in-tune to noticing harm done to children, specifically physical harm.

From what we can gather of the backstory she has shared, Santos is someone who was unfortunately taken advantage of (perhaps sexually) by an older authority figure. We also know that she did not experience this abuse alone and that a friend which experienced this as well unfortunately killed themselves. Sadly, it's no wonder that this past has made her pay close attention to the treatment of child patients in the ER.

In this season however, we also learn from a split second scene in the bathroom, that Santos has been inflicting SH onto herself. It's here that I want to go back to this definition of addiction. Though debated whether or not SH is an 'official' addiction, most organizations would agree that it at the very least acts in the same way an addiction would (ie with intense emotions & the repeated physical urge to do something for relief or out of a craving).

Though just my personal theory at the moment, I think that Santos has a very distinct perspective on the reality of harm. She is someone very focused on how actions affect and hurt other people. However, as we've seen with the evidence of her own SH, she most likely doesn't perceive harm done by herself- onto herself in the same way. She also might rationalize it as inconsequential due to the fact that she is not distinctly trying to kill herself.

As she continues to develop throughout this season and the next, I expect her mental health to play a large part in her development and characterization. Her learning to understand the harm she inflicts onto herself as an addiction/addiction-like action will probably play a big role in her future storyline if that is the case. I think her interactions with Langdon as the show progresses might also focus heavily on this.

Langdon is a character whose addiction has very heavily affected the people around him (in many negative & harmful ways). Having his character be reported by and in opposition to someone like Santos not only makes sense narratively, but could make for a really beautifully done thematic conversation about addictions, harm, & mental health in medicine.

I've also seen a large amount of hate towards Santos recently so I hope this has maybe changed your perspective on her a bit. She is certainly a person with a lot of baggage and isn't the best at separating her trauma with current work-situations. That being said, I think full on dog-piling on her without being empathetic towards where she's coming from can have a lot of bad ramifications for how she's characterized by fans of this show. All in all, I'm just really excited to see how she continues to develop<3

Dr. Al Hashimi has really grown on me over this season and intrigued me more and more so I went and did some digging. As such, I'd like to explain her canon backstory and how it influences her as a character.

When Al Hashimi is first introduced to Abbott we get this little exchange about her past working in Kabul's Dasht-e-Barchi hospital- which then Abbott exclaims was a tragedy. When searching I found that this was an actual incident in Kabul's Dasht-e-Barchi hospital maternity ward, which took place on May 12, 2020. It was here that at least 24 people including new born babies, mothers, and medical personal were shot and killed (the midwife Maryam Noorzad was specifically named as a victim).

What was so horrific about this attack was that it was specifically mothers, babies, and health staff which were targeted. One woman was even reported to have been forced to give birth whilst sheltering amidst the attack. Though the attackers remain unknown (at least according to the Doctors Without Borders website) the massacre most likely was the result of a large amount of attacks targeting the Hazara ethnic group.

Though I don't think this is the only reason why Al Hashimi needs to see a neurologist, I certainly think her trauma after such an event can tell us a great deal about her as a person. I'm also willing to bet that her seeing the baby earlier this season is what triggered this trauma.

I think it's easy to see a character like Al Hashimi be introduced after the events of Pittfest last season and assume that she is a cushiony doctor from the VA without any experience in crisis when this couldn't be further from the truth. Robby seems to be especially fixed within this mindset which I can't really blame him for with how much of an effect Pittfast has had on him.

It's also interesting to see the difference between Al Hashimi and Robby in the aftermath of these events. Whilst Robby closes in on himself, unwilling to get help and only concerned in pushing down any symptoms of PTSD he might have, Al Hashimi is the exact opposite. When she sees she's having neurological symptoms most likely related to this PTSD she immediately calls a neurologist in the middle of her shift.

On top of that, Al Hashimi has placed a huge focus on empathy in the workplace for staff which again is opposite to Robby in how he's been treating Mohan. Her also wanting to get rid of the name 'The Pitt' for the ER so as to not give it any negative connotations is probably related to her empathetic outlook as well. Working with Doctors Without Borders has certainly made her someone that's used to unhelpful or downright nonexistent healthcare systems so it makes sense that she doesn't balk at trying to make the ER better.

The fact that she's able to have the outlook she does after going through a massacre of this scale (during the start of COVID mind you) tells you everything you need to know about her core values. Though I disagree with her support of AI, I can't help but love her as a character and I think she's becoming one of my favorites in the entire show. Whatever future conversations we get between her and Robby or from her talking about her past in general will be heartwrenching.

**If you'd like to learn more about the massacre in Dasht-e-Barchi, here is an explanation of it from the Doctors Without Borders website where I got much of this information. I also highly recommend reading the personal accounts from the health staff. It really puts into perspective how heartbreaking of a tragedy this was, not only for them but also for it's effect on the state of women's healthcare in Afghanistan as a whole:

The hardest question you could ask me truly<3

Just finished s2ep3 for the first time and holy shit that was so good! I found myself shocked at so many moments- this episode honestly felt like a finale ep instead of an intro ep to the season. It was also so cool seeing Spike on screen for the first time and I can already see why he's a fan favorite. I didn't realize he'd be introduced so early and seeing how he's taken control of the vampires so quickly was so fun!

A list of moments that left me gobsmacked:

Spike's Introduction: I thought at first that the person stepping out of the car would be the new Slayer but then it turned out to be him! I did not think that we would get him this early but oh my gosh we did and I am so happy about it. I'm also super interested in Druisella as well cause at first I didn't think she was a vampire (I was thinking witch or banshee) just by her demeanor. Even though we know she's a vampire now that she turned Shay (? I'm pretty sure that's her name) I still think she's something else- like a different vampire variant of some sort (Spike also seems the kind to go for someone like that). Also him attacking the school was crazy

2. Angel being Spike's Sire: I had to pause when this was revealed. I can't imagine what Buffy will say when she finds out + I'm wondering how she'll find out- if it'll be Xander, Angel, or Spike who tells. No matter what, this is for sure going to have a lot of juicy implications later on, esp since we really see Xander & Angel getting a lot closer this ep (probably bc they both are in the same boat with their unrequited romantic feelings & loyalty for Buffy). I'm guessing somewhere down the line, after the strength/individuality of Spike is repeatedly asserted that Xander might ask Angel to turn him as well. Perceived masculinity is so important to his character so I can definitely see this happening. The last thing I'll say about this is that it really sets up Buffy and Spike as mirrors with both of them being so unlike their 'parent'. I'm dying to see how this Sire relationship will affect the story & I think it's by far the coolest reveal of the ep.

3. The Kid/Anointed being Killed by Spike: Again. Insane. Spike has really showed himself as an opposite to the traditional vampires in this show and while he's not as subversive as Angel (probably bc he still doesn't have a soul from what we know of) we still can see how different he is in completing his goals. He cares far more about getting things done than on following traditional mystical rules (as seen with him trying to kill Buffy before the super special vampire day)

4. The Principal Knowing about Vampires/Supernatural Stuff?: We get this scene at the end where the principal is talking with someone about what they'll say to the press and it makes me think he knows way more about what's going on than he let's on. He's the only person besides Buffy's gang & Cordelia that actually brings up past murders (ie the old Principle). It however makes me wonder why he'd be so hard on Buffy if he knows about this stuff- you would think he'd be a lot more lenient. He might be like those government guys who took away the invisible girl last season but that's just a guess.

My Overall Thoughts:

This episode acted as the convergence between Buffy's personal life, school life, and slaying life. First seen mentally in Buffy herself and then manifesting into a physical representation with Spike attacking the school and her mother. I think it handled these themes really well and I'm expecting the show to continue with them.

I found this episode to also really show how invested and well-practiced Xander and Willow are now (Spike even makes a nod to it at the end about Buffy's friend's helping her). That scene where Willow saves Cordy by beating a vampire with a head bust was awesome! We're really starting to see how the rest of these characters (including Buffy's mother) are affected by the supernatural stuff around them (even if they don't know about it).

Lastly I just want to say that I love these female characters so much, even Shay (again I forget if this is her name) & Druisella have hooked me in this ep and I really hope we see more of them in the future. I also want to go back and post an essay on the techno-pagan teacher cause I really like her as a side character as well as the episode from season 1 which combines supernatural demons with introduction of widespread technology (such a cool meta textual concept esp since it was also the og conflict between her and Giles)