#Hope this explained it anon

[distortedclouds]

Do you think BW Armin is a traditional man? When Annie told him that she thought she was pregnant he said he thought they’d atleast be married first it was probably frowned down to have a baby out of wedlock back then is that why? Or it something about doing it the right way?

"traditional" sure, but not in the sense of the buzzword of tradition is used today online we dont fuck with that kind of shit around here

I'd say it's the culmination of multiple factors that make him think this way. Most notably is the period they live in, late 1800s early 1900s (with Paradis still adjusting culturally for years to come) it makes sense why he'd think having a kid while unmarried would have direct or indirect consequences mainly for Annie and the kid

Armin would want the best of Annie and the family they wish to one day have together, and in their circumstances, that necessitates a marriage certificate. So while there's a bit of the sentiment of Armin wanting to do things "the right way" an unplanned pregnancy would also force them to make a quick decision about getting married, not something he'd want to push Annie into simply because it's the only way

The thing in particular about BW Armin is that this is set fresh post-rumbling and he's still trying to become a kind of person he would be proud of; he wants to be reliable, useful, helpful, and, most importantly, doesn't want to cause harm to the people he cares about the most. Armin often gets caught up in "ideals" that he should live up to, compared to Annie who appreciates the little things in life because she never had them growing up, such as a loving partner and the potential of a family, with the laws and social norms being an afterthought

[cedric-k-rossignol]

I just wanna know HOW a reaper could reproduce? They are dead, essentially walking suicides, right? To me Undertaker and Claudia were married in life and when she died he couldn’t take it and took his own life, thus becoming a reaper. So still the same hc just……different? I guess? No hate to you or your blog (I actually really love this blog) and I really hope this doesn’t come off as rude but I was just wondering if you had any hcs as to how the fuck the DEAD could have a baby??

Hiya anon! Not rude at all 💙 I appreciate the love and that we have different hc/theories/takes!

All that being said...

[crazymecjc]

but can you imagine Jace from Act3 end up seeing Viktor from season 1 and BECOMING absolutely crazy, careful, obsessed with staying with him all the time/making sure he doesn't get evil/corrupted by the Hexcore and still with the knowledge that this man saved him countless times from death, that he chose him in all dimensions and possibilities and that Old jace from the past DIDN'T realize it.

HI ANON. IM IMAGINING ‼️‼️‼️‼️

(I’m taking jayvik drawing requests! send me an ask!!)

[frownyalfred]

since I’m in my reporting and shaming era when it comes to ao3 hate now…

(PurpleSnow, I know you’re sad I blocked you and locked comments on that fic. Maybe that was a sign to stop leaving comments like this. It seems, from your other bookmarks, that you enjoy reading many fics — so maybe give mine a break if they keep making you so upset, yeah?)

[xinganhao]

BREAK TIME! — been having lots of fun, but i've also posted consistently since october 😅 i don't want writing to start feeling like a chore/obligation/etc. in light of this, i probably won't be answering asks or posting here on xinganhao for the next two weeks or so. please take care of yourselves, and in case i don't see ya: good morning, good afternoon, and good night 🤍 ദ്ദി ˉ͈̀꒳ˉ͈́ )✧

[dahliasheep]

Sorry if this has already been asked many times, but how do you pick your colours??! They’re beautiful!!

thank you!! <33

i always find it a bit hard to explain, but i try my best

i pick colors by first picking dominant tones for the whole piece. in the examples here, i have kept the background white, but if i wanted a colored background, i'd choose that color first or second

when i color a character, i pick one dominant tone and then use that as my base to pick colors that harmonize nicely with it. so if i want the colors to look pastel, i'd start from a pale color

i find it easier to harmonize like that when i start from warm colors, but it also works with blues and greens and purples! for that drawing of jena, i started from a dark grey blue background, so i couldn't use colors from the red-orange zone for her skin and hair like i usually would, it would clash completely. so i started from that dark grey blue and desaturated it, and pushed it towards the violet-red zone very slowly until i got a color that looked right. her skin tone looks normal, but it's actually mostly grey

i think what i do is that i try to stay in the same zone of the rainbow when i draw. digital art is great for that, cause you always have the wheel of colors right there under your eyes... if the main tone in your drawing is red and you want your character to have soft blue eyes, then i don't go all to way to the blue zone, i just go to the zone between red and blue and find a nice soft grey there. if your drawing is green and you need a soft purple, then you need blue. and so on and so forth

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

The fandom can't make up its mind on what's supposed to be a joke and what's supposed to be serious because the show can't either half the time. It's a tonally disjointed mess that wants to have absurd over-the-top humor as well as a plot and moments of drama, romance, and angst that demand you see the characters as people and feel for what they're going through. Except you can't do that without also treating the dumb bullshit in a somewhat grounded way. Like, you're still dealing with the same characters. You can't just go "Oh, that? Let's ignore that!" the moment it's no longer convenient to you. You've opened this can of worms and now you have to sleep in it. So, every character flip-flops between two different versions of themselves depending on what the writers need in any particular scene.

This is not to say surreal humor can't be used right alongside characters you're supposed to empathize with, Teen Titans (not Go) did that and it worked. It's just that the absurdity can only come from the setting (Mad Mod, Mother Mae-Eye, pretty much anything Control Freak is in) or from designated joke characters (Date With Destiny). Teen Titans never had the main characters acting in clearly absurd ways as the butt of a joke unless those characters were brainwashed somehow, because the writers knew that would ruin any of the more grounded moments they wanted to write. The writers of Miraculous missed the memo on that one.

I don't disagree. A perfect example is Derision where the show takes all of the bad jokes about Marinette's crush and decides to take them seriously as if you can possible take them seriously without making Marinette come across as unhinged and dangerous. You can't, which brings us to the topic at hand: how do you even begin to understand these characters when the show is constantly making character-breaking choices?

My approach - and the approach I recommend others take if they're going to keep watching the show - is to focus on the characters' cores and reject anything canon does to violate those cores. I don't argue for this stance because I love the characters so much that I only want the good things to count. I take this stance because, if you don't, then the characters fall apart. There is no way to make them work as fully realized characters while embracing every choice canon has made. Miraculous has massive characterization issues that go well beyond the humor.

For example, Adrien has multiple moments of terrible behavior that are played in a serious manner such as the moment in the episode Frozer where he tries to start a fight with Ladybug in the middle of an akuma attack because she wouldn't accept a rose from him earlier:

Setup

Ladybug: I can't accept this rose from you. I told you already. I'm in love with someone else. Cat Noir: I know, M'lady. But if he weren't here, would things be different between us? Ladybug: Well, you know, I can't even begin to imagine him not being here. I'm sorry, Cat Noir. I really gotta get going, and you better do the same. (Swings her yo-yo to head back home; Cat Noir is sad, looking downwards, with one petal of the rose falling.)

Payoff

Ladyice: Cat Noir. We need to set up a trap for whoever turned the city into a giant ice rink. (throws yo-yo) Icecat: (bitterly) My feline instincts prefer to track and observe before I attack. You go your way, I'll go mine. Ladyice: Please don't tell me you're mad at me about the rose. Icecat: There may be a certain chill now between us. Ladyice: I get it, but we should really focus on saving Paris right now. Icecat: We don't always have to do everything together, after all. It's not like we're a couple. (skates away)

There's no way to argue this off as a bad joke. While Adrien has every right to feel hurt, those feelings don't excuse him acting like a pouting child in the middle of an akuma fight. It doesn't excuse him acting like this at any point! Ladybug is not a villain for telling him no. She wasn't even mean about it!

I clearly fully agree that Adrien looks awful and selfish here, but I'd still argue that it's not something that should be used to define Adrien's character if your goal is to tell the "ideal" version of Miraculous. "Ideal" being the version that canon seems to be going for based on the overall picture we can sort of make out if we back way, way, way up and look at the extremely abstract picture canon is clumsily painting.

Unless canon is going to do something monumentally stupid, Adrien is Marinette's endgame romantic interest. It's also clear that there is no plan to cut him from the team. He's going to be Chat Noir for the rest of his life or at least well into his adulthood. This means that he is supposed to be a good hero who deserves his miraculous just like he's supposed to be a charming and cute romantic lead. These are the two things I keep in mind when trying to shift through canon to figure out what writing choices I should fully embrace and what writing choices I have to either ignore or treat as true flaws that get an actual character arc. In my book, either approach is fine because most of the characters are deeply flawed at this point and you can't give them all arcs without bloating the story to nonsense levels.

My goal with this approach is never to say, "oh, that moment shouldn't count in terms of how people feel about the character." It's more, "that moment goes so hard against who this character is very clearly supposed to be that I can't take it into account if I want to tell the kind of story that Miraculous is trying (and clearly failing) to tell."

As an example, let's list off Adrien's worst behaviors. The things that make him look terrible:

He sucks at communicating his needs and feelings, leading to multiple moments where he gets mad at Ladybug for things she's totally unaware of

He has quit or considered quitting without warning multiple times and only one of those was because of something he did "wrong" (NYC Special)

He puts his feelings before the safety of Paris on multiple occasions, even going so far to purposely miss akuma fights to see what happens

He is incredibly pushy about his crush, often ignoring Ladybug's feelings on the topic by continuing to bring it up even after she asked him to stop

There have been multiple instances where he almost cataclysmed multiple people in a fit of anger

His love for Ladynette isn't strong enough to let him break free of things like akumas and nightmare dust even when he's looking her in the eyes making him a pretty crappy romantic lead

People will argue that some of this behavior makes sense for his character because of the abuse that canon has technically introduced, but that the writers seem blissfully unaware of. I don't disagree with that argument, but that doesn't change the fact that none of this is acceptable behavior for a hero and Adrien is a hero who keeps doing these things. A sad backstory doesn't give you the right to behave poorly without consequences.

At the same time, if I fully embrace these elements of canon, what I get is an Adrien salt fic where he loses his miraculous for good while Marinette finds her real true love or even just a non-salty fic where Adrien leaves for his own meatal health and gets replaced by someone who can handle being a hero right now. Canon's not writing either of those, so the only way to engage with these flaws while enjoying canon or aiming for the same end goals as canon is to say, "I guess this doesn't count" or "I guess I need to tone this way down and work through it via a character arc" or even "I guess that was just a bad joke maybe?"

That is the essence of what I mean when I call myself a writing salt, character sugar blog. It comes from looking at canon and seeing that there's simply no way to embrace the worst moments and the best at the same time. We're not dealing with a coherent plot and/or complex characters. We're dealing with a nonsense plot that will warp the characters to bizarre shapes to make random ideas work even if those idea go wildly against canon's end goals.

As an example, Glaciator and Frozer should not exist in the same universe or, at the very least, something should explain why Chat Noir randomly changed his stance on Ladybug's crush from acceptance to pushiness. As is, the pieces don't fit together. The behavior is too contradictory. Remember, this is how Glaciator ends:

Perhaps Ladybug will love me someday. I mean, like, I love her. I have to believe. In the meantime, her friendship is the best gift of all.

Where did this version of Adrien go? Why did he regress in Frozer? There's no in-universe reason. It happened because the writers weren't ready to let the love square date or grow close, but they also wanted the love square to cause drama, so Adrien ends up looking terrible just like Marinette ends up looking terrible when it's her turn to cause love square drama. Her terribleness takes a different flavor so it can be hard to realize that this is a systemic issue, but that's what it is. It's deeply frustrating, but it also clearly stems from cheap writing and not quality characterization.

This is also why my stance is that canon as a whole only supports my Doyalistic core-character analysis style of approach. The writing is too poor quality to do Watsonian analysis where you embrace the full picture and try to put it all together. The closest I'll get to Watsonian analysis is pointing out how much the writing botches a Watsonian take by showing you all the way the writing contradicts itself, twisting into a nonsense pretzel of frustration where the payoffs never satisfy! (See the season four rant for an example or anything where I talked about Chloe's supposed damnation arc.)

There are even characters where canon is such a total mess that you can Doyalistically argue for two separate takes! Gabriel is a perfect example. He is all over the place and his ending was so poorly handled that you can make strong arguments for writing him as a cold-hearted villain or a sympathetic villain without the end result feeling like it spits in the face of canon because both takes maintain his one core element: villain.

That's the big thing I keep in mind when I look at the characters and the lore and the plots and try to come up with versions that the average fan would like. I don't think that there's one true version of any of these things, but I do feel comfortable saying that there are versions that will very clearly only appeal to people who are salty about a specific thing that canon did poorly. That's not who I want to appeal to in my adaptions, so while I'm not going to argue that those takes have no backing in canon, I will argue that those takes are not supported by canon as a whole. Embracing them requires you to take the worst parts of canon at face value while ignoring what canon is clearly trying to do with the overall story.

I get the appeal of that, but it's not fun for me because that approach feels like rolling around in the mud with the pigs. I don't want to sink to canon's level! I want to have fun! That's why I talk about how to make canon into its best self, not its worst self. If you want its worst self, just go watch the actual show. I will be shocked it if disappoints you.

[candyheartedchy]

Do you have any advice for drawing characters kissing?

Sure! I even made a guide just for you!

[twentyfivemiceinatrenchcoat]

I’ve never felt quite as vindicated as I do whenever you tear a strip of off fanon Gojo. It’s so bizarre to watch an already tragic character be purposefully misconstrued because he’s not tragic in the way they’d like him to be.

LITERALLLYYYYYYYY thank you anon …… i’m very happy that we’re in this together. it’s insufferable!!!!!! frankly!!!!!!!!!!!!! gojo is already plenty tragic without them forcing feelings onto him that he simply doesn’t carry -_- ……. and then they use that misconception as a leeway into criticizing other characters, calling them ooc, and acting like gojo’s ending was just so terribly sad for him when it very much wasn’t in his own eyes. the kids are okay, their society is improving slowly but surely and the burden is no longer falling on the youth — he gets to be with his best friend again, the one he’s longed for. not only that, but he was recognized as a human being and dismantled of his title as the strongest by sukuna before he passed on. and yuji, in some sense of the word, taught sukuna about love in his place. (he surpassed him, some might say <3 ……… which is what he wished for more than Anything.)

gojo is a very tragic character but his tragedy mainly lies in the fact that he accepts the conditions of his own life and deals with it all quietly, without complaint. from his isolation, to his sleep schedule, to his body being violated. he makes the best of it. he rolls with the punches. it’s sad because he doesn’t find it sad. it’s tragic because he wouldn’t call his life a tragedy, he’d go ”well, i managed to make megumi laugh at the end there, so isn’t it fine?” and smile.

[daughter-heir]

Does the WoT show still have all the weird bio-essentialism wrt sex/gender and magic?

Hi - yes it keeps the saidin is for men/saidar is for women thing. It seems like they’re trying to brush over some of the issues that poses in the show. Like a lot less focus on the battle of the sexes stuff that gets very annoying in the books. I trust the writers enough that I could see the issues with it being addressed in a meaningful way later on though idk how

[dykedvonte]

I keep seeing fanarts of ppl's OC's being on the ship, so do you think that if there was 6st crewmember (specifically, another woman) Anya would've been more safe? Like, someone to actually call Jimmy's begaviour out, someone Anya might wanna trust? Is there a possibility something might have changed (even if a little) or it would not have mattered at all?

-💀

I feel like the game would make it part of the commentary on where she would believe and help Anya but still be sort of dismissive? Like the whole “don’t waste time crying and being scared keep going and move on, don’t let him win”. It’s supposed to be positive and reinforcing but sometimes it does more damage in those times of mourning and grief, it feels patronizing, like you don’t understand what you’re going through but they do. Even if they did call out his behavior it’s still on Curly to act and while another voice would help, it’s still 4 against 2 on guys that don’t get it until they have to vs women who always have to.

I don’t mind mouthwashing OCs but I do get a bit bored as they tend to be borderline saviors or like Jimmy aligned. They are either more complicit than Curly or just Jimmy haters for no reason, outside of what the creators know about what he did to Anya. I am never irked by OCs but in a story like mouthwashing you really need to think about what your character adds to the commentary, especially if they are there during the crash. It’s nice to have like characters on Anya’s side more whole heartedly and interesting to see characters who placate Jimmy but sometimes it’s one note.

I can’t and don’t want to police peoples OCs it’s never my intention when I comment on trends I notice, but I do feel like the way people make their OCs interact with these two characters and especially Curly, really show a grave misunderstanding of the narrative and these characters as people vs roles in the story. Still, I know people just make up characters for fun and that’s fine. Great even, but I guys I’m focusing more on OCs that are supposed to have those serious dynamics. My favs tend to be pretty-Tulpar or post-Tulpar au OCs.

The inevitably of the crash is on Jimmy. He did that not because he wasn’t stopped but because all his means to kill Anya were taken. The gun, the axe. Even if Curly did strip him of his co-pilot privileges and try to keep him contained there’s only so many people. An extra body helps but they have jobs they have to do, he’s the only one steering the whole ship and Jimmy would likely have an out: food, bathroom, etc. He’s not new and if he couldn’t crash the ship directly, who’s to say he wouldn’t sabotage something else? A clunker like the Tulpar wouldn’t take much. An extra person helps but it’s just another thing that prolongs what a person like Jimmy is willing to do to shirk responsibility.

It’s more than just needing someone to stand up to him and think that’s what is missing when it comes to inserting a character into the mouthwashing setting.

[kerryweaverlesbian]

could you please explain to me like i’m a child why kink should be at pride? i’m asking this very genuinely as someone who is relatively new to pride and gets overwhelmed by this discourse every year. i feel like the arguments against it are very clear but the arguments for seem to just be “well it used to be allowed and i want to continue that, so deal with it”. i don’t mean that dismissively, i’ve just never really seen someone explaining why pride should be inclusive of kink without it becoming very defensive and difficult to discuss.

The rights of kinksters and the lgbtqiap+ communities have always overlapped. Acts are considered "kinky" and "taboo" when they deviate from the expected heterosexual norm - two men kissing was once considered extremely abnormal, disgusting and overtly sexual in the same way that someone in a puppyplay outfit getting petted on the head is today. Neither act is inherently abnormal, disgusting or sexual. Our communities have worked together and continue to work together to increase understanding and empathy over affectionate acts.

When bodies, sexualities and lifestyles outside of the white cis normative patriarchal nuclear family are being targeted we need to stand together for our collective needs (respect, keeping the state out of our consensual sex lives, the right to wear what makes one feel connected to oneself regardless of assigned or perceived gender, a freedom of expression) and we should also stand together in celebration that there's a place for us. Leather bars and other kink spaces have often been safe havens for the LGBTQ+ communities to express ourselves without judgement, and they still are today. Also - there are many kinky queer people. If queer knitting groups are "allowed" at Pride, why not queer kink groups? Sexuality can be a big part of someone feeling connected and celebratory of their sexuality. If Pride has to at all times remain "family friendly" to the standards of the state or general public, then no Pride would ever happen.

In practice, "kink at pride" is not like, people having an orgy on the main stage or whatever it is the more nervous among us are expecting. It would be: people in fetish gear (already a mainstay of pride events), maybe people in fursuits with front zippers (stay cool and hydrated in there, babes), talks and demonstrations of safe/sane/consensual good practice, people in cute collars/leashes (also reasonably common in the pride events I've been to), nonsexual nudity, leather/kink pride flags, maybe some stands sell sex toys.

What is "acceptable sexual expression" and what is "unacceptable/kink" is entirely a cultural norm. There can be huge advertisements of heavily sexualized women's bodies in everyday life, but my friend can't show off her strap at Pride? Why?

In trying to find arguments against to rebut, I found this Vox article which discusses the inherent respectability politics at play, and also This OUT article has the powerful quote:" If Pride is to be a "family-friendly" space, I would ask: for whose family?" which are definitely worth a read for more!

For the sake of argument, let's go through some scenarios, if the things people are scared of happen:

a child at a Pride event does see someone mostly nude aside from a bandana over their privates, and they are doing a sexual dance

Nudity is not inherently bad for a child to see. Children regularly see sexual dances in music videos. This does not negatively impact them.

a child at pride is approached by someone in a puppy mask on a leash, and is asked to pat their head

This is not a sexual act. It is patting someone's head. The child goes 'ah, someone is pretending to be a puppy' and can choose whether to not to pat their head. This does not negatively impact them.

a child sees sex toys and asks what they are/a child hears an adult call another adult "Daddy" and asks why

The responsible adult they are attending with explains that they are toys/games for grown-ups that kids would find very boring. "That's not really her daddy, they're just playing pretend". This does not negatively impact them. (Why parents are apparently so afraid at the very idea of having a conversation with their child is beyond me...alcohol also isn't appropriate for children but it's pervasive in "normal" culture as a "drinks for grown-ups").

a nonconsenting party is involved in a sexual scenario against their will

This would be awful! I agree! This would be an assault, and is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is also, unfortunately, something that is a danger at pretty much all crowded events, kink-friendly or otherwise. This, however, would not be kink at Pride, this would be assault at Pride and should be reported to a trained authority. Banning healthy, joyful sexual expression does not and never has prevented sexual violence.

However...now, don't boo me, but there can be some nuance on this point. What is the line of "involved in a sexual scenario" and "being an audience member"? Am I "involved in kink against my will" if I go to a drag show and they do a shibari routine? Or if they recreate a simulation of a kinky scene that happened to them of shining someone's boots? Or if someone dresses up as a robot and says they want to fuck their laptop and grind on it? Or if they pull out their comically long strap-on and rub it in a willing volunteer's face? (All of these happened at local drag events, all of them fucking RULED!!!! in my opinon haha). I don't think so, but, would that opinion change if they'd visibly climaxed during those performances while staring me in the eye? I don't know! But also - am I "involved in a sexual scenario" if I go and watch Avenue Q and there are puppets simulating sex acts? Or if a performer makes intense eye contact during Cabaret's opening number? There are contexts at play - most pride events that contain overtly sexual performances are going to be appropriately signposted, and all of the above examples are from 18+ shows. This one podcast talks about having seen a (fully clothed) flogging before the 18+ hours (which they highlight as unusual and unexpected, and this appears to be their only personal example of having seen it something they consider over the line at Pride) (I think this is an interesting conversation they have, worth reading the whole thing), were they being involved in a sexual scenario? As spectators to a fully clothed scene, not at all invited into it? I don't know! It's something I'll be thinking about...

I do know! That basing "what is acceptable" on "what makes me and my friends personally uncomfortable" is not a great basis for community organization and event policy. Because what if my friend gets a new friend who is 'uncomfortable' with hijabs. Or fat people. Or trans people. It's not a good way to run things.

a queerphobic person sees and points to it as an example of why all queer people are degenerate freaks who want to sexualize everything and should be locked up

These are people we are resisting WITH our pride. Locking out those who do not fit into their idea of acceptable helps none of us and is harms more of us, because to them, we are all minor-abusing, sick, disgusting freaks who should be locked up no matter how innocuous our expressions of affection and love. If we let fear of what other people might think of our movement leave members of OUR community out in the cold, then our movement is doomed. Kick out the kinksters -> kick out the gender non conforming -> kick out the people of colour -> kick out the disabled -> etc.

To finish - I fully understand why people are defensive around this subject. No one likes being called a horrible freak who wants to inflict their deviant nasty sexuality on the innocent for being or standing up for kinksters. From the above podcast: "People have...this big, emotional reaction to kink. Because again, most people consider it to be very sexual. Most people are very uneducated about it. Most people don’t know what it is, or what it looks like. So, kink where there are children sounds bad to people who don’t really know what that means". Extending grace and listening to the content of someone's argument even when their tone doesn't line up with what you feel is warranted in these discussions will be helpful for reaching understanding. The same respectability politics that seek to limit queer expression can also be used to ignore voices that don't fit a demand for meekness, friendliness or approachability. Which I'm not saying you're doing, it's just something to watch out for.

[toomanyideasandfandoms]

Okay okay okay so I have a VERY hot take...

I don't think the Sovereigns would like the creator. Cuz like it's more likely that the creator is the one that made humans, not the dragons before it. Because why would you create the dragons, and then later on just throw away the idea and push the dragons away when you could have created another planet to put the humans on instead, right?

Neuvi is the exception because he was reborn off on a human body and is technically created by the creator. HOWEVER, imagine that it's the dragon's authority that helps Neuvi realize the creator is the real deal. Like sure, the subtle power that they notice from the creator is there, but like with the authority itself (and being in tune with it as much as he would be when he obtains it), it would be MUCH more obvious.

That brings up the question as to why the archons aren't able to tell, and that's because of their own mind blocking it. How most people work is that whenever they think something is true, it takes a LOT to be able to like change their mind on something if they were wrong. So imagine that they hear of the impostor going around, but whenever they meet them, they feel that power and that pull. But because they've conditioned themselves to think of them as the impostor and not the actual creator, they stay stubborn and just push off that doubt in their minds.

Y'know who wouldn't be like that? FOCALORS (and Nahida cuz Irminsul). Think about it, she barely hears about any sort of like rumors or any badmouthin the cause she's been inside the Oritrice, and because she is made out of water (Oceanid stuff), they're more in tune with the authority. So without that block, they can tell right away during the trial on the "impostor" that they are in fact the real creator, which is why it will ALWAYS say they are innocent, no matter what.

Anyways, kinda went off on a tangent there sorry-

🍌anon

See this is where I ended up deep diving in the wiki by accident at one point that caused me to have this big brain moment.

So we know the Primordial One exists right? This is a canon god that created humans after essentially taking over Teyvat with the Heavenly Principles. That's canon.

So if the Primordial One is already canonically the one who created our characters (essentially)...what the fuck did our creator create?

My answer, Teyvat itself of course. But also the dragon Sovereigns themselves.

But I can already hear you asking, then how did we get to the modern canon of gods? Simple, Teyvat itself is an entity that can control and influence the elements, albeit very little. And with that influence the Heavenly Principles can't fully erase the authority of the creator, instead they rewrite history to favor them.

Saying the Dragons grew tired of being under the creator and chose to rebel, causing the creator to summon the Primordial One (which causes the creator to gain the title of Primordial Mother) to gain aid from. Then we essentially have our original canon mythos that's in the game itself. Essentially it's the same as with any history, written by the victors instead of what the full truth is.

And for why the archons can't recognize the creator is simply because the Heavenly Principles just won't allow them to. Because they've stolen (or attempted to for eons) the authority from the creator.

And here's my own hot take when it comes to the role of the Heavenly Principles, they aren't the creator's friend. They're more like a parasite that's trying to take over what the creator had originally made. Though the reasons I haven't fully thought up honestly. Could be jealousy, a twisted version of obsession, honestly it's up in the air for now.

But I like your hot take! Honestly most aus I've seen where the Heavenly Principles are on the creator's side would fit this very well. Actually it would be interesting if someone did an au where the isekaied protagonist is the reincarnation of the Primordial One and has to deal with the fact that they are trapped in Fontaine because the rage the Hydro Sovereign has would keep them there for all eternity just so he could enact justice on their past life's actions.

[mimikyuno]

are you the "if it's immoral irl, it's not okay to enjoy in fiction", "everything is allowed in fiction, because it's not real life", or the non-secret third thing? :thinking: emoji

i started typing the reply to this ask like 10 times bc i wanna be very careful about how i word this but basically i’m picking the secret third option lol

i have noticed that the debate around issues like this has become more and more polarised and black and white online which is uhm. not good. neither of the first two stances presuppose to actually tackle the alleged taboo topic from a critical perspective. like, why is X topic considered immoral? by whom? why did the author include this taboo topic? how is it presented in the media i am consuming? am i supposed to enjoy it, or feel repulsed by it, or something else? does this problematic topic have a narrative purpose? if so, is it presented well? is the narrative glorifying this topic? no?

some potentially triggering topics discussed under the cut

like, look at rgu!! the show has so many taboo topics (incest, grooming, csa, amongst others), and all these topics are brought into the plot to expose how the patriarchy oppresses and exploits kids and women to maintain the power balance. these topics were discussed and tackled graphically, but it was not in vain. it made rgu a very hard watch. after watching the episode where akio assaults utena, i literally felt so sick i started crying. i am still glad the show tackled these topics. did it always do so perfectly? no! is it then romanticising these topics and saying it’s “okay”? also no!!

this ask is about ave mujica episode 11 and my comments on it so here we go. i genuinely think it was a great episode - the parallels to tomori’s backstory episode (tomori open and showing us from her pov, uika/hatsune acting for us on stage), the acting, directing, stylistic choices, and overall settings and script were brilliant. i think that hatsune being related to sakiko adds so much depth to her character and her obsession with sakiko. it was always sick. the episode before the reveal, the authors made sure to show us how toxic and twisted uika’s obsession with sakiko is - she stole her stage clothes to make a mannequin and slept next to it, wrote obsessive lyrics fantasising about confining and weakening her. and sakiko was shown being uncomfortable with this and having to put on a cold facade to take responsibility for uika’s feelings.

and imo, ep 11 made it clear to me that hatsune/uika is just. so lost. “what is this obsession if not love” is the conclusion she came to. bc sakiko represents everything that uika has never had, everything that was taken from her just bc of who she was born to. she saw sakiko as this ideal princess in a castle, and that princess was kind to her. saw her and showed her love. but hatsune was pretending to be someone else. i remember reading an interview by the director of avemuji just a few weeks ago where he mentioned that uika was the only character who written without a real life inspiration; she’s a person whose whole identity is a mask, her character is more of a concept. and what better way to explore obsession and twistedness and lack of identity and alienation than by having her be the bastard child of a rich man belonging to a rich, powerful family, rejected since birth, living with a sister and a mother and foster father and feeling so different from all of them, obsessing over the legitimate grand daughter of the father who is hiding you like a secret?

the thing is it’s been annoying me how everyone is kinda losing their minds about this reveal when it was 1. hinted at, and 2. uisaki was never a cute wholesome ship lol like just till yesterday the whole fandom was joking about hatsune kidnapping and possibly harming sakiko. does that mean people who were joking about it think that it’s okay irl? i have been in fandom for like over 15 years now and im telling you a few years ago ave mujica would have already been cancelled for having hatsune be yandere-coded. but now toxic yuri is great but only when sanitized and readily available for consumption by as wide an audience as possible (yes im blaming tiktok and capitalism). BUT LIKE. man this show is so good 😭 and the reveal makes sense and was hinted at and it adds depth to the character 😭 and uisaki was always toxic 😭😭 and the show has shown us sakiko is not that comfortable with hatsune’s feelings anyway like 😭😭😭😭😭 AND THE INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO THE AUDIENCE TO MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE!!! to make us go “OH SHIT THIS IS MESSED UP!” SO WHY ARE PEOPLE SO UPSET 😭😭

do i ship uisaki now? personally no, i’m just rly hoping for hatsune and sakiko to have a heart to heart and for sakiko to accept hatsune as family and heal the fucked up shit the togawa’s have going on. have hatsune finally become herself. but it just rubs me the wrong way that people are treating this reveal purely from a shipping perspective and assuming that bc hatsune has this unhealthy attachment to sakiko, then the show was condoning incest like literally no 😭 the past few episodes have been sakiko IGNORING hatsune’s existence and hatsune literally stopped existing in the narrative outside of sakiko’s gaze while sakiko chased after mutsumi 😭😭 PLEASE

i have sm to say about uisaki but this was about fiction so i’ll reiterate: secret third option (media literacy and critical thinking skills) 🥸

[dicktat]

since you're like thee designated Hakon lover in this fandom (/pos) , I was wondering if you could explain his backstory a bit? I'm a new fan and just so confused by his motives

sorry if this is annoying! 😭

Hi!!! Sorry this literally took forever I spent the entire week tinkering with this piece because I would love answering this for you🥺🥺🥺so here’s my comprehensive character analysis on Hakon tho fair warning it’s mostly personal thoughts but I hope you enjoy anyway! Welcome to my absolutely normal and not at all freaky overanalyzing autistic nonsense and definitely filled with all the psychology major knowledge I possess and not what came up on an acid trip

So it all begins here, the man who saved you from the gallows and spared you a life, the whore, the conspirator, the saint. Who is he and what makes him what he is? I’d love to take a crack at it.

Maybe we should start from his flashbacks. I always headcanonned him to be a bit of a nebulous figure, possibly grew up with an unfunctioning household, explains why his marital life is a shitshow. Either learned to be promiscuous from his parents or the other way around, extremely religious ridden family that pushed him to be a helpless romantic horndog. He’s free spirited, as seen from the way he explains his past life, 4 wives, countless partners, the way he met his buddy for life in the military and went broke for his disobedience(he’s probably super rebellious when he’s young), became a taxi driver (yet another free spirited job) and a Nightrunner. We don’t know much about his past but we can probably speculate. For me I kind of like the idea of a young punk player with a vision of helping others, probably once an idealist, but still extremely empathic and caring.

(totally random but here's an old drawing of young Hakon with pretty long hair)

Then the fall happened and everything turned to shit, from what we can gather he defected to the renegades not long after the Nightrunner disbanded, and that's where his suffering all begins. We know he probably was kind of mistreated under Walt's command, you know, the whole renegades not listening to his orders and turning on him thing?

He probably learned to take it laying down, from the way he easily submits everytime Aiden uses force on him, surrendering himself at the hideout and the church typical reaction of an abuse victim but we're not gonna unpack that. We obviously can't say for sure what happened in those years that made him who he is, from a passionate "remember when we used to help others" and romantic youth to...dare some say...villain?

No. I do not believe he’s inherently evil and I think people saying he’s irredeemable is wrong. He’s manipulative, calculated and morally grey, but none of that is without a reason. He lies, deceives and betrays to protect, not just for the ones he love but for himself. See I happen to study a bit of this kind of personality and I can safely conclude he’s doing everything outta FEAR. He’s afraid of loosing his loved ones and that’s why he turned to his enemy, he’s afraid of death so he does whatever to survive, he’s afraid of intimacy so he puts on a deceptive disguise of a playful bastard so he can drown out the voices when he’s terrified and alone.

See this is where I bring out the hottest take of the fandom yet. I think his motivation has always been LOVE, but he always ends up doing the worst thing. He loved Lawan, He loved his unborn child, He probably loved Aiden (platonically or romantically it doesn’t matter) too. But the results? Lawan resented him for ten years and he’s deemed a fraud by everyone he ever loved, his child never got to see the beauty of the world and worst of all he of all people hurt Aiden the most. I think it’s both ironic and poetic that his feelings for his loved ones became his biggest enemy and is the very reason he suffers. He’s creating all the tragedies of his life because he’s a lover first thinker second. If you know a little about MBTI (it’s okay if you don’t you can skip this part) you’d see his extremely obvious ENFJ personality.

Everything he does is outta love (Fe) and intuition (Ni), which is not to say he’s literally mother Teresa because this bitch is complex!!! And with his inferior logical thinking (Ti) he’s kind of dumb at times, because what do you mean this bitch went on ten years without at least sending Frank a message explaining everything.

But the worst thing about him is that he is disordered. None of his motivation is pure and that’s his greatest bane. He’s good but not upfront enough to be honest with the person who he saved, he’s evil but not calloused enough to kill the pilgrim at the bazaar, he’s brave enough to carry all the burdens on himself for ten years but so much of a coward he’s terrified of losing anyone for five minutes. If he was cynical like Waltz he would’ve taken the key and killed Aiden when he was unconscious, if he was a paragon of virtue like Frank he would’ve done everything to ensure the pilgrim is safe. But he’s neither. And that makes his position so much more tragic considering his current reputation, the most deplorable Nightrunner to ever exist and the Saint of all renegades.

And he’s always been just that. His disorderly morals and ambiguous stance in alliance forces him to make decisions that he probably regrets, he’s always in some kind of moral dilemma. Chose between allowing all his friends to die at the VNC tower or risk his reputation and bail, chose between his loved one getting killed by Waltz or become his personal slave for ten years, chose between killing his new found trusting partner or his ticket to a safer life outside the walls.

He’s always hesitant, hell, I doubt he even knows what he wants and always contradicting his words. From the church fight alone he said both "we're not friends, never were" and "consider this a divorce". Is that something a person says if he truly wants you dead? And him immediately ceasing to fight after you initiated understanding is also just him being unsure about his decisions and showing he probably didn't want to do this. Again I'm not downplaying what he did. He's a dick. But not entirely.

I think it's obvious the game doesn't want you to see him as the villain. From all the hints of him not being as bad as others made him to be to Frank being an unreliable narrator(and calling him Satan himself), the game introduced him as something far more malicious than what he really is, and it's from analyzing his actions and motivations that we see he's probably not horrible.

Remember the mural at one of the old houses in Trinity?

Yeah it's a reference missed by many, but I think it truly encapsulates what he is. Not Satan himself or a savior, but rather once an angelic figure turned unsavory. The fallen Nightrunner haunted by guilt and remorse.

I think Lawan's route of killing him really insinuates the point most, from seeing him as the root of all evils to finally putting him under and her only comment is all this time of hunting the devil down, "he just looks...vulnerable".

I am actually so glad you asked this. I’ve seen people argue about it all the time. He’s an extremely complicated character and I think it’s such an injustice to his writing if the audience were to label him “good” or “evil”. He’s well written because he’s ambiguous. And I love to interpret what he is like.

Also my apologies for the crazy essay I wish this satisfied your question and you’re so welcome to ask more. Again there might be some biases in there because I am passionate about his character (also stoopppppppp wdym I’m the certified Hakon lover/pos) thank you for reading this and I hope this fandom treats you well🥰🥰🥰

[its-short-for-jackalope]

Drawing request drawing request! If u’d like, can u do Holloduke/Holloweane? If not that, then maybe Chumby, the Hatchetfield Ape-Man with Willabella Muckwab. Put ‘em in a room together and see what happens haha!

Just run away with me, [I] won't feel so alone