The Trinketeir

Their genitals are being cut with razors without anesthesia for the sexual pleasure of adult husbands, and they’re being sold for necessities those in the West relish because our countries ravage their resources. But people only wanna bring that up if they’re bashing on Arab/Black people as a collective (even though that includes those very girls) and justify ICE/brutalization of immigrants.

Billionaires had a child sex trafficking island and no one has time to care or hold anyone accountable because they’re more nervous that a trans person will play a sport than they are that children were trafficked and eaten or that babies were starved so they could be used to fellaciate pedophiles.

Livestock animals are being beaten, branded, made to live knee deep in their own feces, perpetually impregnated, put in cages so small they can’t turn around, drowned, left to bleed out when butchers trying to meet a 175 per minute quota (if there IS even a limit) miss the bolt gun shot, workers getting exposed to unsafe working conditions in slaughterhouses, factory farms producing actual cess pools that devastate towns and unbelievable carbon emissions (especially nitrous oxide and methane), all for something entirely avoidable

But yeah whatever. I’ll just wake up every day and pretend like I’m not thinking about this all the time because if I say any of this in a way that sounds too patronizing or too preachy or too wokescoldy I’ll make people uncomfortable or frustrated so they’ll never want to hear about any of this again, much less try to do anything.

And even still I get the luxury to not think about it, or rather, to only have to THINK about it. People experience this.

It’s also about speaking about what people actively do NOT want to hear.

People don’t want to hear about non-Western impoverished countries being exploited by the West and children being married under the excuse that “it’s their culture” (when that’s such a shallow concept of culture and certainly not the culture of the children forced into marriage).

People don’t want to hear about it factory farming practices and its inhumane treatment of not only the animals but workers (often immigrant workers) or even attempt to pursue local farms with more ethical procedures, or even talk about it.

People didn’t want to hear about Palestine until it became “mainstream”, until after thousands upon thousands of civilian families were brutalized and murdered.

Being an actual activist rarely means being hailed as a hero or revolutionary.

It very often means annoying people.

Nonetheless, people’s inconvenience at having to hear about these issues do not compare to the people who have to know about them because they EXPERIENCE them.

Even if you’re someone who doesn’t or can’t care about these issues, for whatever reasons you may have, it still benefits you to foster a community that does.

Because when you’re down on your luck, do you want people who also don’t care as your only support system, or people who do care. You don’t have to join, just speak up for those who will.

I’m ngl I think Vegans can be a little annoying. In fact I think they can be more annoying.

Like if you watch Dominion and seeing the runt of a pig litter get slammed against the concrete like a wet shirt because that’s the most convenient way to kill them makes you feel A Little Annoyed I think that’s okay. I think that’s a good thing actually.

It’s not supposed to be a personal attack, and if you feel like it is, I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t know what to tell you if you feel personally slighted by people saying factory farming practices are unethical and animals shouldn’t and don’t need to be exposed to those sorts of conditions. It’s not remotely the intention of bringing it up.

The truth is a lot of non-Vegans genuinely don’t know what happens in factory farms, it’s not meant to be a personal attack, it’s just an explanation, you take what you will from it.

And in regards to people who have health complications and need to primarily rely on meat or people who aren’t able to reduce meat/milk consumption due to prices or resources available to them, obviously those situations are understandable. Even then, local farms with more ethical practices can sometimes be an option too (emphasis on sometimes, as they can be more expensive).

There are Vegans in Gaza who are unable to stay Vegan because the genocide has limited resources to an extreme degree. People in these situations should be acknowledged beyond a “gotcha” and a way to justify people who aren’t remotely impoverished contributing to factory farming. I think people can gauge their situations and understand if something applies to them or not.

So I found it more to be about pride, and to be reflective of how a lot of heterosexual relationships revolve around men trying to impress other men with their relationships with women (stick with me on this one).

Any dilemma of trust is between Orpheus and Hades, not Orpheus and Eurydice.

In many adaptations, Orpheus turns around because he fears he’s being tricked by Hades, and that Eurydice isn’t actually following. But even if she’s not following, turning around makes no difference. He’d rather risk leaving his wife than feel belittled or outwitted by (notably) another masculine figure.

And it isn’t even from a malicious or uncaring place either. Orpheus traveled through the Underworld to get to Eurydice, and it was his overflowing devotion and love for her that made Hades decide to let them leave on his condition.

Orpheus is sabotaging himself as well, in yet another example of why the patriarchy harms both sides. He wants to be with Eurydice, but it can’t matter to him, it’s not allowed to matter to him in comparison.

And it’s Eurydice’s entire being on the line. She’s made to walk behind him, an unseen follower at the whims at whatever decision is made.

I encourage you to read more books! Lolita, American Psycho, Picture of Dorian Gray could be some good places to start!

I’m very familiar with all of those stories, and plenty of splatterpunk stories, and my verdict is the same. Not necessarily as a person, but certainly as a narrative concept.

As I said in the post, while his actions aren’t the most overtly violent and aggressive, his final act of going out of his way to ensure someone else’s suffering when it makes no longer makes any difference to him is deeply cruel.

He’s not as outwardly violent as Humbert Humbert, Dorian Gray, or Patrick Bateman, but whereas they get a “reward” for their acts of evil (still not remotely justifiable ofc), Victor acts cruel for the sake of cruelty. There’s no benefit, philosophy, or twisted pleasure, just malice fueling malice.

While he’s not as actively involved in exerting turmoil on others, he’s in a position of privilege where he doesn’t need to get his hands dirty to leave his creation in unimaginable turmoil.

Because yes, his actions do inflict the same turmoil as overt perpetrators, and he KNOWS that, he just gets to disconnect.

Characters like the ones previously listed are in positions where it’s very clear that they’re the perpetrators, that they are actively engaged in the violence they’re committing and the turmoil they put their victims through, but Victor has a position of dissonance where he gets to inflict that and evade accountability while still appearing meek and vulnerable, and that I find especially disturbing.

One thing I wanted to point out that I really like with this interpretation is how it shows how both parties can be victimized and be perpetrators in heteronormative (specifically patriarchal-heteronormative) relationships.

Kris (the player) pressures Noelle into doing their bidding and psychologically devastates her. But Kris isn’t winning either. Kris is put into a binary role that they don’t identify with, and are isolated from their friends outside of Noelle, who they can’t even connect with in an earnest or heartfelt way anymore, and are instead only allowed to coldly coerce into doing something neither of them want to do.

And even though Noelle is put in the position where she’s expected to do everything Kris (the player) tells her to, she still ultimately agrees to be complicit out of convenience under the pretense that Kris will offer her “protection”. She still kills the Darkners and Berdly.

There has been many instances of women being complicit in patriarchal relationships, or use the guise of vulnerability offered by patriarchal concepts to be a perpetrator themselves, such as girlfriends allowing their boyfriends to mistreat their family and friends and mothers allowing their husbands to abuse their children even if they don’t take part in the mistreatment/abuse themselves, or abuse their partners themselves and evade accountability due to others’ perception as a woman.

Of course, even if you’re aware of your capacity to exist outside the role of passivity, it can still seem wrong to do so, sometimes more wrong than the harm you know that’s being caused by staying in it.

Ultimately, neither Kris or Noelle are really in control, and neither are benefitted from what they do. Possibly convenienced in a short term sense, but neither truly fulfilled. Their reward is a meaningless increase in an arbitrary marker of “strength” that serves no one but harms everyone.

It might be easy for some to see the creature, whose acts of violence are more overtly obvious through his killing spree, as the aggressor, but considering their circumstances, their intents, and their responsibilities, Victor’s acts are based in genuine cruelty whereas many of the creature’s acts are based in desperation. The creature presents himself as calm and calculated but it’s clear that he’s not mentally stable, and Victor presents himself as frantic and vulnerable, but he has far more opportunities for deliberation than the creature. Not to say Victor is mentally stable, because no, and it’s not a competition, they’re both deeply damaged individuals, but there’s a clear difference in responsibility as well as circumstance. The mere basis that Victor has experienced a monecum of comfort and the creature hasn’t is enough to show Victor truly has no right to judge the creature’s experiences the way he did. He literally could not comprehend them. No living person could.

Victor had an overall loving family, supportive friends, and a stable life. And I’m not saying that as a criticism, because that’s good, that’s the bare minimum. But I am saying it’s entirely unfair to judge someone who hasn’t experienced any of that by the moral standards of someone who has.

Him bringing the creature to life was not an accident. It was a months long, deliberate process, in which he was neither coerced or even supported in doing so. He neglected to consider what he was actually going to do when his work came to completion, because he only ever considered his pride, not the betterment of others, and certainly not the wellbeing of the creature.

Then of course he abandons the creature and scorns his existence, taking no responsibility for the years of utterly brutal abuse the creature endured from everyone he’s encountered.

Even when he genuinely believes the creature to be in the wrong (and isn’t just blinded by fear and prejudice), he is entirely hypocritical. He does not speak up for Justine because he fears for the consequences it might bring him specifically.

But I think his worst act is his final one: on his death bed, he quite actually entreats Robert Walton to not have sympathy for the creature. His DYING WISH is to once again ensure the creature is alone and suffering. Even the creature himself shows remorse for Victor’s death.

It’s one thing to not have the capacity to sympathize with someone for whatever reason, but it’s a whole other thing to actively try to drive others who COULD have the capacity away from sympathy out of pure spite and unrivaled cruelty. Going out of your way to cause harm to someone or prevent them from receiving comfort when it provides no benefit for you or anyone might be the most evil thing someone can do.

Mike is the spirit

Lucas is the heart

Dustin is the brain

Will is the soul

Mike has always been the one to bring a sort of fantasy element to their endeavors. They all had their nerdy interests but Mike really made it an active element to their lives, reminding them of their roles in their party and being the ‘storyteller’. I was confused when the Duffers said that they considered El/Jane a representation of childhood wonder and fantasy when I always thought that was more Mike. El had powers but it was never mystical for her, it was raw and real, whereas Mike viewed those powers in a fantastical sense because that’s his OWN perception.

Lucas is pretty undoubtedly the heart (sorry Will, you were really down bad to think it was Mike avoidant attachment Wheeler). I really think Mike, Dustin, and Will would struggle to maintain their friendship without him. Mike is, again, avoidant, Dustin already started gravitating toward the older kids, and Will would probably be worried that they’re tired of him or maybe gets tired of them brushing him off. Lucas stays a very true and loyal friend and always brightens the mood. He brings a sort of domestic normalcy and familiar friendliness.

Dustin is very theoretical and driven by logic and personal values rather than social approval. He’s generally a lot more thoughtful in his actions. This outlook mixed with his experiences can make him come off as somewhat jaded but they’re rooted in strong values, one of which is being straightforward in what it takes to do right by his friends.

One of the most interesting things about Alien Stage and specifically MiziSua is that, despite them being the first characters and relationships we’re introduced to, they’re the last we really understand.

The series begins and ends with them, their story being told backwards - from their end to their beginning.

The dynamic we’re presented centers around Mizi seeing Sua as her god, her universe.

Only by the end do we have a more nuanced grasp of what this actually means to Mizi.

We progressively see that Mizi’s description of Sua as her “god” is not so much reverent as it is dehumanizing, characterizing her as a fragile, wispy concept of femininity. A projection of desire, a doll.

This view and treatment of her is cathartic to Mizi, as she’s always been the one being treated in such a way, fawned on in a demeaning manner. She enjoys being the “misogynist” for once, the one who “crushes”.

I’ve noticed a lot of people saying that Sua “enjoyed” Mizi slapping her. This by itself is a pretty misogynistic sentiment. And frankly, even if she had, that would more likely be a lucky coincidence than this reflecting a healthy, negotiated dynamic.

They’re both suffering in that scene. Sua, from genuine envy given how her owner treats her creeping to the surface, or as a way to get a rise out of Mizi so she’s more honest with how she feels, or maybe a mix of both, is uncontent, and her expression seems more shocked/taken aback.

Mizi had lashed out because she felt her experience was invalidated or something she should be grateful for. She enacts the same violence to Sua that the other boy had to her. The boy had slapped her after her reaction broke the illusion of her being an idealized feminine love interest. While Sua’s words were harsh opposed to Mizi’s (Mizi was just giving her honest opinion), Mizi DOES partially view Sua in a similar way.

But Sua isn’t how Mizi presents her. Sua isn’t weak or crushable, she’s actually very strong.

Mizi thinks she “let” Sua die and is responsible for her death, but Sua made her decision, not out of obligation or naïveté, but out of love for Mizi.

Mizi can’t seem to fully grasp being able to make that sort of sacrifice willingly. She views death and sacrificial love as defeat or something that leaves you “crushed”.

So, she thinks she must be responsible, something that both unduly villainizes herself and degrades Sua’s autonomy.

Sua also has a somewhat idealized and demeaning outlook toward Mizi. She’s highly possessive of her and reveres what she sees as Mizi’s innocence. She keeps Mizi in the dark to try and preserve her “purity”.

This ends up enabling Mizi’s unhealthy coping mechanism and leaving her unprepared when they do have things they need to face head on.

This ties back to Sua’s possible plan to rile Mizi up before she slaps her and their intimate scene in one of the comics.

In the scene where Mizi is on top of Sua, fawning over her and saying she’s someone she could “crush”, Sua looks numb.

Not flattered, not frightened, just resigned.

I don’t think, at least in this specific context, Sua particularly enjoys being in this position. It seems more that she loves Mizi and knows her struggles more than Mizi lets on.

Sua doesn’t really know how to comfort Mizi, so she just tries to let her cope in her own ways, even if they don’t truly address her problems. I don’t think this reflects their true dynamic, or at least their dynamic at its healthiest and most genuine.

The moment right after this, where Mizi appears lucid and guilty of how she’s ended up objectifying Sua the same way she was, and leans to embrace her, or the bath scene in Karma seem more earnest. I think these moments are where their potential shines, where they’re earnest and show mutual respect, despite their circumstances presenting them as commodities.

So,