#{Answers from the past}

[hellspawnmotel]

whatever *tezuka-styles your deltarune cast*

[technically-human]

You've got so much to learn

[clumsypuppy]

wait for me

[askfordoodles]

"Young man, you cut that tsundere bullshit, I know what you're doing, I wasn't born yesterday." - Secret Brat Tamer Volkarin

[demaparbat-hp]

On your most recent From the Couch post... is that a dragon tattoo I see poking out of Zuko's collar? ...................may we see more of it?

You may see all of it.

[zivazivc]

Since you’ve shown Liv’s parents will you Show flea’s mums?

Here they are, the babes!

They are life partners as well as business partners, in fact they are the founders and organizers of Fusion Fest! (the big festival that celebrates all troll genres coming together (also the festival Leslie hatched at))

They're both extremely social, Ruth being especially high energy, and they are both passionate workaholics that keep busy 24/7. They're good loving moms but you can easily guess why Flea peaced out and decided to go to uni all the way in Vibe City - they can be very intense to live with.

The album Que Pasa by Babe Ruth is the inspiration for their sound and design. I own a CD of it and love blasting it when I'm alone. 💃

[adreamoverlife]

No sleep. Thoughts are consumed by how when Pomme was first given to the french she was the youngest, the littlest egg, and while she was babied as the youngest she was also the one in the most danger as she was the last egg with all her lives. Not only did she have to grow up so fast, she actually used her lives as protection for her siblings since as long as she had all of them the code would target her and her alone. And she got better, and stronger, and tougher, and the entire island knew her strength. But she was still q!frenchs daughter, youngest in their heart. And while Pomme slowly noticed that most stopped looking over her shoulder, none of the french ever let her face anything alone. She would always be their baby <3

[dresshistorynerd]

this might be the silliest question you’ll be asked. As someone who enjoys period dramas and studied history (though not fashion) so notices inaccuracies like fasteners and availability of dyes etc, I nonetheless can dive into the world presented.

I notice the wearing of outerwear the most. In a program set in Regency England, in outdoor scenes, a) you rarely see more than a Spencer jacket or a cape, and b) in a group scene the coverage varies wildly from lady to lady. As if I was out walking with friend wearing a tank top while I had on a turtleneck and fleece vest.

I get costumes tell a lot about the characters but wouldn’t a person look daft and either cold or hot and out of place?

This is not silly! This is actually a very good question! Regency media is often very much confused and inconsistent about what was appropriate in the given situation to wear, but to be fair, it was actually very confusing.

I have seen a lot of people, and I have repeated this before as well, perpetuate the idea that Regency Era had the same concept of casual and formal wear - split to morning, day and evening wear, where the earlier in the day it was the more the dress covered. However, the Regency concept of casual/formal wear followed much closer to the previous era of 18th century. Instead of morning, day and evening wear they had undress, half dress and full dress, which had a bit to do with how much was covered but not much. They were much less formalized than the equivalent concepts of the socially rigid Victorian Era. Which also makes it much more confusing. Undress was usually worn at home or during morning walks and it had long sleeves. Usually it was a pelisse or dressing gown, or could be a simple round gown. Though most garments were not inherently undress, half dress of full dress, since it was much more relevant simple or flashy the garment in question was. A simple redingote could also be undress for cold morning walks. Hair was often covered in undress as well, usually with a cap, but this wasn't necessary for young unmarried ladies. Full dress was basically ball gown - so the most formal dress, short sleeves etc. - and there fore easiest to grasp. Though sometimes other occasions besides balls were as formal and then full dress would be used as well, but not all evening occasions were as formal as balls. Half dress is basically everything else and easily the most confusing and unclear category. Half dress could have short sleeves or long sleeves, used outdoors or indoors, used for less formal evening occasions and promenade walks and visiting casually a close friend and picnic and so on. Basically half dress was anything more formal than the casual home wear and less formal than the fancy ball gown. It was a collection of several different types of gowns really, but the reason they were in the same category was that there was no hard rules on how they should be worn.

At some point I'll make a post on the Regency casual/formal wear etiquette where I go deeper into this.

What specifically sort of half dress someone wore had more to do with age, marital status and weather than the specific occasion (though that could still matter as well), since most garments could be styled in multiple different usages especially by combining them with different garments. Married women and older women were expected to use more covering clothing, while younger women and girls could use less coverage even on a more casual occasion. So for example on a summer outing an older married woman might wear a long sleeved round gown or a light pelisse, while their unmarried daughter might wear a short sleeved gown. But these were not hard rules either. It was sort of closer to how etiquette works today, much more vibe based than rule based. Here's couple of examples from art depicting different scenes, where women are wearing quite different sort of half dresses.

The first one here is from 1815-1820. I'm not sure what the setting is for this harp playing, since the women seem to be wearing outdoor clothing (all are wearing bonnets and one of them is wearing a redingote), maybe they are playing outside? Anyway, the two ladies have short sleeved gowns, one of them has open neckline, the other a chemisette covering her neckline, while the third has a covering redingote.

First image here is a painting named "A young person hesitating to play the piano in front of her family" from 1805. Here's a casual gathering among family on a terrace, perhaps after the dinner (the sun seems to be setting), where the young lady is dressed in short sleeved gown, while presumably her mother and grandmother are dressed on gowns with longer sleeves and covered hair. The second image here is painting of three teenagers preparing to play music on a casual musical evening from c. 1810. The girls are roughly the same age, yet one of them is wearing long sleeves and covered neckline, while the other is not, demonstrating how there was no exact rules with half dress.

The first image below is an illustration "In a cafe" from 1810. The ladies are out, two of them are wearing short sleeved and decollete revealing dresses, while their third (likely married) friend is wearing long sleeves and covered hair and decollete. The second image is an illustration from 1814, and depicts a casual gathering where young people are playing party games. Again there's a mix of long and short sleeves.

So it would not be inherently inaccurate to have Regency women in a group wear garments of varying sleeve length, but Regency media very rarely does it in a way that follows the nuances of the Regency social norms, because it very much depended on the situation. For example no lady would wear long sleeves in a ball. I don't remember every scene but what I do remember of the 2020 Emma they do the whole etiquette really well. And of course Pride and Prejudice 1995 nails it. Still after trying to figure out the nuances of Regency etiquette myself and still quite not getting all of them, I'm much more understanding of movies and tv shows for fucking it up. It really is very hard to pin down. Not that it prevents me from getting annoyed by very obvious mistakes.

[canisalbus]

how much art do you have that you don’t share with the public? your artwork is such a joy to see. though I get not sharing every piece of your work. it would just be nice to see more if ever given the chance.

I doodle and sketch a lot, but most of that material doesn't pass the "would people be interested in seeing this? is it good enough?" filter in my brain. I end up scanning, finishing and posting maybe 1 out of 10 to 15 pieces I make.

[musette22]

One common thing people who support Steve's endgame ending claim is that Steve was always miserable in the future. He never adjusted or felt at home in the future, so of course when he got the chance to go back to the past he took it.

However the only proof of this is at the start of catws (and that deleted avengers scene). Yes he was feeling lost and adrift but he didn't stay that way. He made friends with Sam and Natasha and Wanda and Thor and he got Bucky back. He found a purpose and became confident in who he was and what he believed in. Steve may have moments of feeling sad, but if you think he stayed that way for 12+ years you're not giving him enough credit.

And the claim that he was always miserable isn't true either. He joked with his friends on several occasions, and I mentioned how much better he was when he became nomad. And sorry to steggy or staron shippers, but Bucky made Steve happier than anyone else did. Look at the museum footage of them, or them looking at each other in infinity war. He was happy without Peggy.

Also I think fans forget the scene in catws where Sam asks him if he misses the past. And what does Steve say in response? He lists things he likes about the future and makes a point of not romanticising the past. It's especially important that he was talking to a black man while saying this. We rightly talk about how awful Bucky would feel about Steve leaving to live a life without him, but also imagine being Sam and hearing that your friend wants to go life in a time when someone like you had less rights than you do now.

And you know the line about shared life experience? It applies to Bucky of course but in endgame you could also apply it in a non romantic way. Because you say Steve was out of place in the future? Well in endgame he was surrounded by people in the same situation. Countless people were forced to adjust to a time they didn't know. Steve is uniquely qualified to bond with these people. And choosing to go back to the past puts him right back where he was when he first went to the future. He again has to adjust to a time he's not familiar with.

Funny how in order to justify his ending you have to ignore what his story has previously shown us.

THANK YOU! This is so very true, all of it. Completely agree, you make so many excellent points.

Of course Steve felt lost and adrift at first: he was. He was all alone in a foreign time, he lost everyone, he had ptsd because of the war he fought in and everything that had happened to him etc. etc. It would've been strange if he hadn't been depressed in those first years.

But you're right, he was already making significant steps towards being more settled in the new century by the time Bucky returned, and then when he did, I would argue he became a sort of anchor for Steve in the new time. And from that moment on, Steve really started to belong, and realize that he didn't want to go back, but forward. Like, Nomad Steve was NOT dreaming about going back to the 40s, there is no way. That man belonged right where he was, with Bucky by his side, and he knew it.

Home. And he did not mean bloody 1945.

(Gif credit @/dailystevegifs from this gifset)

Also, can I just say that Steve never seemed particularly happy or settled in the 30s/40s? Yes, he had his mother and he had Bucky, and yes, it was "his" time and Brooklyn and I'm sure he came to miss it once he couldn't go back to it anymore, but he was often sick and he was poor and he was frustrated with the world around him and his own body's limitations, and he always wanted sometimes else, something more.

And sure, one could argue that he finally found his calling once he was given the serum and became Cap (and got a healthy body that fit his spirit), but we know he was still miserable at first, as a dancing monkey. I do think the period of time after he'd rescued Bucky, when the Howling Commandos worked closely together for a few years, must've been a special time for Steve, which he will have missed later on for sure. But it was still wartime. Wartime, and being in a war zone, is miserable, and far from a dream life for Steve. So like... what exactly was he supposedly longing for in the past so much that it would've been impossible for him to ever settle in the present? The thing he most clearly missed from his past was Bucky, and he got him back.

So yeah, I think Steve was just fine where he was eventually, and he would have never, ever thrown everything he’d built, the life that had become his, and everyone he'd come to care about and who cared about him, casually out of the window in order to go back to a past he never gave any indication of actively wanting to go back to.

Funny how in order to justify his ending you have to ignore what his story previously showed us.

Exactly that. That's precisely what Endgame did: it ignored Steve's previous story and his character development over several movies in order to shoehorn in the heteronormative ending the studio execs apparently demanded. Spineless, inane bullshit, if you ask me.

[fashion4standusers]

For anyone wondering how they would make combat moves for ASBR Abbacchio. His GHA is literally the kicking meme

Also he said it. The thing

[lululocomo]

If you don’t mind me asking how, does MK react to seeing this cycles Mei, Tang, Sandy, and Pigsy if they are in this cycle im guessing a lot of tears since they wouldn't know who he or remember?

The moment he see them, he would just cry. Not because he's sad, but because he's so happy to see them again. but he would be scared to interact with them: because what if they are different from the previous cycle? what if he don't managed to befriend them? MK just want to run to them and hug them, but he can't. So at first he just watch them from afar. But of course his family (and red son) will help him in talking to them, and MK get back his precious friend from the previous cycle. Their relationship would be a bit different, but still MK is happy to be with them again. (this is also on the list of interaction I want to write/draw)

[serpentface]

how do you come up with the ways cultures in your setting stylize people/animals/the world in general in their artwork, i.e. jewlery, rock carvings, statues, etc? Each culture in your world seems to have a very unique "art style" and I love it a lot - makes them seem that much more 'real'. This is something I struggle with a lot in my own worldbuilding and I'd love to pick your brain if possible 😁

I think a starting point is to have a research process based in the material realities of the culture you're designing for. Ask yourself questions like:

Where do they live? What's the climate/ecosystem(s) they are based in? What geographic features are present/absent?

What is their main subsistence method? (hunter gatherer, seasonal pastoralist, nomadic pastoralist, settled agriculturalist, a mix, etc)

What access to broader trade networks do they have and to whom? Are there foreign materials that will be easily accessible in trade and common in use, or valuable trade materials used sparingly in limited capacities?

Etc

And then do some research based on the answers, in order to get a sense of what materials they would have routine access to (ie dyes, metal, textiles, etc) and other possible variables that would shape how the art is made and what it's used for. This is just a foundational step and won't likely play much into designing a Style.

If you narrow these questions down very specifically, (ie in the context of the Korya post- grassland based mounted nomads, pastoralist and hunter-gatherer subsistence, access to wider trade networks and metals), you can direct your research to specific real world instances that fit this general idea. This is not to lift culturally specific concepts from the real world and slap them into your own setting, but to notice commonalities this lifestyle enforces - (ie in the previous example- mounted nomadic peoples are highly mobile and need to easily carry their wealth (often on clothing and tack) therefore small, elaborate decorative artwork that can easily be carried from place to place is a very likely feature)

For the details of the art itself, I come up with loose 'style guides' (usually just in my head) and go from there.

Here's some example questions for forming a style (some are more baseline than others)

Are geometric patterns favored? Organic patterns? Representative patterns (flowers, animals, stars, etc)? Abstract patterns?

Is there favored material(s)? Beads, bone, clay, metals, stones, etc.

When depicting people/animals, is realism favored? Heavy stylization? The emotional impression of an animal? Are key features accentuated?

How perspective typically executed? Does art attempt to capture 3d depth? Does it favor showing the whole body in 2 dimensions (ie much of Ancient Egyptian art, with the body shown in a mix of profile and forward facing perspective so all key attributes are shown)? Will limbs overlap? Are bodies shown static? In motion?

Does artwork of people attempt to beautify them? Does it favor the culture's conception of the ideal body?

Are there common visual motifs? Important symbols? Key subject matters?

What is the art used for? Are its functions aesthetic, tutelary, spiritual, magical? (Will often exist in combination, or have different examples for each purpose)

Who is represented? Is there interest in everyday people? Does art focus on glorifying warriors, heroes, kings?

Are there conventions for representing important figures? (IE gods/kings/etc being depicted larger than culturally lesser subjects)

Is there visual shorthand to depict objects/concepts that are difficult to execute with clarity (the sun, moon, water), or are invisible (wind, the soul), or have no physical component (speech)?

Etc

Deciding on answers to any of these questions will at least give you a unique baseline, and you can fill in the rest of the gaps and specify a style further until it is distinct. Many of these questions are not mutually exclusive, both in the sense of elements being combined (patterns with both geometric and organic elements) or a culture having multiple visual styles (3d art objects having unique features, religious artwork having its own conventions, etc).

Also when you're getting in depth, you should have cultural syncretism in mind. Cultures that routinely interact (whether this interaction is exchange or exploitation) inevitably exchange ideas, which can be especially visible in art. Doing research on how this synthesizing of ideas works in practice is very helpful- what is adopted or left out from an external influence, what is retained from an internal influence, what is unique to this synthesis, AND WHY. (I find Greco-Buddhist art really interesting, that's one of many such examples)

Looking at real world examples that fit your parameters can be helpful (ie if I've decided on geometric patterns in my 'style guide', I'll look at actual geometric patterns). And I strongly encourage trying to actually LEARN about what you're seeing. All art exists in a context, and having an understanding of how the context shapes art, how art does and doesn't relate to broader aspects of a society, etc, can help you when synthesizing your own.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

You ever gonna make poorly drawn TGCF?

Long answer short: No.

But, I have a tag for TGCF fanart I've done, and I probably will draw more in the future!

If you're looking for a comic with 'silly summary' energy, I *highly* recommend Tempo-Takoyaki's 'Almost TGCF' Series.

[kaddyssammlung]

[ahappydnp]

need to know if i was dreaming but i swear there was an early emo phil youtube video of him acting like a stereotypical gay man? like i distinctly remembering him saying “no you hang up” but i can’t find the vid on his channel. is it deleted? or am i just tripping 😭

twas a vlogcandy video! (also that was just phil trying to be american vlogger zachary sterling adfsfsdgksj)