#(and personality too; arguably)

[the-star-rigel]

the thing about Jason. Is that even if he’d survived Ethiopia. Even if he’d never even gone to Ethiopia. He would’ve stayed himself - in the sense that the disagreement between Batman and Red Hood began long before Ethiopia. I think the thing about Jason is that the death, the revival, none of it mattered much; that he was a sweet kid, that he was an angry kid, all of that didn’t matter because something in Jason directly opposes something else in Bruce. It’s easy to pin point Jason’s death as the cause of why “everything went wrong” between them, but that’s not really the truth.

[artashipatrick]

“With Tashi, every time she does something that could be read as cruel or manipulative or playing a sort of game,”

“I do think it’s always also coming from a place of her trying to get not just what she needs, but what she thinks these other two people need too—and to take care of them in a way that she feels resentful for having to.”

“But she’s not shirking her responsibility, she’s taking her responsibility of taking care of them very seriously.”

“She has entered into this dynamic somewhat willingly. It’s never the case that someone is doing something for just one reason.” (Justin Kuritzkes on Tashi’s motivations)

[ai-the-broccoli]

(what is definitely NOT the way Aka Akasaka came up with Kaguya-sama:)

Akasaka: [looks at Death Note] this is great, but... Akasaka: What if,,,,, this was a heterosexual* high school romcom,,,, where a lawlight-looking meronia was a lovely couple between man and woman,,,,, and Teru Mikami was a cute, rich, anxious schoolgirl who listens to praise kink asmr Akasaka: [actually makes that premise work really well somehow]

[deeppenguinstudent]

If Riko ever turned into a child, the person who'd treat him the best would be Jean. If Jean ever turned into a child, there would be no difference in the way Riko treats him.

[rojekte]

seeing people's takes about the whole watcher situation is just a bit.... mind-boggling.

i think the apology they posted was good in the sense that they admitted to fucking up and walked back on their decision, and i think the model they've settled on now is a lot more reasonable (having content be released earlier for those who choose to subscribe), but like.... that doesn't mean that no one should've ever been mad at them in the first place???

like seriously, why does it seem like people are looking at a "good" apology and thinking "huh! they sure did apologize well! i guess that means that it was ridiculous for people to be mad in the first place! no one should have ever complained!!". if no one complained, they wouldnt have walked back their decision! they would've kept going with their dumb completely paywalled option!

and thats not even getting into the fact that their financial woes seem to come from completely mismanaging their money - hiring people when they can not afford to and spending more money on "high quality productions" when they cant afford to.... these are core issues that im not sure will be completely fixed by this? but idk.

also, this situation i think has really helped my own self come to terms with the fact that i do not enjoy many aspects of their content. i sorta already knew that considering i can not remember the last ghost files video i watched because i find that shit incredibly boring and overproduced, and even things like too many spirits have become a chore to watch bc they decided to extend the Not That Funny drink making portion when i just wanna hear some funny spooky stories.

anyway i guess my ultimate point here is: im glad they acknowledged they fucked up, but i also am not sure how interested i am in their content anymore in the first place. oh well

[pocketgalaxies]

sorry to say this but matt's keyleth is NOT silly enough.

[historyartthings]

Absolutely loving, adoring, Le*nda de L*sle’s review of MacCulloch’s work...

My thoughts, feelings, opinions I’ve put below. It gets very long because I cannae haud me wheesht

I don’t know why she’s obsessed with the idea that he mustn’t have loved his wife. ‘the supposedly grieving widower’? I don’t think the arrangement of a marriage for a king - which Henry obviously agreed to - is a sufficient way to judge what Thomas’s relationship with his wife was like. The (foreign and domestic) political, religious and dynastic factors at play there can’t be ignored in favour of extrapolating that he didn’t understand marrying for love. The “happy marriage” in quotation marks😭 have got to laugh. her condescending cynicism is based on nothing tangible, as far as I can work out. She shades MacCulloch as well through the, ‘he believes that although the evidence is sparse, Cromwell was indeed a grieving widower'…. Ngl I would argue it’s not a particularly strained logical leap to assume he might’ve been upset.

We know barely anything about their relationship. Mostly what can be concretely said is he, unusually, never remarried - we’ll obviously never know the reason(s) for that, but still. There was seemingly one notable relationship outside of it, which we only know of because it resulted in an illegitimate daughter, a wee while after his wife passed away. But even that isn’t for 100% certain. He also atypically didn’t have a mistress. There’s also exactly one (1) extant letter from him to his wife, which is pleasant enough, but not much revealing - he asks her for news of home and sends her a deer. she didnt live long enough so as to have any external remarks on their marriage once he entered court spheres. Essentially it’s impossible to draw anything more than speculative conclusions, but based on what can be tentatively extrapolated from his actions, it seems more likely he grieved for his wife than didn’t imo. And also just considering natural, human emotion??

(Even if you want to suggest they didn’t marry for love in the beginning - and/or weren’t in love by the end - they were married for what? Roughly a decade and a half? With no signs of estrangement, and friendly correspondence in letters to Cromwell asking him to pass on their regards to his wife. So even if it was simply an amicable relationship, on a basic level being with someone in such close proximity, for that long, and losing them is probably going to be upsetting?)

On a tangential note, as MacCulloch does point out, the valentine to Mary mentioned here wasn’t at all romantic - it’s misleading to present that, as she does, as an attempt for he himself to marry into royalty. Or more charitably, I think she misremembered the context for it from the book

I’d also question de Lisle’s point about the executions. Personally I don’t think it suggests a greater misogyny than any of his contemporaries? Imo it’s indicative of the broader pattern of a brutal, violent ruthlessness towards those he saw as any enemy, in his way, and/or as going against the crown/policy etc. As opposed to any particular or especial hatred towards women. This isn't meant as an excuse for those actions in any way, because they're - quite obviously - horrific. I just question the rationale behind such a judgement of even-worse-than-usual-for-the-time-misogyny based upon it. Such brutality wasn't isolated to women, men were treated just as abominably. She talks of their humiliation to evidence her point, but again, men were faced with the same. (Ask Richard Whiting who got dragged up Glastonbury Tor at nearly 80, whose case involved, 'to be tryed [presumably for treason] at Glaston and also executyd there' from cromwell's remembrances; or John Forrest, who was strung up in chains, which is a humiliating - to use her term - prolonged death in itself, but was also supposedly burnt using kindling made from a statue of a saint - oh how clever of you!). We don’t (afaik) have letters or remarks which reflect cromwell’s views on women in the same way as for Norfolk, for example. it's just a bizarre extrapolation to me. again, imo it's an incredibly dark, ruthless streak through his personality. it seems to have been his standard handling of any major execution. Also, to be clear, I’m not suggesting he wasn’t sexist/misogynistic, because ofc he was. All men back then were, as a symptom of living and socilisation in such a patriarchal society.

(also interesting for her to pair this suggestion w/ her thoughts about his marriage come to think of it. she seems to be linking the two in a broader picture, I assume wherein this should be added to the ‘evidence’ he didn’t/couldnt have loved his wife)

also the contrast of his physical looks in the Holbein, against his 'becoming' a 'convivial figure' in MacCulloch's work, is disappointing. not reading personalities from portraits, nor ascribing negative character traits to appearances and/or weight (implicitly or otherwise) shouldn't be a big ask, but apparently is. It'd be a wee bit different if she’d pointed to his expression - I still think that’s an unsound way to go about things fwiw - which at least isn’t intrinsically linked to his features, but alas no.

Lastly, re: MacCulloch’s arguments, i would say he’s more impartial than she implies. He might be Anglican, but I wouldn’t say he’s ‘on the Protestant side’ particularly. I struggle to see how his presentation of Catholics - from what i remember, altho it’s been a while since i've read it - is less than fair? He directly praises more and fisher iirc. but someone with a better knowledge of the book could correct me on this point.

also, positioning that he's on the 'protestant side', alongside the next line being about his argument that cromwell was grieving, is an interesting choice. is the suggestion that if you agree with the latter your sympathies must lie with "protestantism"? that it's only through a biased lens you could reach that conclusion? sksjksjk diabolical suggestion that that's the only reason anyone might consider he mourned his wife. like am i going insane or is it genuinely what she's saying??… i cant see why she'd juxtapose those specific points otherwise. Like critiquing mantel's comments about catholics and their presentation in wolf hall is fair enough, but connecting that with the fact she wrote cromwell as 'heartbroken' and that he loved his wife, comes across to me as though she's suggesting the former should invalidate mantel's interpretation of the latter. which again i dont think is fair based on the evidence we do have..

I would also question (because it is confusing to me) despite the fact that MacCulloch and Mantel were friends, why the “”””””happy marriage”””””” across both works is the way in here??? like why are you so bothered as to both lead and finish the article with that?

(And, frankly, MacCulloch paints a picture of a happier marriage - he writes that the simplest explanation is, ‘he couldn’t bear to marry anyone else’ - than Mantel does. Who presents their relationship as literally (as in, textually), ‘loves’ but not ‘in love’. and has him actively wanting to remarry. she had a line in TMATL that goes he was ‘mostly faithful’ which? I’m not sure if she meant to imply infidelity but… altho she did present a picture of him missing her i guess)

[thistle-caster]

I’m so normal about the inner lives of all the nsbu nobodies what do you mean

[crismakesstuff]

i feel bad for everyone saying nolan can’t get a redemption arc or that he’s gonna be some big final antagonist

his redemption arc is a huge part of the plot of the comic guys they can’t not do it. Doesn’t mean anyone needs to like him or anything but yea don’t worry he’s gonna pay in his own blood for his crimes. mark got his proneness for getting his ass beat from his father

[hi-i-just]

Zack is so fun as a character bc when it comes to his relationships, whether the nature is romantic or platonic it still works. The chemistry is so fire, the feelings of love and care are sincere. Zack loves the people in his life, the people loves him back. Whether they're similar to him in personality or complete opposites — it still hits off. Zack and Aerith? The OG, first love forreal. Zack and Cloud? The loyalty, the dedication. Zack and Cissnei? Genuine appreciation and trust. Zack and Sephiroth? Treated each other like actual people. Zack and Tseng? The extra mile, the exception. You genuinely can't lose when it comes to shipping with this guy

[blueskittlesart]

hello! im pretty sure the reason dgs herlock isnt called sholmes is because he wasnt public domain yet so i assume they couldnt get all the necessary rights!

that’s what i assumed too when the localization was announced but like shouldn’t tobias gregson, enoch drebber, selden, etc have theoretically also had that rule applied to them??? why were certain borrowed characters left completely unchanged and others localized Like That. not that i pretend to understand international copyright law or whatever the hell the conan doyle estate is doing at any given time but that seems weird to me lmao

[darkfire359]

Izzy, Ed, and Apologies

Reminder that the 2x8 dialogue between Ed and Izzy included the lines:

Izzy: "I'm sorry, I was terrible to you."

Ed: "No, I'm sorry. What are you apologizing for? I should be the one apologizing."

In particular, "What are you apologizing for?" doesn't have any potential of Ed merely forgiving Izzy or downplaying Izzy's actions. Contrast it with "You don't need to apologize," or something similar, which would otherwise fit a very similar narrative beat. Ed literally does not think Izzy did anything to warrant an apology. The only person in canon who thinks Izzy deserved to lose his toes and leg is Izzy.

If you think that Izzy deserved what Ed did to him, you need to be able to say, "Ed was wrong and Izzy was right." Otherwise you're just disregarding Ed's feelings on the issue entirely.

[i3utterflyeffect]

from Alan's perspective, Cho and Dark finding him is probably the single scariest experience of his life, thinking he and SC are both about to get fucking murdered for Alan's own crimes. meanwhile Cho and Dark are having the single most confusing experience of their lives, because Alan is acting Completely Fuckin Bizarre, and also has a baby??? for some reason??? what the fuck??? and SC is just crying because theyre literally babey and theyre So So Stressed

YEAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! it's just extremely stressful for everyone involved and honestly Chosen probably is the one that has to take the initiative to step up and be like 'hey Alan, can you explain what the fuck is happening????' which is. Extremely confusing for Alan also because he was HORRIBLE to Chosen, why are THEY the one who isn't immediately trying to murder him????

[scarlet-came-back-wrong]

I would like to comment that character Von Franz is actually one of the cruelest -coldest Van Helsings in adaptations because in new Nosferatu remake in the end he’s the one who convinces Ellen to sacrifice herself to vampire. The remake took away all that stuff how she finds a way to kill vampire and then takes her own decision to sacrifice herself life and makes up a plan to do it. They gave it to Von Franz instead. Like no Van Helsing would ever sacrifice another human, let alone a young troubled woman to do it and here he did it and he was very enthusiastic to do it🥴

Ehhh... I don't mind it, actually? (The convincing to sacrifice part that is.) I like Van Helsing being made into quite a morally grey character, and sacrificing one person to save many is a very common moral dilemma for those. Of course, that's not what Stoker would make any of his "good" characters do, but you probably already see that I'm not a Stoker purist.

I do agree that the new movie took a lot of Ellen's intelligence and competence and gave it to Von Franz. Which is very dissapointing, since that was one of my favorite things about both previous movies. It can't even be explained by Eggers making his movie closer to the novel, because it was an important part of Mina's character in the novel too.

By the way, anon, why the ask about Von Franz all of a sudden? I haven't discussed either him or Van Helsing on my Tumblr in the recent time, and I watched the new Nosferatu just yesterday.

[llycaons]

my standards for lwj in fics may be insane and hyperspecific but I DO notice a rly annoying trend of making him this master of emotional and psychological welfare without even trying and knowing exactly what to do and say all the time and being such a perfect saint when like, I joke he's one of the guys of all time, and he is, but he IS also like, a human with flaws and many MANY times in canon he's got no idea what's going on with wwx, he doesn't know what to say, he doesn't know how to help him, his incorrect assumptions range from mildly endearing to flat-out harmful, he really doesn't communicate very readily, he genuinely struggles to read people, and he took a VERY long time to unlearn his biases and learn to trust other ppl's judgement about their own health and circumstances. he has a good heart and he tries in the ways that make sense to him at the time, but like...that man does NOT know therapy speak im sorry. all the insights he ever made into wwx's health and psyche were hard-won entirely through the years of intense observation and self-reflection in an environment that didn't encourage that type of examination, and that's important! that's why they MATTER so much!!

[nonbinary-strawberry]

don’t forget to vote tomorrow, tumblrinas