apollo

VAL twitch streamer au art post because i'm unreasonably proud of this

still trying to cope with last ep

do you really think she's going to forgive you after this?

HMMMMMMM

i’m obsessed with the mum from ponyo. driving single lane on a cliff edge? drift those turns in your nissan cube. husband has to work an extra shift? tell him to fuck off in morse code. pet fish turned into a child on your driveway? adopt her. town drowned in a tsunami? leave your 5 year old in charge, he’s the man of the house now

i'm literally always saying this

In honour of @thesiltverses calling Faulkner “Dick Faulkner the rat bastard” it felt appropriate to make THE leitner rant but about Faulkner:)

new Silt Verses ep was so incredibly good and there's so much to talk about but I keep coming back to Sibling Rane.

I think Jon and Muna do a great job of making even minor characters feel distinctive and resonant with the main cast, and the disciples of the various faiths are one of the places this shows most strongly. The disciples of the Trawlerman are the people Faulkner has made himself responsible for and as early as Chapter 22 a thread develops that many of them are naïve, and young, and almost comedically earnest.

And yet, at the same time, these 'children' are part of-- at the forefront of, even-- Faulkner's acquistion of power within the Parish. In the same episode, Thurrocks accurately articulates both the depth of the faith they have in him and the result to which it is already leading.

So. Young members of the faith as (at least superficially) earnestly artless and yet having a dangerously fervent power of belief. Rane, when we meet them in Chapter 30, seems like another genuine and ardent neophyte.

They're eager and conscientious and I half expected them (like Jasp) to last less than two episodes. But they become a quiet background voice to Faulkner's downward spiral. They take on administrative tasks, attending to Roemont when he visits the Gulch, and-- increasingly-- becoming an emotional and social anchor for Faulkner as he slides into depression.

Rane doesn't seem to be a born diplomat. Earnest. Naïve. Clumsy. But I think that ambiguity the stage directions draw out is interesting. Is Rane really so ingenuous? Are they 'pretend[ing]'? They've taken on so much responsibility for the faith, smoothing over awkwardnesses, arranging things in the background, organising transport and supplies while Faulkner broods. Is it earnest? Pragmatic? Both?

I think it's very easy to read Rane as having unreciprocated romantic feelings towards Faulkner. I certainly do. Their devotion shades into excess, and in the moments where the pair seem to engage almost as equals, like the car ride in Chapter 38, there's this real sense of simultaneous shared joy and an underlying desire on Rane's part to 'get Faulkner's attention' and prove themself worthy of it. To impress him.

This Chapter sees Faulkner experience a dark night of the soul. He's already depressed to the point of suicidal ideation, detached from his surroundings and utterly anhedonic. He's clearly not equipped to acknowledge or accept love from others, romantic or platonic. This episode is about caring for someone who is fundamentally disconnected from you, who will never see things the way you do but must be loved and kept safe nonetheless. It's also where Rane saves Faulkner's life.

Rane, acting as caretaker, quietly reverses the established power dynamic of their relationship. Faulkner's attempted drowning directly parallels his childhood experience of conversion as recounted in Series 1. He becomes the lost, frightened child in their dynamic.

This speech obviously underlines Faulkner's insecurities, his youth, and the validity of his prophetic status as "chosen". We know he's engineered and manipulated his own glorification.

But it also draws attention to how Rane acts as a parallel to Faulkner. Faulkner, when we first meet him, seems precisely this enthusiastic if inept younger disciple. 'Was I like that?' he asks himself about Thurrocks. Maybe he was once. Because we see the same kind of darkness surface in Rane. As Faulkner clearly no longer cares if he lives or dies, they take on more and more of the unspoken burden of leadership.

They 'stage-manage'. They become the structural surety at the heart of the myth of Faulkner, putting in his hard work, handing him his kelp wreath, shoring up his crumbling facade. They recognise the gap between what he is and what his people want him to be, what they need him to be.

'It will be different when it's written'. Did Faulkner trip, or was he shoved? Does it even matter? We don't truly know whether Rane has taken the wheel as the endgoal of some Machiavellian scheme, or as a decision of pure pragmatism motivated by their faithful zeal, or out of desperate, genuine, self-deluding care for Faulkner, but is it important?

Faulkner isn’t just made up of Faulkner any more. Rane is being quietly assimilated into his legend. 'When it's written', I doubt they'll be much more than a footnote in his story. But I would also dispute whether High Prophet Faulkner isn't substantially a creation of unnoticed, unappreciated Sibling Rane.

Hello, beloved audience members. Please. Come in. Sit down.

It’s time I confronted a very serious matter. A persistent, mocking question that snaps at my heels, haunts my every waking move, and which has done so day and night for the past three years. I have tried to address it before, and I have failed.

I cannot sleep. I cannot eat. I must speak out, or fall silent for ever.

'Jon would know the real answer', as B. put it. Well, let this be my real answer.

*the lights dim as a slide projection screen descends very slowly from the ceiling*

Here in England, where I unfortunately reside, Richard has been an extremely commonplace name for the vast majority of our recorded history - remaining in the ten most popular names right up until the 1990s, if the Office for National Statistics is to be believed.

Like 'Henry', it retains many deeply-embedded positive associations around leadership, heroism, empire, and power - most notably in regards to Richard the Lionheart, still a fondly-remembered king in this country despite his costly and ultimately inconclusive adventurism upon the Third Crusade, acts of brutality against prisoners and civilians in the Middle East and France alike, the outbreaks of anti-semitic violence that occurred under his reign, and his particularly parasitic absentee rule. (For this legacy we can perhaps partly blame the early modern ballads which decided he was Robin Hood's buddy who rides in at the end to dole out pardons and restore the natural order of things.)

More subversively, the name might remind us of Richard III in Shakespeare's infamous portrayal, another scheming soliloquiser who finds his performance coming to pieces in moments of stress.

With these uneasy regal connotations in mind (coming alongside Charles and Edward) it felt to me - with less than a moment's thought behind it - like a fitting chosen first name for Faulkner, and a way of thematically matching his brothers.

I have since understood to my lasting regret that the name provokes a particular reaction amongst some of our audience members. A kind of mirth, if you will; even an amazement that Faulkner should select such a name.

I still do not fully understand whether the name is genuinely such a rarity in the modern-day USA where much of our audience resides and thus provokes a kind of parochial ridicule, or if the joke is simply that Faulkner, as a trans man, has chosen a name which features ‘Dick’ as one of its several possible diminutives.

While the use of this nickname dates back to the 12th or 13th century, ‘Rich’ would probably be a much more common shortening here in the modern-day UK.

We did not have such prominent 20th century public figures as Tricky Dick, Dick van Dyke, or Dick Cheney, and as such these examples did not occur to me as red flags when I thoughtlessly selected the popular, apparently uncontroversial, and thematically-rich (ha, ha, ha) name 'Richard'.*

I trust that I have now explained myself fully and laid this matter to rest.

Good day to you all. Gods bless.

*We did have beloved children's author Dick King-Smith, I guess? It's a mixed bag of dicks.