candyskiez:
Anyways to me the ideal jonelias dynamic is like. If it’s not a constant push and pull between them what’s the point. If Jonah isn’t dragging Jon down into becoming more and more of a monster but Jon is making it as difficult and annoying and being a downright pain in the ass as much as possible what’s the point. If they aren’t psychoanalzying each other and responding to each new development with as much curiosity as they do frustration for how much more difficult it makes everything what’s the point. If Jonah doesn’t simultaneously grow deeply fond of his new favorite and also isn’t more than happy to watch him suffer and do nothing, what’s the point. If they aren’t making personal digs at each other mixed with instant connection and sudden almost fondness what’s the point. If Jonah doesn’t sound so impressed by everytime Jon gets worse what’s the point. If Jon isn’t both furious at Jonah for putting him in this situation and so sure he is the Only Person capable of making it better and having this subconscious idolization of him so strong he can’t shake it, what’s the point. If Jon isn’t the only person who doesn’t realize how obsessed they are with each other, what’s the point. If their worlds don’t revolve around each other, even and especially when Jon hates him, what’s the point. If Jon doesn’t hate Jonah and immediately go to him to fix anything before he even considers bringing it up to anyone else, and none of it comes from trust anymore, just being SO sure he knows everything and could fix all of his problems and just chooses not to, what’s the point. If Jonah doesn’t view him as his, both his to use and his to care for, what’s the point. If Jon doesn’t have a desperate jittery obsession with him he’s only recently beginning to notice, what’s the point. If it’s not weird and mutually self destructive what’s the point. If Jonah isn’t being dragged back into shit he hasn’t felt in years, while never becoming a better person- just a little more vulnerable, a little more known (this will destroy them both and they know it), what’s the point. If they aren’t making each other worse and taking everything from each other and orbiting around each other and eventually destroying each other completely, WHAT is the POINT
ante–meridiem:
Since there are now takes that the tma s5 ending was more nuanced than people who dislike it give it credit for I’m just going to say: no, I don’t think Johnny meant to wholly endorse Martin & Basira & co. as uncomplicated good people making an uncomplicatedly moral choice. But. The reason people feel like the horror of it was accidental is because that’s not what the emotional beats focused on. The entire climax was written in such a way that getting a satisfying emotional response depended on being invested in the fate of jonmartin as a couple more than in anything else. If the horror had been deliberate the tone would not have been bittersweet, it would have been overwhelmingly bitter. Having I Do Not See It characters can be a well written flaw, but it doesn’t work if you make it easy for the audience to also go I Do Not See It. And the writing did allow for that - we were shown the positive (for Martin & Basira & co) consequences of the choice, that’s the note the show ended on*, and the only counterbalancing note to it was dissent from a character who was set up for a corruption arc and thus easily written off as only dissenting because he was corrupted by the Eye. I do think Johnny understood the horror of the choice M & B & co were making - but I don’t think he adequately emphasised or portrayed it, not just because of the audience response but because that audience response was shaped by what was shown and what wasn’t and what kind of emotional notes (hopeful) things ended on, and it’s the job of a horror writer to make an audience feel the full weight of horror of things that are meant to be horrifying.
*I refuse to take tmagp into consideration since that wasn’t even planned at the time
i’m an archival worker and have worked in multiple archives, and was just wondering if anyone would be interested in a post about what tma has done wrong and right with archives? i can answer some questions if people have any or just go through what they might have missed or misrepresented from my own experience.
for example–as both an archival worker and an academic, i think the institute could actually be an incredible resource for several disciplines and their scholars. scholars love data. having that many direct reports about people’s reactions to fear and the potential of being able to use them as investigations into the human psyche, especially if they had historical notes trying to validate whether or not they were pranks, could be so helpful for some people.
additionally, the amount of historical statements they have would be great for people doing research into historical folklore and sentiments, regardless of if they’re “real” or not. in general, it’s a stockpile of direct human stories, and if any proper archival practices were in place it could have increased credibility and utility.