Does the prophet see the future or does he see a line of weakness, a fault or cleavage that he may shatter with words or decisions as a diamond-cutter shatters his gem
It is not enough to know everything, you must WANT to live.
What do you do when you have the power of God but were taught to be a slave? Jadis looked beyond the wheel searching for a higher power to serve. Since there is none, she simply gave up. She never had the will to make a difference…
So I guess her omniscience come from an infinite multitude of herself observing/existing in all moments all at once, or so my highly caffeinated mind tells me.
Personally I don’t trust its judgement
Nah, she said it already: She’s omniscient because she has percieved the ‘shape’ of reality, the dimension time carves and that we experience only as the present.
This sucks for her, because by knowing everything, every little thing, there is no such thing as experience for her. There is no way to define what is ‘her’ versus ‘not-her’. She doesn’t exist, not as a person, at least.
And she must always be aware of these moments of shame, pain and hurt. Always. Always. Always.
“I’m making a grand gesture: take your eye back! …But I think I’ll hold on to these prosthetics. I mean, let’s be realistic; this place is not disabled-friendly.”
I wonder if maybe this was Jadis’s plan all along, give her space to rest and find her resolve again, and now that she has, she can fight Jagganoth. Jadis did just smile a little.
She can HAVE plans, she just can’t adjust them according to the future. Everything to her is set in stone and pre-determined. But I’m guessing it’s like Dr Manhattan; she reacts to things in the present as if they’re learning it for the first time, because she experiences all time all at once instead of moment to moment like normal people do.
I’d argue that anything that appears to be planning on her part is no more than an illusion. A chess-playing AI does not plan its moves ahead of time, it simply calculates all possible moves and makes one of them according to its difficulty settings. Similarly, fate’s perfect puppet does not plan; she simply knows what she will do and does it. She’s following a script.
It seems like not having to decide what to do leaves her human mind ample opportunity to dwell on shit though.
I disagree. Her lack of free will is a byproduct not of ability. It is the result of perfect knowledge of herself and her environment. She knows what she would choose to do in any situation and she knows all situations that will come. Her path is perfectly mapped. Because she knows exactly what she wants and how to get it. She has no more choices to make.
That isn’t how Chess AI works. They can’t simulate all moves. Too complex. It actually does plan moves ahead of time according to very complex rules.
And here, you’re also wrong about her ability to plan. She isn’t incapable of planning, she just already came up with the plan at the instant she became the bearer of the shape. At that moment, she made all of her future decisions, simultaneously and irrevocably. You can’t interpret it as her just playing a script, because then the information of that script just comes from nothing.
The early ones tried to look at all of the moves, but they were limited in that ability, as we demanded that they play on a human’s clock. We have found ways to make them greater than ourselves, using rules that we do not know how to communicate back down to ourselves, but for someone who is unbound from time there is no need to take these shortcuts in the sake of solving problems quickly. This naive concept of what the robot does is far more synchronized with the flattened experience of this individual, for lacking the illusion, they are but an automaton, going from step to step, according to their program.
Except that modern AIs are run on TPUs or GPUs so that they can be parallelized. Many threads running at the same time, exploring each possible outcome and selecting the best plan from every possible plan.
The scary part is how we are teaching them to use probability and psychology to determine which plan are likely to surprise an opponent, and factor that into the scoring.
Given that future knowledge can’t change anything, what does that leave for the possibility of backward time-travel? Pro: no grandfather paradox. Con: presumably if one goes back one always went back and it changes (achieves) nothing.
There is no “plan” in omniscience, merely an observance of what is. Jadis can ride the wave, perhaps better than others, but she is just as much at its mercy as everyone else is.
Well, “cold relationship” seems a little bit of understatement; seems no wonder that Jadis killed the father who treated her like that. And I really love the flashback not to be _told_ thuis time, but actually _seen_, in some form. Quite eerily, perfect job, as always. (Though I broke my eyes a little reading small texts on the second page, frame 4)
One has always understood that her father was also her mentor, and that she inherited/just took the key when she murdered him; afraid one cannot remember just whereabouts that was written.
Well I would gladly kill any of the characters who is left alive aside of Alisson if that would bring Cio back to her, so knowing that she won’t be brought back. Instead author will use the usual Allisson will move on and end with Zaid or someone else to live her life to that destined end scenario.
Shame it wasn’t Zaid who was killed for Allisson character development awakening cause then I wouldn’t give a finger about it.
But maybe author always planned this story that way with the infamous bury your gay/bi characters trope.
From the TVTropes page of the trope you invoked: “This trope is the presentation of deaths of LGBT characters where these characters are nominally able to be viewed as more expendable than their heterosexual counterparts.”
Killing a loved one for character change (and story impact) is fairly common, regardless of sexuality. My memory may have failed me, but fairly sure Allison and Cio were the only meaningful romantic couple in the story so far… which would make them the only valid target of such an event regardless of sexuality. If “fail to save loved one even as they call for help” was a plot point of the absolute breaking that Allison went through, then Cio becomes the natural target of that plot point, because they’re the loved one. If it had been White Chain who died at that point, would it have hit even half as hard? You yourself said you would not care if it was Zaid… which would his make his death have far less impact on you and other readers, yes?
Turns out, dating the main protagonist is bad for one’s lifespan. Who knew?
Everyone. Everyone knew. Especially Cio the Fanfiction Writer. Why do you think she was so desperate to avoid the oncoming fight? She knew who she was in the story. I highly suspect Cio was very, very meta-aware. But she did it anyhow.
If your comment that Cio is the only option is an attempt at countering any invocation of the bury your gays/women in refrigerators trope it doesn’t work. Because those critiques aren’t leveled at individual works, they’re critiques of entire media genre’s. The pattern is so large that it doesn’t matter whether specific instances have good excuses or not, all that matters is that they contribute to the pattern.
But I’m sure Abbadon is fully aware of this and I doubt that he’ll be contributing to it. I don’t think that he drew so much attention to Cio’s immortality and previous resurrection for no reason.
What you’re implying is that Abbadon should diminish his work because other works mishandle their characters.
Cio was a great and loved character. Whether she dies or not doesn’t have an impact of one’s appreciation of the character unless your are ideologically possessed.
Cio was present for most of the story and nothing points to Zaid and Allison being romantic. In fact, them entering into a romantic relationship would diminish their theme of coming back even if it means nothing in the end. They will stay close, as comrades in arms are, but I doubt it’s going to be more.
If you’re too attached to your ideology to appreciate a good story (and maybe you dislike only that part, what do I know?) That’s on you, not on Abbadon.
If you’re referring to Zaid and Allison reuniting, it was the goal, it just was recognized somewhere along the way that it wasn’t anymore about pursuing each other romantically. I could hunt down the page, but I’m pretty sure they’re make clear that romance between them doesn’t matter, it’s the fact they both share a similar experience no one else could ever truly appreciate.
Allison just knew it was the right thing to do. Or perhaps it was the only thing to do.
Diminish is a strong term, especially since Cio’s mask is basically Chekovs gun at this point. Her backstory practically loaded it and now we’re all waiting on Alison to pull the trigger.
But yes, not taking part in stereotype makes the stories you tell more predictable by omission. It’s up to the reader to decide whether that’s worse, but personally I’ve seen plenty of stories use predictability to their advantage.
I strongly believe making narrative decisions based on what ideologues consider “stereotypical targets” or “acceptable tropes” is the most direct way to ruin your art. It will make the hand of the author that much visible by bending the narrative around your political opinion. The only things that should matter is respecting the theme of your story, and the integrity of your characters and if your universe. Your beliefs should be an undercurrent, bit a divine hand setting the stage.
Is the field of art not diminished as much by artists unconsciously bending to external forces as it is by consciously choosing to do something different?
“choosing to do something different” is a very euphemistic to say “change your story because you believe your ideology is more important than your narrative’s ntegrity”.
Anytime an artist consciously change it’s art to conform to an ideology, that piece of art becomes propaganda. It doesn’t mean a piece of art can’t express a belief or a value, but that should come naturally from the writer, not as a set of rules and guidelines made by ideologues.
OK let met step in and disabuse you of one thing right now. All art is inherently personal, the personal is always political and as a result all art it political. You’re acting like there is some kind of universal neutral space where art comes from, but that isn’t true. Art comes from people making choices, and those choices are influenced by their personal feelings and opinions and those choices will in turn influence the audience’s feelings and opinions.
This idea that art should only come from the creator “naturally” or else it’s propaganda is itself an ideology you want art to conform to. You’re no different from anyone else in this discussion.
And nobody here has said that Abbadon should write anything he doesn’t want. They’ve only given their opinions on what they think might happen.
I do know nobody said Abbadon should write something else, I reacted to the statement “it’s a shame Zaid didn’t get killed” (in which case his return would be impossible) and the fact that the bury your gay trope was brought up in, of course, a negative light, suggesting it should be avoided (I kind of agree if it’s a token diversity character that is then killed to get rid of, which would be far from the case here even if Cio couldn’t come back). I am taking a hard stance on a seemingly mild topic, I can see that, I just don’t want to be vague about my opinion on this matter.
If your opinion is followed to its end conclusion, there is absolutely no difference between willingly conforming to censure and putting the integrity of your narrative above all else.
Yes, considering “bury your gay” trope as something to avoid regardless of your narrative is seemingly a benign form of censorship, but I still view it as censorship and I will not make even the tiniest of concessions.
Again, I do recognize it’s a kind of very hard stance on a mild topic, I just don’t want to beat around the bush about what I believe. I don’t really believe there is any agreement to be had here, but I find discussions like these useful for refining arguments
I read that first part and I can’t stand the way people frame shit these days. They’re not “more expendable”. Certain types of characters die in fiction because they hurt more to lose, not because “they’re expendable”. That’s the entire point. I don’t get why people can read media and ever say things like that unless they’re short-sighted, robotic people that don’t understand why we write stories the way we do.
Not robots, propagandists. They don’t see stories as a medium to explore both humanity and its boundaries, but as tools of propaganda, that shape the minds of reader. In their minds, every character and narrative beat is there to serve their message, or at least should be. In this particular case, the death of Cio is bad not because it doesn’t belong in the story, creates a plot hole or anything, but because it is seen as diminishing queer presence in media.
That philosophy leads to the subjugation of art to the political and for that alone should be reviled.
A devil is naught but masked and named chaos. The chaos is still there, will always be there. Repair the mask and give a name, and she will return, just as Yabalchoath was brought back after her destruction.
Was Jadis’ father saying she would have fit her role better if she had been a son, or that being a son would have suited her character better? Sounds a bit like the land the tales of the Silver Prince were set in, if it’s the latter.
There she is! How I’ve missed her. The Allison who would fight all creation just to say fuck you to the creator, or anyone who would tell her what she can and can’t do.
She’s never been told about the continuous cutting motion, but I think she’s figuring it out for herself.
It was nice to see her in a state of quiet relaxation. She deserved some Allison time after all the shit shes been through. I am also happy to see her no more bullshit attitude back however!!!
“Yet mark his perfect self-contentment, and hence learn this lesson, that to be self-contented is to be vile and ignorant, and that to aspire is better than to be blindly and impotently happy.”
-The Sphere, Flatland
42 Fragments the Universe Beyond All Reintegration
It is the sheep who feed and clothe you. Do you think that you will eat the grass? Weave it into a coat to keep you warm in the snow? Tend to your herd of apex predators?
Are we not going to talk about Allison’s Rule of Cool Cig and Lighter materialization? Where’d she get ’em? Did Jadis just let her smoke this whole time?
She had them when she was chilling on the swing. Jadis didn’t really prevent her from doing anything, except really thinking critically about her life. That’s kind of Jadis’ deal.
What is it with null point, “open the door” and Janus, god of doors, that was crammed into one page through illusions of omniscient character? Is that foreshadowing I see here?
Oi, Janus is an asshole
i guess you could say Janus is an Anus.
*badum tss*
Who’s Hugh?
No, Who’s on first.
Whooooooooo are you?
Uh! Uh!
Uh! Uh!
This went so many levels deep I have no idea where the joke went.
Janus is a jerk though.
Third base
I’ll wager they have a relative named “Yu”.
I’m not sure what’s going on with Jadis here but it looks like it sucks, real bad.
Jadis has the ability to perceive data, but not process it. So, she’s constantly perceiving her personal flaws and traumas, unable to process them.
This might genuinely be it! Most of what I’m wondering is how much of what we’re seeing is metaphor vs what Allison can literally see.
A God being scolded by their parent.
Maybe all the crap is just her way of giving Alison a good hard smack. It’s hard to un-chop a tree.
Jadis is the Kwisatz Haderach
Does the prophet see the future or does he see a line of weakness, a fault or cleavage that he may shatter with words or decisions as a diamond-cutter shatters his gem
In this situation I think it is definitely cleavage
Ha!
It is not enough to know everything, you must WANT to live.
What do you do when you have the power of God but were taught to be a slave? Jadis looked beyond the wheel searching for a higher power to serve. Since there is none, she simply gave up. She never had the will to make a difference…
ah, a resolve check.
good lens.
pocketing it
So I guess her omniscience come from an infinite multitude of herself observing/existing in all moments all at once, or so my highly caffeinated mind tells me.
Personally I don’t trust its judgement
She seems much calmer than Jobo Tupacki.
Nah, she said it already: She’s omniscient because she has percieved the ‘shape’ of reality, the dimension time carves and that we experience only as the present.
This sucks for her, because by knowing everything, every little thing, there is no such thing as experience for her. There is no way to define what is ‘her’ versus ‘not-her’. She doesn’t exist, not as a person, at least.
And she must always be aware of these moments of shame, pain and hurt. Always. Always. Always.
“I’m making a grand gesture: take your eye back! …But I think I’ll hold on to these prosthetics. I mean, let’s be realistic; this place is not disabled-friendly.”
Blood loss is but an inconvenience to Royalty, but it’s still kind of annoying
i imagine there’s a symbolic meaning to seeing with your own eye. metaphor and intent matter in a story.
“Well, I need the arm, but depth perception will definitely not be useful in any situation I can possibly foresee!”
Two hands are useful when making tea. Eyes are useless for seeing the truth.
Immaculate film god damn
Sacrificing an eye in order to gain Wisdom is a thing in mythological tales.
I wonder if maybe this was Jadis’s plan all along, give her space to rest and find her resolve again, and now that she has, she can fight Jagganoth. Jadis did just smile a little.
i mean she is omniscient right? she knows everything, by defenition.
She has seen the shape of creation, but is seeing the same as knowing? Is observation the same as comprehension?
Not quite.
Remember what she said when she was asked why she saved Alison?
“It’s what I do”.
Not that she calculated 14 million possibilities and this one was the one which wins.
Interesting. If she’s perceived the shape of creation, and its shape was this outcome, she was powerless to take any other actions.
I’m sure that was the “plan” to whatever extent Jadis can “have” “plans”
She can HAVE plans, she just can’t adjust them according to the future. Everything to her is set in stone and pre-determined. But I’m guessing it’s like Dr Manhattan; she reacts to things in the present as if they’re learning it for the first time, because she experiences all time all at once instead of moment to moment like normal people do.
Everything, everywhere, all at once?
😄
I’d argue that anything that appears to be planning on her part is no more than an illusion. A chess-playing AI does not plan its moves ahead of time, it simply calculates all possible moves and makes one of them according to its difficulty settings. Similarly, fate’s perfect puppet does not plan; she simply knows what she will do and does it. She’s following a script.
It seems like not having to decide what to do leaves her human mind ample opportunity to dwell on shit though.
I disagree. Her lack of free will is a byproduct not of ability. It is the result of perfect knowledge of herself and her environment. She knows what she would choose to do in any situation and she knows all situations that will come. Her path is perfectly mapped. Because she knows exactly what she wants and how to get it. She has no more choices to make.
If she were only an idiot she would choose anyway
That isn’t how Chess AI works. They can’t simulate all moves. Too complex. It actually does plan moves ahead of time according to very complex rules.
And here, you’re also wrong about her ability to plan. She isn’t incapable of planning, she just already came up with the plan at the instant she became the bearer of the shape. At that moment, she made all of her future decisions, simultaneously and irrevocably. You can’t interpret it as her just playing a script, because then the information of that script just comes from nothing.
The early ones tried to look at all of the moves, but they were limited in that ability, as we demanded that they play on a human’s clock. We have found ways to make them greater than ourselves, using rules that we do not know how to communicate back down to ourselves, but for someone who is unbound from time there is no need to take these shortcuts in the sake of solving problems quickly. This naive concept of what the robot does is far more synchronized with the flattened experience of this individual, for lacking the illusion, they are but an automaton, going from step to step, according to their program.
Except that modern AIs are run on TPUs or GPUs so that they can be parallelized. Many threads running at the same time, exploring each possible outcome and selecting the best plan from every possible plan.
The scary part is how we are teaching them to use probability and psychology to determine which plan are likely to surprise an opponent, and factor that into the scoring.
As a programmer, I’m telling you that isn’t how it works. Chess is simply too complicated to be able to explore every possibility.
Like the Simurgh in Worm. Powerful future sight, but is incapable of perceiving the present.
Nicely summarised.
Given that future knowledge can’t change anything, what does that leave for the possibility of backward time-travel? Pro: no grandfather paradox. Con: presumably if one goes back one always went back and it changes (achieves) nothing.
There is no “plan” in omniscience, merely an observance of what is. Jadis can ride the wave, perhaps better than others, but she is just as much at its mercy as everyone else is.
Is this what the kids call “a work”?
Pockets with pants are indeed sorcery.
I don´t get it.
Alison realized the illusion, but I don´t understand what is going on.
Well, “cold relationship” seems a little bit of understatement; seems no wonder that Jadis killed the father who treated her like that. And I really love the flashback not to be _told_ thuis time, but actually _seen_, in some form. Quite eerily, perfect job, as always. (Though I broke my eyes a little reading small texts on the second page, frame 4)
Wasn’t intended as a reply to Onor at all; some sort of glitch, I guess.
some sort of glitch and yet a worthy response.
Understanding is rarely necessary and often entirely undesirable. Ignorance however, is bliss.
That’s what the ignorant think
Huh. So this is how Jadis obtained her key: she inherited it. Who knows whether the poor girl even *wanted* power to begin with.
One has always understood that her father was also her mentor, and that she inherited/just took the key when she murdered him; afraid one cannot remember just whereabouts that was written.
Seems we have been revealed to the current bearer of the word mind. Since we see Jadis’ introduction page says former bearer of the word mind.
Normally I’m not a fan of reversing deaths, but if we can use that shard of Cio to bring her back I’ll look the other way this time.
Well I would gladly kill any of the characters who is left alive aside of Alisson if that would bring Cio back to her, so knowing that she won’t be brought back. Instead author will use the usual Allisson will move on and end with Zaid or someone else to live her life to that destined end scenario.
Shame it wasn’t Zaid who was killed for Allisson character development awakening cause then I wouldn’t give a finger about it.
But maybe author always planned this story that way with the infamous bury your gay/bi characters trope.
From the TVTropes page of the trope you invoked: “This trope is the presentation of deaths of LGBT characters where these characters are nominally able to be viewed as more expendable than their heterosexual counterparts.”
Killing a loved one for character change (and story impact) is fairly common, regardless of sexuality. My memory may have failed me, but fairly sure Allison and Cio were the only meaningful romantic couple in the story so far… which would make them the only valid target of such an event regardless of sexuality. If “fail to save loved one even as they call for help” was a plot point of the absolute breaking that Allison went through, then Cio becomes the natural target of that plot point, because they’re the loved one. If it had been White Chain who died at that point, would it have hit even half as hard? You yourself said you would not care if it was Zaid… which would his make his death have far less impact on you and other readers, yes?
Turns out, dating the main protagonist is bad for one’s lifespan. Who knew?
Everyone. Everyone knew. Especially Cio the Fanfiction Writer. Why do you think she was so desperate to avoid the oncoming fight? She knew who she was in the story. I highly suspect Cio was very, very meta-aware. But she did it anyhow.
If your comment that Cio is the only option is an attempt at countering any invocation of the bury your gays/women in refrigerators trope it doesn’t work. Because those critiques aren’t leveled at individual works, they’re critiques of entire media genre’s. The pattern is so large that it doesn’t matter whether specific instances have good excuses or not, all that matters is that they contribute to the pattern.
But I’m sure Abbadon is fully aware of this and I doubt that he’ll be contributing to it. I don’t think that he drew so much attention to Cio’s immortality and previous resurrection for no reason.
What you’re implying is that Abbadon should diminish his work because other works mishandle their characters.
Cio was a great and loved character. Whether she dies or not doesn’t have an impact of one’s appreciation of the character unless your are ideologically possessed.
Cio was present for most of the story and nothing points to Zaid and Allison being romantic. In fact, them entering into a romantic relationship would diminish their theme of coming back even if it means nothing in the end. They will stay close, as comrades in arms are, but I doubt it’s going to be more.
If you’re too attached to your ideology to appreciate a good story (and maybe you dislike only that part, what do I know?) That’s on you, not on Abbadon.
@Nexine part of my commentary is to the commenter above (Kerry) sorry for that.
Was this not the entire initial plot point of it all? That’s sure what it looked like. You can’t say that like it was never a thing.
If you’re referring to Zaid and Allison reuniting, it was the goal, it just was recognized somewhere along the way that it wasn’t anymore about pursuing each other romantically. I could hunt down the page, but I’m pretty sure they’re make clear that romance between them doesn’t matter, it’s the fact they both share a similar experience no one else could ever truly appreciate.
Allison just knew it was the right thing to do. Or perhaps it was the only thing to do.
Diminish is a strong term, especially since Cio’s mask is basically Chekovs gun at this point. Her backstory practically loaded it and now we’re all waiting on Alison to pull the trigger.
But yes, not taking part in stereotype makes the stories you tell more predictable by omission. It’s up to the reader to decide whether that’s worse, but personally I’ve seen plenty of stories use predictability to their advantage.
I strongly believe making narrative decisions based on what ideologues consider “stereotypical targets” or “acceptable tropes” is the most direct way to ruin your art. It will make the hand of the author that much visible by bending the narrative around your political opinion. The only things that should matter is respecting the theme of your story, and the integrity of your characters and if your universe. Your beliefs should be an undercurrent, bit a divine hand setting the stage.
Is the field of art not diminished as much by artists unconsciously bending to external forces as it is by consciously choosing to do something different?
“choosing to do something different” is a very euphemistic to say “change your story because you believe your ideology is more important than your narrative’s ntegrity”.
Anytime an artist consciously change it’s art to conform to an ideology, that piece of art becomes propaganda. It doesn’t mean a piece of art can’t express a belief or a value, but that should come naturally from the writer, not as a set of rules and guidelines made by ideologues.
OK let met step in and disabuse you of one thing right now. All art is inherently personal, the personal is always political and as a result all art it political. You’re acting like there is some kind of universal neutral space where art comes from, but that isn’t true. Art comes from people making choices, and those choices are influenced by their personal feelings and opinions and those choices will in turn influence the audience’s feelings and opinions.
This idea that art should only come from the creator “naturally” or else it’s propaganda is itself an ideology you want art to conform to. You’re no different from anyone else in this discussion.
And nobody here has said that Abbadon should write anything he doesn’t want. They’ve only given their opinions on what they think might happen.
I do know nobody said Abbadon should write something else, I reacted to the statement “it’s a shame Zaid didn’t get killed” (in which case his return would be impossible) and the fact that the bury your gay trope was brought up in, of course, a negative light, suggesting it should be avoided (I kind of agree if it’s a token diversity character that is then killed to get rid of, which would be far from the case here even if Cio couldn’t come back). I am taking a hard stance on a seemingly mild topic, I can see that, I just don’t want to be vague about my opinion on this matter.
If your opinion is followed to its end conclusion, there is absolutely no difference between willingly conforming to censure and putting the integrity of your narrative above all else.
Yes, considering “bury your gay” trope as something to avoid regardless of your narrative is seemingly a benign form of censorship, but I still view it as censorship and I will not make even the tiniest of concessions.
Again, I do recognize it’s a kind of very hard stance on a mild topic, I just don’t want to beat around the bush about what I believe. I don’t really believe there is any agreement to be had here, but I find discussions like these useful for refining arguments
I read that first part and I can’t stand the way people frame shit these days. They’re not “more expendable”. Certain types of characters die in fiction because they hurt more to lose, not because “they’re expendable”. That’s the entire point. I don’t get why people can read media and ever say things like that unless they’re short-sighted, robotic people that don’t understand why we write stories the way we do.
Not robots, propagandists. They don’t see stories as a medium to explore both humanity and its boundaries, but as tools of propaganda, that shape the minds of reader. In their minds, every character and narrative beat is there to serve their message, or at least should be. In this particular case, the death of Cio is bad not because it doesn’t belong in the story, creates a plot hole or anything, but because it is seen as diminishing queer presence in media.
That philosophy leads to the subjugation of art to the political and for that alone should be reviled.
A devil is naught but masked and named chaos. The chaos is still there, will always be there. Repair the mask and give a name, and she will return, just as Yabalchoath was brought back after her destruction.
Was Jadis’ father saying she would have fit her role better if she had been a son, or that being a son would have suited her character better? Sounds a bit like the land the tales of the Silver Prince were set in, if it’s the latter.
I imagine his wife was the more skilled in esoterica, a son is better suited for brute work.
Fuckin, get it kiddo
Parents am I right?
Except whe you are wrong.
There she is! How I’ve missed her. The Allison who would fight all creation just to say fuck you to the creator, or anyone who would tell her what she can and can’t do.
She’s never been told about the continuous cutting motion, but I think she’s figuring it out for herself.
It was nice to see her in a state of quiet relaxation. She deserved some Allison time after all the shit shes been through. I am also happy to see her no more bullshit attitude back however!!!
“Yet mark his perfect self-contentment, and hence learn this lesson, that to be self-contented is to be vile and ignorant, and that to aspire is better than to be blindly and impotently happy.”
-The Sphere, Flatland
Perhaps the infinity that Allison breaks in this book is Jadis’ infinite mind”?
Now THAT would be a cool take on the title!
Girlboss Allison is BACK.
Gatekeep Gaslight Godhead
No one becomes a god through joy.
Is Janus related to the god of the Panopticon?
Can’t read text in pics while in the phone
…Reach Heaven Through Violence, Girl.
*gasp* Janus, the god doors. Who knows what brilliant mayhem they’ll unintentionally bring to this situation.
*god of doors, but I suppose people can be doors too. If indeed they is a person
Who is this fool who berates and insults the tending of livestock?
It is the sheep who feed and clothe you. Do you think that you will eat the grass? Weave it into a coat to keep you warm in the snow? Tend to your herd of apex predators?
Are we not going to talk about Allison’s Rule of Cool Cig and Lighter materialization? Where’d she get ’em? Did Jadis just let her smoke this whole time?
She had them when she was chilling on the swing. Jadis didn’t really prevent her from doing anything, except really thinking critically about her life. That’s kind of Jadis’ deal.
Not saying she did, but if she can use magic to create a plum, she can conjure up some cigs.
she does still have the key of keys in her head. she can do whatever she wants, she just hasn’t learned to do it yet.
Pockets. Pockets are very useful pieces of sorcery.
What is it with null point, “open the door” and Janus, god of doors, that was crammed into one page through illusions of omniscient character? Is that foreshadowing I see here?
were*
oh shit! It’s the power lipstick!