October 2025

weirwoodsugar:

i kind of don’t relate to the way other people Hate fictional characters in fandom spaces most of the time because to me a character is first and foremost a vehicle for Making A Story so if the character does Story. then it’s good. i don’t know how to explain what i mean by this. the only time i feel like i dislike a character is when i feel like their presence is not interesting and isn’t doing anything for my experience of Story. you know.

kairos-polaris:

I hate the argument that the reason people engage with female characters less is because they have weaker writing. like be fr. just look at the kpop demon hunters fandom, inventing personalities and backstories for characters who are barely above literal cardboard cut outs when it comes to character writing. when a woman isn’t well written, you won’t think twice of her. and when a man isn’t well written he is “a blank canvas that allows you to be creative”

ashoss:

thinking about the character #mycharacter guys i love the character. charact er has consume dm y thoughts. #mycharacter u gyus are never going to guess who im thinking about #mycharacter character save me save me my character . #mycharacter #ilovemycharacter #yay

pinnipurr:

There’s a personal hell for the character fan and that is the character’s main tag on tumblr dot com

ghostwriterofthemachine:

ghostwriterofthemachine:

not to make posts that are going to get me anon hate, but I am fucking begging people to stop calling fictional characters “minors.” can we please go back to talking about fictional characters as children or teenagers. please.

first of all, “minor” is a word that has a meaning and that meaning isn’t necessarily “children in the general sense.” it is in fact a really specific legal term. it is a status that grants a group of vulnerable people protection by the law. so, as fake people who don’t exist and therefore have zero protections by law, a fictional character cannot be a minor. a fictional character is fictional.

Also, in the sense of those real-world protection laws, sure, it makes sense to group together newborns through 18-year-olds. but doing so is genuinely completely fucking useless when talking about a narrative. “This is a story where the main character is a minor!!!!” you could be talking about Bluey you could be talking about The Catcher In The Rye you could be talking about Yellow Jackets. I don’t know how else to express that story about a 7-year-old, a story about a 12-year-old, and a story about a 17-year-old are are, structurally, completely different things despite all being about “minors,” and how grouping them together makes no sense. it’s reductive at best and destructive at worse. Imagining sitting down and being like “oh yeah, let’s look for a story about minors to recommend to minors” and you hand children’s picture book No, David! to a high school senior.

what bullshit scare tactic language. “yikes, you’re shipping minors” and the ship is two 17-year-olds who the narrative treats as active parts of the story who make their own decisions and have their own desires. when did we all agree to start talking like this and can we stop. just fucking tell me if a character is a child or a teenager.

kairos-polaris:

Jonah is so hard to write because he conceals so much of himself. you can deduce a lot from what he doesn’t say but to what extent is his behaviour an act? does he genuinely like cake or is it an act to fit the image of slightly incompetent, personally impersonal boss? he plays up the evil villain act when confronted but also he has such a tight grasp on his emotions. even in a stressful situation like with Leitner or Martin burning his old statements and personal letters (I do like how obvious was his struggle to collect himself, to not outwardly react, up until he started mind torturing Martin). but we know so little of him and his thoughts and struggles and what made him choose this

in addition he is very… inert (?) in his interactions with others. I have already talked about how he is metaphorically in the Panopticon but there is always a certain distance between Jonah and every other character. the closest person to him is, of course, Jon. and even he is kept at arm’s length (he dismisses Jon in mag 92 and is not exactly responsive to Jon’s show of vulnerability despite him opening up previously to his past a way to put them on the same level which is apart from others)

imagine you are so boring your only character trait is smoking weed. at this point you need a 200 year old to bodyhop into you

thetoadking1:

What we Know about Jonah Magnus (1816-1867)

So I decided to compile everything we know about Jonah Magnus’ backstory. My sources are a blend of cannon and historical sources, given that two of his letter writing associates are actual historical architects and Millbank prison is a real place. I will try to stay away from any unfounded headcannons (Though if you’ve read my fic about Jonah in this time period you may see where I drew events from)

I shall list chronologically first what we know from cannon and then what we know from Smirke and Millbank’s historical records.

In 1816 we know he has made an association (left vague- the relationship is clearly pleasant but the nature is unclear) with a German man named Albrecht von Closen. At this point Jonah has developed a “fascination for the macabre and strange” Closen tells Jonah of the tomb full of books and the eyeless (ghost?) of Würtemburg. At this point we know Jonah Magnus is likely an adult, putting his birthday at some point prior to 1798.

In 1818, Jonah Magnus establishes the Magnus Institute. It is unclear if he serves the Eye yet at this time.

In 1824 Jonah Magnus let Barnabas Bennett succumb to the Lonely. (Whether or not you subscribe to the “they were dating” is up to you, I personally don’t). By this point we know Jonah has (is about to) begin serving the Eye. We also know that he knows Mordechai Lukas and is on “good terms” with him.

On the subject of Lukas, we know that it is Likely that Smirke introduced Jonah to “Lukas, Scott, and the others”. It is possible that he brought Lukas to Smirke but less likely than not due to location and class concerns.

Smirke’s gatherings of people he brought into his confidence took place decades before Jonah killed him as evidenced from his letter “but I feel I must break the silence that has characterized our acquaintance for these past few decades” and his reluctance to bring anyone else into his confidence since. His gatherings contained at least Lukas, Scott, and two other people in addition to Magnus. All of them fell to one power or another.

In 1831 Fanshawe writes to Jonah, informing him of Closen’s death. Closen at this point was almost certainly a follower of the Eye, but did not wish to be. We also discover Jonah, at some point, stole the books from Closen, through a scheme involving his favorite bookbinder, resulting in Closen’s death.

We also get confirmation in this statement that Millbank is up and running and needs a doctor.

In 1841 we learn that George Gilbert Scott has begun serving the buried. And that Jonah Magnus made yet another associate involved in architecture, Sampson Kempthorne.

Now this point is purely speculation and an interpretation from different statements. But in 1853 Simon Fairchild attempted a ritual that failed. Jonah may have played a role in its failure. He states in his statement “At first, I attempted prevention, but the cause seemed hopeless”. Simon’s ritual failed because of a hunter but Jonah Magnus is not exactly someone who likes to get his hands dirty.

In 1867 Jonah Magnus kills Robert Smirke through some ritual of the Eye that has everyone stare at him.

The exact date of the first Watchers Crown is unknown but we know it failed. Sometime after that he switched bodies (likely using some knowledge from Würtemburg’s library given his lack of eyes)


Historically we know that Smirke (1 October 1780 – 18 April 1867) was a well connected Tory darling with a fondness for Greek architecture. He was well known for his influence on greek revival architecture though he dabbled in other styles as well. He had a wife named Laura whom he married cerca 1819 and a daughter, also named Laura. He was also described as able to please “men whom it was proverbially impossible to please”. I could spend a very long time listing all of his works.

Millbank is a complicated matter historically- Smirke didn’t really do that much with it, just some remodeling. However this is analyzing the podcast not history.

What we do know about Jonah in this time period was that he was “getting older, and mortality began to weigh more heavily on my mind. How much in this world is done because we fear death, the last and greatest terror?” We also know the reason for his current ritual were power and immortality so clearly he has some significant fear of the End.

However, the fact of the matter remains that this is the podcast’s titular villain. And all we know about him are a handful of letters and some scraps of information. Why do we have more statements devoted to the Distortion than we do about Jonah Magnus? Or Gerry? (No diss to either character). But he’s mentioned as many times as Jared Hopworth and is a significantly more important character to the narrative.

doctor-doodleman:

I should lock the fuck in *half an hour passes* I should lock the fuck in *half an hour passes* I should lock the fuck in *half an hour passes* I should-

all of my clip studio settings got messed up. all of my tools are deleted n cameron drawing just died cmoon💔

mummer:

“not unkindly” has to be one of the ultimate adverbs ever. Implies so much

mojo-chojoo:

this almost looks like hannibal fanart but its tma lmao

zonatcannibalism:

“middle aged” that man is 30.

lovergirlrobyn:

Me saying ‘I need to lock in’ every 5 minutes without ever actually locking in ever

thankstothe:

big if true

okthatsgreat:

do you ever find yourself in an elevator or a bus or a train car with a bunch of people and think to yourself damn we’d make a compelling ensemble company for a black box theatre play or a novella of some kind should something go wrong here

libertineangel:

Another fascinating moral dilemma from the philosophers of r/punk

agnesandhilda:

“he’s like a father!” said in the sense that he enacts patriarchal violence