#I WROTE BUT AT WHAT COST

[ghostforwhat]

should i post the hannigram shotgunning ficlet i wrote in a fugue state

[inkskinned]

i got rickrolled today but it didn't work because i have adblocker installed, so youtube just told me i violated the terms of service. yesterday i was trying to edit a picture as a joke for my girlfriend, and google made me check a box to prove i'm human because i wasn't "searching normally".

it isn't just that capitalism is killing fun and whimsy, it is that any element of entertainment or joy is being fed upon by this mosquito body, one that will suck you dry at any vulnerability.

do you want to meet new friends in your city? download this app, visit our website, sign up for our email list. pay for this class on making a terrarium, on candlemaking, on cooking. it will be 90 dollars a session. you can go to group fitness, but only under our specific gym membership. solve the puzzle, sign up for our puzzle-of-the-month-club. what is a club if not just a paid opportunity - you are all paying for the same thing, which makes you a community.

but you're like me, i know it - you're careful, you try the library meetings and the stuff at the local school and all of that. the problem is that you kind of want really specific opportunities that used to exist. you are so grateful for libraries and the publicly-funded things: they are, however, an exception - and everything they have, they've fought tooth-and-nail to protect. you read a headline about how in many other states, libraries have virtually nothing left.

do you want to meet up with your friends afterwards? gift your friends the discord app. you can choose to go to a cafe (buy a coffee, at least), a bar (money, alcohol) or you can all stay in and catch a movie (streaming) or you can all stay in bed (rent. don't get me started) and scream (noise complaint. ticket at least).

you want to read a new book, but the book has to have 124 buzzwords from tiktok readers that are, like, weirdly horny. you can purchase this audiobook on audible! your podcast isn't on spotify, it's on its own server, pay for a different site. fuck, at least you're supporting artists you like. the art museum just raised their ticket price. once, they had a temporary exhibit that acknowledged that ~85% of their permanent art galleries were from cis white men, and that they had thousands of works by women (even famous women, like frida! georgia o'keefe!) just rotting in their basement. that exhibit lasted for 3 months and then they put everything away again.

walmart proudly supports this strip of land by the street! here are some flowers with wilting leaves. its employees have to pay out-of-pocket for their uniforms. my friend once got fined by the city because she organized a community pick-up of the riverfront, which was technically private property.

no, you cannot afford to take that dance class, neither can i. by the way - i'm a teacher. i'm absolutely not saying "educators shouldn't be paid fairly." i'm saying that when i taught classes, renting a studio went from 20 bucks an hour to 180 in the span of 6 months. no significant changes to the studio were made, except they now list the place as updated and friendly. the heat still doesn't work in the building. i have literally never seen the landlord who ignores my emails. recently they've been renting it out at night as an "unusual nightclub; a once-in-a-lifetime close-knit party." they spent some of those 180 dollars on LEDs and called it renovating. the high heels they invite in have been ruining the marley.

do you want to experience the old internet? do you want to play flash games or get back the temporary joy of club penguin? you can, you just need to pay for it. i have a weird, neurodivergent obsession with occasionally checking in to watch the downfall and NFT-ification of neopets. if i'm honest with you all - i never got into webkins, my family didn't have the money to buy me a pointless elephant. people forget that "being poor" can mean literally "if i buy you that toy, i can't afford rent."

you and i don't have time to make good food, and we don't have the budget for it. we are not gonna be able to host dinner parties, we're not made of money, kid. do you want some kind of 3rd space? a space that isn't home or work or school? you could try being online, but - what places actually exist for you? tiktok counts as social media because you see other people on it, not because they actually talk to you.

there was a local winter tradition of sledding down the hill at my school. kids would use pizza boxes and jackets and whatever worked, howling and laughing. back in september, they made a big announcement that this time, rules were changing, and everyone must pay 10 dollars to participate. when im not scared shitless, i kind of appreciate the environmental irony - it hasn't gone below 40. so much for snow & joyriding.

i saw a bulletin for a local dogwalking group and, nervous about making a good first impression, showed up early. the first guy there grimaced at me. "sorry," he said. "there's a 30-dollar buy-in fee." i thought he was joking. wait. for what? the group doesn't offer anything except friendship and people with whom to walk around the city.

he didn't know the answer. just shrugged at me. "you know," he said. "these days, everything costs money."

[elizabethzoopzoop986]

I hate this fucking manga how am I supposed to have a life and write essays about shit when I sit down start to think and all that comes to mind is some gay little toilet freaks istg it’s a hard knock life

[stealingpotatoes]

What's your honest opinion on Star Wars Acolyte?

the acolyte pissed on my fucking wife

[add1ctedt0you]

What a plot twist you were. [x]

[batsplat]

Is Valentino Rossi the best rider in 1vs1 battles?

ehhhhh *shrugs* I mean. the best ever? like. who knows. the best in the field most years he was competing in the sport? maybe, I guess?

this is one of those questions where I don't really like giving definitive answers but am more interested in how you'd even go about assessing it? like, what metrics are you looking at, what are the criteria, can you put numbers to it or do you have to be super holistic about it or what. I think the 1 vs 1 is already an interesting distinctions, because that is a little different from just talking about wheel to wheel skill. they're related skill sets, but it's not the exact same

so. to bring in an example with a sample set of races I imagine most people reading this are pretty familiar with. let's say we're comparing valentino and marc in direct combat with each other. let's say we put the races where they're fighting one-on-one for basically the entire race in one box, so assen 2015 and catalunya 2016. let's say we have races where one of them is working their way through the field - and it's all building towards the confrontation between the two of them, so say a qatar 2013, a qatar 2014, an argentina 2015. let's say you have a very intense fight that doesn't last the whole race, like sepang 2015, or an extended 'duel' that is basically a defensive ride without any actual overtakes, like silverstone 2015. now, you may have noticed that from this list, valentino... kinda wins a lot of these? not qatar 2014, plus sepang 2015 is in the 'this cost both riders too much to have a winner' camp, but except for that? it's a strong record for valentino. however! the moment you take away the '1 vs 1' qualifier, suddenly the record looks way kinder to marc - you have a catalunya 2014, a phillip island 2015 and a phillip island 2017 go in his favour, while only assen 2017 is a multi-rider dogfight that involves both of them where valentino ends up taking the win. I do think when you're considering 'rivalries' and how a particular dynamic develops over time, it's worth looking specifically at what's happening in extended one-on-one combat and differentiating that from dogfights! because it is a different vibe, because it matters if you're just focused on one guy. but of course both categories still matter in assessing direct combat... even if there are also different skills involved in those different types of fights. valentino, even very late in his career, was still particularly adept at challenging and outsmarting individual riders, and it's a specific format he clearly did thrive in. so. yeah. both of these general categories are indicative of w2w ability, even if they're not quite the same - either in terms of the skills required or in terms of narrative implications

here's another issue. valentino tends to win the race-deciding extended confrontations against marc, but obviously that too isn't entirely reflective of what happened when they met each other on-track. this is because during their time together in the premier class, marc was winning a lot more races than valentino and generally had more pace than valentino, so a lot of on-track confrontations that marc came on top of where typically one-and-done type situations. overtake and move on, overtake and move on. so while you still have a misano 2014 (valentino overtakes marc and marc eventually crashes while attempting to keep up) or a brno 2014 (another valentino overtake where he pulls clear), you then also have laguna 2013 (the corkscrew move is the end of that battle), le mans 2014 (a single overtake around halfway through the race after which marc easily pulls clear), indy 2014 (an early tussle that eventually becomes more marc domination), motegi 2016 (similar, except here valentino ends up crashing), thailand 2018 (valentino can't keep up the pace once marc has gotten past)... like, we get to a place where we're risking penalising marc for 'being very fast' and not sticking around once he's gotten the overtake done, which does also feel wrong? it's an odd balance - because, again, when we're talking Actual Rivalries then it does matter who is winning an extended battle, psychologically if nothing else. like if that's the bit that mattered the most to the outcome of your race, if that's the bit people will remember years to come, if you invested a lot into winning that fight, of course it does matter. but that's narrative, not skill... is this really a good way of assessing how good someone is at 1 vs 1 duels?

I picked the example of that specific rivalry not just because it's the one most people are most familiar with or because I love engaging in discourse about that rivalry - but because I think direct rivalry comparisons are probably the most straightforward way you can approach trying to figure out who is 'better'... and marc clocks in just behind casey as the one who has the most balanced record against valentino w2w. like, biaggi is basically a walkover, and honestly you don't really have that many extended 1 vs 1 duels except for welkom 2004. and for sete, obviously a great rivalry (and I've always believed you don't need a rivalry of equals for it to be good and fun), but also once you get past that sachsenring 2003 turning point then the balance does go out of the window. I've been thinking about this in relation to a longer ask I've ended up massively overthinking (surely not), but I was kinda startled looking back at just how one-sided valentino's record is against jorge. like, unless I'm forgetting some major battles, the most extended scrap you can point to that jorge won is for his very first premier class win at estoril 2008 - and that's also pretty much settled by around halfway/two thirds through the race. but the actual 1 vs 1's that last much of the race? catalunya 2009? sachsenring 2009? motegi 2010? well.... hm. races that build to a battle like sepang 2010 also go in valentino's favour, and even extended tussles like le mans 2011 and phillip island 2014 are more valentino W's. hell, even various short and sweet battles like jerez and indy 2008, misano 2009, motegi 2015, aragon 2016, sachsenring 2018 generally have valentino come out on top - though in this category there's some exceptions, like qatar 2008, indy 2009 and jerez 2010 that all involved jorge besting valentino in a short direct fight

which raises another problem... we do need to in some way acknowledge that valentino simply ends up in more of these fights than most of his rivals - and as a direct result ends up winning more of them. like, once jorge clicked into title winning form in 2010, most of his wins became 'shoot off the line and win way ahead of everyone else with metronomic consistency'. I'm not saying all his race wins were like that! and he did win some great duels in his time in the premier class, especially against marc. but of course, he did that kind of dominating races a hell of a lot more than valentino did - whose approach to winning races was more 'qualify wherever, amble off the line, get moving around halfway through the race and figure things out from there'. now, I discussed this point a little bit here in the context of 'was valentino still successfully mind gaming the other aliens' - but just to bring it back, valentino was deliberately approaching his races in ways geared primarily towards being able to fight his opponents, even to the level of how he set up his bike:

you see this most extremely with something like laguna 2008, where valentino flat out knew he didn't have the outright pace to win - his entire strategy was built around not being the fastest but being able to fuck with casey. in that situation, he's not got the speed, he's building his entire strategy for the win around wheel-to-wheel disruption. and this, plus the regularly mediocre qualifying and starts, does just mean that statistically speaking he's overtaking more riders in his average win than any of the other aliens are. like, if that's your primary metric, then yes! he's clearly very good at w2w! by extension he's also very good at 1 vs 1 duels! if you're looking at riders who have clocked in more than a certain number of wins and do the maths of average overtakes per win, then, yes, I would imagine he tops that metric. does that make him the best? ... well, again... it does feel like you're risking penalising the better qualifiers and starters for being better qualifiers and starters and not ending up in seventh place at the end of every single first lap

so, you've got 'how they measure up against their direct rivals' and 'average numbers of overtakes' as ways to begin considering w2w ability as well as 1 vs 1 track record. then you get into increasingly nebulous waters... here's another potential metric for w2w skill I quite like: efficiency in overtaking. not naming any names, but there are certain riders who, when attempting to work their way through the field, will just. get stuck. even though they have a clear pace advantage over the rider directly in front of them. leading to incredible amounts of faffing about rather than just getting the overtake done. obviously, valentino does like to engage in some faffing about too, but generally speaking he's only doing that when he's in close proximity to the race leader and can realistically get himself to the front of the pack fairly quickly. he's very efficient when he's actually working his way through the field. of course, this is something marc is similarly excellent at, as he has shown plenty of times this year... which. well. this is where we run headfirst into another problem: this sport has changed a lot over the years and some things are simply not at the same difficulty level as they were in past years. so, sticking with those two, which of these is a 'better' comeback? 2006 sachsenring, where valentino starts tenth on the grid after tyre problems in qualifying, at a track he doesn't really love and in serious championship trouble, but works his way to the front before having to fend off the chasing pack that is coming back at him all the way until the chequered flag? or 2024 sachsenring, where marc starts thirteenth on the grid after having been impeded in q1, at his speciality circuit that he's visiting for the first time on a new bike, and works his way up to p2 despite his fractured rib and finger in an era where overtaking is a lot harder than it was in 2006? well, first of all, congrats to both of them, very nicely done. but secondly, that's kind of the problem, right? while I'm sure prime valentino in this era would also regularly be doing that marc/pedro thing where they make the commentators go 'oh ho ho they said overtaking was impossible in motogp these days!!' - at the end of the day his approach involved some built-in faffing about that was also more feasible back in the day. if we're assessing w2w ability, we do need to make some kind of allowance for era - which also affects how often riders are likely to find themselves in 1 vs 1 duels in the first place

here's another plausible metric: last lap battles. this is ALSO something that is super era-dependent. casey in his whole time in the premier class gets involved in like? about four battles that are still going on in the final lap? there's definitely a few I'm forgetting, especially if they weren't for wins/podium places, but it's definitely not a lot. compare and contrast with how the 2017 to 2019 era played out. everything back then was tyre management, tyre management and more tyre management, and dovi in particular was big on the 'eh let's win this race at the slowest possible pace' thing, where everyone crawled around the track as slowly as they could get away with before pulling the pin a few laps before the end. obviously, the characteristics of that era were a) very beneficial to dovi, in that they rewarded both those who knew how to make those specific tyres work (and his decline in 2020 was largely linked to the changes in tyres) and those who were very good at managing last lap duels, but b) inherently were more likely to produce last lap duels than a few other eras. like, in the alien era, which regularly featured gaps of. idk. seven seconds between the front runners, the characteristics of those bikes (as well as those riders) just meant you had very few battles that lasted that long. so inherently, it's harder to judge riders like, say, casey on how good they are in that kind of situation, not least because you are working with such a tiny sample size. and those battles are a big feature of how we remember 1 vs 1 duels!! people love last lap duels!!

now, yes, obviously valentino's record in 1 vs 1 last lap duels is very strong, and there's really only a few he loses over the course of his entire career. dovi is another strong contender in that particular category if we're just limiting ourselves to riders this century (which we are). (unfortunately, those two kinda took turns to be competitive so we didn't really get much of a direct h2h, but off the top of my head I think it's a pleasing 2-2? dovi takes qatar 2008 and le mans 2011, valentino takes qatar 2015 and argentina 2019. I feel like I'm definitely forgetting something.) but again, you do end up in caveat central with this metric. look at marc, who was reliably finding himself in last lap duels specifically at tracks he and/or the honda were quite poor at - again, ragging on that record too much does feel like you're penalising him for managing to get there in the first place. on the other hand, is it really fair to take too much credit away from dovi in handling those situations - surely, at the point where you're arriving in the last lap together, you're at a stage where both riders have a decent chance of winning? on the third hand, it is worth pointing out that dovi is more often than not in the lead going into those last laps, and is fending off a sort of on-the-edge last gasp 'might as well have a go' marc attack. 'last lap battles' is inherently quite a loose term, and how much should who's leading going in be considered a criterion? does it matter if you actually have an overtake or not? does it matter when in the lap the overtake happens? it's obviously quite an arbitrary category... sete makes a mistake headed into the last lap at sachsenring 2005 that gives valentino the lead, while marc makes a mistake on the penultimate lap of catalunya 2016 that essentially ends his victory challenge towards valentino. how do you compare those?

and at a certain point, you need to get away from the headline numbers and start thinking about what it actually means to be good at 1 vs 1 duels. you get into categories like 'race management' - choosing when best to make your attack, balancing risk and reward, not making risky overtake attempts for no good reason when you could just wait for half a minute longer, making sure not to needlessly fuck your tyres while pushing too hard too early. there's ability to actually execute overtakes, which is a question of race craft, creativity, and also about being able to play the opponent. there's various defensive abilities - somebody like pecco exemplifies this, who is both very hard to initially overtake in part due to his ability on his brakes, but is also adept at immediately re-overtaking (a favourite trick of his mentor too, as it happens). to borrow from another sport's terminology, you can contrast 'conversion' and 'steal' rate - if you have the superior underlying pace at crucial stages of the race, are you actually converting that into your maximum achievable result, or conversely if you have inferior pace, can you steal a result your pace doesn't 'merit'? obviously, you get a massive blot in the copy book every time you fail to convert any kind of result by crashing out or by bagging yourself a severe penalty for your race conduct. what about the psychological dimension? your ability to put pressure on another rider, e.g. by showing them a wheel here or there, to force them into a mistake rather than 'just overtaking' them via pure skill? is reputation and intimidation part of your skill set when it comes to wheel to wheel ability? the off-track 'work' you're doing on the opponent, and the prior weight of their expectations for this fight... your ability to study and analyse riders to pinpoint where they are at their strongest and weakest, while also figuring out where they're going to expect an attack and where they won't - maybe even sucker them into thinking it will come from somewhere differently than it actually does... on sheer weight of his track record, you'd have to say valentino is pretty much peerless in some of these categories. and, yes, some of these skills are weighted quite clearly towards the '1 vs 1' element over the 'multi-rider dogfight' element of w2w skills. they're more about terrorising a specific rival than thriving in the chaos

so. what does all of this mean. what's the actual answer. is valentino the best at 1 vs 1 duels. well. who knows. even if we're ignoring the historical dimension and limiting ourselves just to this century, there's too many confounding factors - from different racing eras within that time span to different individual approaches to racing - to allow us to truly evaluate who the 'best' is. I think the cleanest way to summarise it is... from the great riders this century, valentino is the one who most depends on his 1 vs 1 skills (and w2w skills more broadly). that's his unique selling point in a way you wouldn't say it is for any of the others... the guy who gets closest is dovi - but I still reckon his biggest skill is his tyre management and that was the most important differentiating factor that made him so competitive in 2017-19. his ability to scrap w2w comes second (and is absolutely a constant throughout his career), but really that's the bit that allows him to take advantage of the tyre whispering skills... it lets him finish the job, if you will. whereas with valentino, his brains and cunning broadly speaking and his w2w more specifically - and especially the 1 vs 1 stuff - is like, his x factor. I mean... obviously he's also good at the other things - I called him a mid qualifier but of course it's worth remembering he has 55 career pole positions in the premier class, more than jorge or casey or dani. this is primarily a function of his longevity and all of them are definitely better qualifiers than him, but like. of course he's not slow. it's just that relatively speaking, when compared to the other aliens, he's the one who is winning the least via his actual raw pace. here's one metric for that: in valentino's seven premier class title campaigns, he only has the highest average grid position in only three (and during his super dominant 2002 season, it's joint with biaggi). in three of those title-winning seasons, he's the second best qualifier on average, and in one of them he's only third best. the only other seasons this century where the best qualifier on average doesn't win the title are 2015 (marc just beats jorge, valentino is quite a distant third), 2020 (joan mir icon winning a title with an average grid position of NINE POINT FIVE SEVEN lmaoooooo, only seventh best on the grid), 2022 (fabio is a little ahead of martin and then pecco) and... that's it

which kinda means that... can you say valentino's objectively better at 1 vs 1 battles than the other aliens? well, no. I mean, sure, I do feel fairly happy to say he's better than jorge and especially dani, more *wiggles hand* about casey and marc - because with those two there's enough confounding factors in comparing them to valentino and they've also challenged valentino often enough directly that you can make the alternative case. in the end you do kinda go... well, it's very much a 'all these guys were at their best in very different versions of motogp' thing. what you can say is that for valentino, 1 vs 1 prowess is a bigger part of his game than it is for his fellow aliens. his route to victory both on an individual race level and on a title fight level is built around engaging in a lot of these fights and winning them - and, given how successful he's been, of course you do have to conclude that bit of his game is clearly operating on a high level. so when you compare that to both casey and marc, those two really do have other bits of their games that are more important to their success. fewer of their race victories percentage-wise have been won through 1 vs 1 duels. casey is dominating enough races from the front he's not even doing all that much w2w tussling. marc might be losing plenty of these close duels, but he's relentlessly at the front enough that this consistency is what's giving him titles as much as anything else. whereas valentino's entire approach is tailored towards finding himself in those kinds of direct scraps, winning said scraps, and then using those scraps as a way to demoralise the opposition... unsurprisingly, he's got the biggest sample size of that style of battle and has a very high success rate. who knows if he's the best, but he is the most dependent on that specific skill. and he sure has had a lot of practise at those duels, which I imagine will have gotten him just a little closer to being perfect

[pianapplez]

Hello there 👋👀,

So I just found your blog and had a lot of fun scrolling through all the pjo show crit😂 I couldn't help but notice that one tag you left on a post where you said you had some beef with Annabeth's portrayal in the books 👀 Would you mind elaborating on that if you're comfortable with it🙈? Because I absolutely share that sentiment, but it's sooo veeeery rare that I see other people express anything like it... I've found that trying to be a part of the fandom can be pretty alienating most of the time, if you're not exactly the biggest most devoted Percabeth shipper...😅 And often any criticism leveled at Annabeth just gets you a smack with the "internalized-misogyny" hammer... it's even worse in the tv show now due to... obvious reasons...

Again just if you're comfortable with answering of course🙈 There is a reason I stayed on anon after all...😅😂

Really glad you asked because i finally get to ramble about this heheheh (going forward, know that i skimmed over The Last Olympian to have a clearer sense of what I meant because that's the book where Rick fumbles her character more than the others)

i'm gonna try to make as much sense as possible but short answer would be, she's underdeveloped. Long answer:

She really got on my nerves in the last two books, with the whole Rachel debacle and then the Battle of New York. I can't really remember a single moment in those books where she and Percy aren't bickering or having heated discussions, which really made me question their friendship status. Of course, it's not like friends can't fight and it obviously builds up the (romantic) tension between them, but it got unbearable at one point.

I understand she's a teenager in an incredibly stressful situation that didn't even get to have a normal upbringing- she grew up way too fast (run away at 7, head counselor at 12) while also not really maturing, which is not a problem for a character, if it is handled properly. Given the fact that I am writing this, Riordan did not.

On the surface, my biggest beef is that Annabeth is not exactly held accountable for her actions (ie. treating Rachel a bit like shit and going off on Percy for a bunch of stuff.) I know Percy is to blame a bit here: as far as we know, in TLO he basically cuts the greek world out of his life as much as he can as a coping mechanism. And while yes, he never apologizes either, he doesn't give her nearly half the hard time she gives him: always either giving him the cold shoulder (there must be at least one example of this in the entire series but i cant be bothered to look it up sorry) or starting an argument only to then storm off (see the "you're a coward, Percy Jackson!" scene, which is not the fairest example since she was confronting Percy about ignoring camp but also was a bit too harsh about it) (especially after finally reading the prophecy and being under the impression that he was absolutely going to die when he turned 16 lmao) or just straight up storming off (see, Annabeth reacting when Rachel shows up for the first time during the battle of new york). While most of these feel, at least to some degree, fairly justified given how the entire situation does an absolute number on her emotions, she comes off a bit brattish and like she's trying to rile Percy up, especially when it comes to Rachel, which in the context of a battle that could mean the destruction of the world.... Well, it reads as a bit childish to me, and i wouldn't exactly have that much of a problem with it if it was dealt with in some way (a two-way apology would be nice).

After that first impression, i realized that Annabeth is barely ever anything else other than a plot device (when relating to Luke) or a love interest (when relating to Percy). This might be because the books are on Percy's POV. Hell, on the third book he's even conflicted when Annabeth is considering joining the Hunters of Artemis, aka, when making a choice for herself would mean he loses her (which is fine and dandy but it feels like Percy is more upset about her choosing her own path rather than being sad about not seeing her as often); we really only get a few glimpses of her, as in, actually her when she's on her own.

Obviously it's impossible to talk about Annabeth without touching on percabeth, which also is, in my opinion, what hinders Annabeth's character the most. On paper they sound great. The guy whose fatal flaw is loyalty falls in love with a girl whose been let down by people over and over, and she decides to never give up on the boy whose always had people give up on him (can't find one of the million posts that talks about this right now but it always goes something like that) And yeah, the bickering is really well written! But that's literally as far as it ever goes: they don't ever seem to have fun together, because 8 times out of 10 the bickering ends up being passive aggressive, and mostly done by Annabeth. My biggest gripe about percabeth is that their friendship seems to be based off... shared trauma. Literally. Other than going on quests together we are given no examples of them hanging out, nor a reason why they would want to spend time together in the first place, not even a shared hobby. Yes, in the fourth book they had a movie "date" planned but of course they didn't even get to it, and surprise surprise, they had a minor discussion, and surprise surprise, Annabeth was passive aggressive again. It's hard to picture them having fun together when even the author doesn't write in any scenes in which they get along smoothly (and before you say anything, a scene in which they get along where neither of them is about to die, and they're not talking about previous adventures. Gets a bit hard then, doesn't it?) It's even harder to picture them as a couple when the moment she gets upset about something, she starts coming off as emotionally manipulative (see, again, literally any conversation with Rachel or about Rachel)

To be fair, the books are relatively short and don't allow many "filler" chapters, if you will; there's always something happening to keep the main plot or a minor plot point moving forward, but it's not like there is no room to develop the characters' relationships, especially when we're talking about the main char and what is essentially his endgame. As an example we have Percy and Clarisse, or Percy and Beckendorf. Their interactions are brief but still hold so much weight.

Worst of all, Annabeth could be one hell of a character; what's most interesting of all is how being a daughter of Athena she is still incredibly emotionally driven, which is displayed very clearly with her fatal flaw being pride: her telling the Sphynx that her questions were too easy was not smart nor strategic: it was completely impulsive. I seriously think she wasn't far from being the best character in the series had she been given more time.

I guess i have as much beef with Annabeth as i have with Rick for doing her dirty. I really could sum this up with: while her emotions are justified, she acts upon them quite poorly. And this is what i mean when i say she's underdeveloped, because it would've been nice to see her come to her senses a bit.

Would love to read anyone's opinions on her character though, feel free to comment, even (or especially) if you don't agree with me!

[the-lonelybarricade]

Re-reading a chapter that I wrote when I was very tired and I've found such glorious hits as:

"Mor’s protest was waved off with a small wave"

And:

"Cassian stood, a shoulder at attention"

[damianosismyking]

So you have an au about damen being abusive with laurent ?????

Please let me know more?? Any hcs or thoughts or anything pls

The capri fandom needs some dark aus fr

~🦌🌺

hello my darling!

I've been gone so long that I have no idea when you sent this and I'm deeply sorry for that!

I came up with the idea for an AU in which Damen's abusive way back in 2019/2020 (2021?) and to say I was a different person altogether back then is an understatement. I also haven't re-read the books in a long while so I can't say I recall everything I had imagined for this fic to begin with BUT!, I've got some fuzzy thoughts stored in the back of my mind that may satisfy some of the crave for Dark Damianos (a concept deeply slept on in my honest opinion but with how much people like to hate on him for free, it's best if we keep it sleeping lol).

DISCLAIMER: in my very private opinion, Damen has a natural darkness to his character that I find appealing (or would be appealing if I wasn't a coward) to explore. Those are the lenses through which I approach the abusive patterns he could come to develop in a relationship with an already emotionally/psychologically vulnerable Laurent. And also in my very private opinion, Laurent is a vulnerable character (for all reasons we as a fandom dwelled on to the point of exhaustion, but, most of all, in relation to how he sees and thinks of Damen — in terms not only of admiration but almost adoration, just as he did with his brother).

We all rememeber the scene at the end (?) of PG when Laurent is stepping on Damen's toes by saying bad things regarding his family and how Damen loses his temper and hits Laurent hard enough to draw blood. The guards step in to arrest Damen for hurting the prince and Damen takes full blame for doing it without showing a single bit of remorse whatsoever. Laurent is the one to talk his guards down from arresting Damen by pinning the blame of being assaulted on himself and that is it.

This idea (of an AU that never came to be) was forged mostly on the side of Damen's character that has a tendency to jump believe he is always right in the assessments he makes and proceed to never question the truth behind his own reasoning. And on the side of Laurent's character that always blames himself for every bad thing that has ever happened to him despite his own helplessness, and nurtures an unhealthy need for a role model to hold on to — once his brother, now his lover.

I'm going to leave all my thoughts for this AU bellow the cut, in case some people may find the matter too upsetting to read about. Trigger warnings for domestic, physical and psychological abuse, obviously! Proceed at your own accord and don't come whinning later🫰

so putting two and two together:

Damen is prone to angry outbursts or just violence in general. We see in more than one occasion that it doesn't take much for his 'bad side' to come out, which is a characteristic a lot of aggressors in this very patriarcal society we live in also showcase. And as their universe is ALSO incredibly patriarcal, this would check out.

As aforementioned, one of the most significative intances of Damen's violence is the day (after he had already slept with Laurent, after he admitted to himself he was in love with Laurent) where he he baits into Laurent's provocations and hits him.

Laurent's edge, I personally believe, though attenuated as it may be by the end of the cicle of abuse he endured all the way from his late childhood throughout his adolescence, will continue to be in place. It was wired into him as a survival mechanisms and old habits die hard. Whenever he is overwhelmed or any of his emotions slip from his iron-cast grip, he will likely spit fire and try and hurt whoever is within his reach.

Honeymoon phase being over, let's say the kingdoms were in fact merged (not going to get into any of that). Let's say Damen is the king of Vere as much as Laurent is the king of Akielos. Let's say their troups, their guards, palace servants — they are all unbiased and answer to both Laurent and Damen as their true kings equally.

Let's say Damen and Laurent continue to get at each other's throats. Lets's say they still got plenty to disagree upon and that their personalities continue to make them butt heads. Let's say their grudges, though they have agreed to leave the past be in the past, hold and come up again. An underlying resentment inate to their love. There's a lot of tension that I can see surrounding L/D's relationship. If you don't believe that it's fine, if you don't see it, that's more than okay. But I'm asking you to bear with me here.

They are having a heated argument in their palace about something that wasn't (shouldn't be) personal, but all of a sudden is. Damen says something that offsets a chain reaction in Laurent and he becomes a boy in selfdefense mode resorting to the good old habit of pushing Damen's weak spots just for the pleasure of making him angry and miserable. Damen has had a long day, he is weary, he is fed-up with all the kyroi, all the councelors making demands and telling him how to do his job. Laurent says the wrong thing at the wrong time and a moment later he is on the floor, with his hand on his cheek touching the burning spot where Damen slapped him. He bit his tongue in the impact and he can feel the blood in his mouth which he swallows.

There are no guards that come in this time, because they know better than to step into their king's quarrels. Damen tells himself it was Laurent who pushed him too far, he didn't mean to do it. Laurent agrees — Damen would never have done that if Laurent himself hadn't asked for it. Damen was good. He's only ever been good. He doesn't do anything without a good reason. Laurent is the one who fucks things up and pushes people too far. They make up.

Next time isn't that different. Nerves were high for a thousand different reasons. Laurent maybe got up from the wrong side of the bed. They argue. Damen pisses him off so he goes on to piss him off in return — just to give him a taste of what that feels like. In the back of his mind he remembers what happened last time they argued but he brushes it off as a mistake. Damen wouldn't dare to make the same mistake twice.

Then Damen does. And just like the other time Laurent loses his footing from the strength of the blow. His eyes tear from the pain but they don't fall. Damen is fumming over him, telling him how Laurent pushes him over the edge. Damen, who is such a just, charming, fair king. A much better king than Laurent is, with his head in place at all times in a way Laurent's own never is. If he lost his temper, it was because he was forced into it.

Laurent is the one who went too far again; Damen simply reacted to it. He stands and tells Damen he was wrong for saying the things he said. He shouldn't have. Damen agrees; Laurent shouldn't have. They make up.

Every time Damen is forced to loose his temper with Laurent he get angrier with Laurent and becomes a little wilder. Laurent should not make him keep doing it! He doesn't mean to do it! When the anger subdues, after they make love, in the morning after, Damen shows Laurent the tokens of the love he still has for him — a new mare of an excellent breed for Laurent's private stables, a new imported book he would like for his personal library, a new delicacy their cooks learns to make as sweet as a human can handle just the way Laurent likes it.

Damen is a good lover. Most of the time. If only Laurent stopped bringing out his bad side.

Laurent understands how every time Damen hits him it's his own fault. He tries to stop himself from causing their arguments but he can't. He always ends up saying the wrong thing, he always disappoints Damen somehow and though he can keep his stance straight and his face void, deep down he's terrified he will eventually drive Damen away.

After the loss of his entire family, after the death of Auguste, of living so many years under the sadistic regime of his uncle, Damen is everything Laurent has. And Laurent, warped as he is by nature, tainted and wrong and bad at his very core, doesn't deserve him. He knows he doesn't deserve Damen, who is so honorable, so good a leader, so righteous and mighty. But he wants Damen and he wants him to stay. He wants to be good for him and for Damen to think he is good.

So when the slapping evolves into punching, Laurent searches his own words, his own actions for where the fault lies. And always he finds it. The exact word he said in a meeting with their kiroi and councelors that undermined Damen's authority. The exact moment he stopped to speak with an ill-intentioned courtier who flirted with him and he must have unintentionally flirted back. The provokation implied in a comment he thought was innocuous. And the fact Damen only found more and more of reasons to be dissatisfied with Laurent, despite him becoming evermore self-aware and trying so hard, so much of the time, to please Damen, meant nothing more than the fact that Laurent was a man full of flaws. It wasn't on Damen.

They both agree Damen's assessment and his morals could never be wrong. He is too good and honest a man for that. Laurent is causing all of it.

The oldest members of their guards notice the slow, steady shift. Those that used to compose the old Veretian prince's guard are worried. They whisper among themselves when they see a new bruise blooming in their king's fair skin or hear the shouts coming from inside the royal chambers. But no one dares to raise a voice against king Damianos. Jord or Lazar (or whichever of the prince's guards you like best) goes to Laurent to raise their concerns and ask if everything is all right between him and Exalted. If there is anything Laurent needs. Anything at all. They will stand by him come what will. But Laurent berates them and tells them to keep their noses out of royal business.

Damen is approached by Nikandros and inquired about it when one day Damen unintentionally leaves Laurent with a black eye. Damen finds that is the perfect opportunity to lament about all the ways Laurent has been driving him insane and making him miserable. That he is getting worse with time where Damen had hoped he would have settled and his temperament improved. That years after the events they lived through, he keeps holding Damen accountable for things that should be left in the past. That Damen doesn't blame Laurent for killing Kastor, or torturing him in Vere anymore, so why should Laurent still resent him for Auguste.

Nikandros understands. He feels sorry for Damen, that Laurent makes his life so difficult. He has witnessed their quarrels before, had seen the way Laurent evokes Auguste's name as a dagger to dig into Damen's heart.

Then it becomes common knowledge all around their court: Laurent is as unbearable and hard to reconcile with as he'd ever been, prideful and resentful and cruel. And Damen is the poor man who has to handle him atop a whole kingdom he has to rule. There is no soul in their kingdom that doesn't feel bad for Damen's situation.

What no one seems to notice is that Laurent has taken to flinch whenever Damen lifts his hand. That he tenses when he raises his voice. That he is much more succint and careful with his words whenever Damen is around, because he doesn't want to upset him.

All they notice is Laurent's worsening moods. His renewed bouts of broodiness and anger. That he takes anything and everything out on everyone — the servants, the guards, officials, nobles of the court, the walls and the furniture. Nothing seems to please him anymore. Everything sets off his rage. Which is something else Damen has taken to punish him for, in the privacy of their chambers.

Laurent never cries. Not when Damen tell him how difficult he is, how impossible he makes to love him. Not when he sees the several shades of new and healing bruises all over his body, not when he gulps mouthfuls of his own blood. Laurent hasn't cried since he was thirteen. But he gets more and more hopeless each day that passes and he is proven again no good man could ever truly love him because nothing good and pure remains so in his presence.

Laurent always brings out the worse in people, no matter how he tries to get things right.

But he keeps on trying. Because maybe one day he can. And maybe Damen will see there is good left in him to love even though he makes his life hard and harder every day. And maybe one day Damen will love him easily.

Because all he really wants is to be worth it of Damen's love.

And that's all Damen wants too. He already loves Laurent so much. He would never, ever hurt him again if only Laurent would stop provoking him into it.

[the-jam-to-the-unicorn]

Ukrainian Darling Ukrainian Cutie Ze during the "Ukraine. Jahr 2024" press conference

[skoulsons]

well. @outer-edges brought me back down to my personal pit of emotional distress and turmoil.

do you all have a moment to talk about my first ever terminal father-daughter brainrot, Daisy and Coulson from agents of shield?

[suka-hell]

ok, ok, ok, i feel SO happy that Bowuigi has blew up and has more recognition that only gives for more material that i needed and for which i was hungry for a while

BUT on the other hand now we have to face the consequences of the fact the ship has become so popular that more haters will come than usual because clearly they'll never be lacking in these cases yk

anyway i don't care about boring ppl throwing shit at the ship rn since i'll just meal very well for a good while with this big ass stuff that i didn't deserve but i got it anyway and i feel blessed for that, thank u ppl who ship Bowuigi and welcome new shippers wooo 👽💐

[rusquared]

shoutout to 1863!hsy for sustaining one life for a decade with her writing, i cannot imagine expending the remnants of my soul to write, write, and write - for someone who doesn't remember me yet.

[bunnihearted]

🧸🧃⛈️

[witchwhaat]

can't even enjoy taemin's comeback in peace😭

[silverselfshippingchaos]

heck.. every single day I remember that AU where things went differently and ash and s.hepard get that happily ever after they always wanted with each other.

s.hepard proposes on thessia, saying that, "asari believe in eternity. do you? i believe in eternity too, ash. i want you to be my eternity."