#I just don't understand this specific reason

[bookwyrm314]

That was a bogus study (they stopped measuring when people turned 25, so we don't know how long the brain keeps changing--though we might guess it just does that as long as it's still kicking)

That being said, there's nothing wrong with checking in on a friend who started dating somebody older than them. How much older are we talking? Well, there isn't an age number rule because these things are along gradients and require context and critical thinking skills.

The older that both parties are, the less worried you generally have to be. Ages 40 and 60 are far apart, but both parties have a LOT of life experience, so the age gap probably isn't going to matter much, if at all, frankly.

But 15 and 20? Nah, that's creepy. It's only a five year difference, but the 20 year old is clearly grooming the 15 year old. No college student should be interested in a middle school child.

So, yea, age gaps can be a problem. But you have to actually talk to the people in the relationship and get context to figure out where on the spectrum of "that's a pedophile" to "this literally doesn't matter at all to their relationship" the specific real life situation falls on.

None of this seems super complicated to me, so I don't understand why people are still being weird about it. It would be sorta understandable if the context here was discussing the legislative difficulty of trying to handle this problem, but the text reblog chain above doesn't seem to be tackling that at all.

So, defending age gaps outside of a particular context comes off as kind of skeezy to me. "It's not always problematic!" Of course not. But you're not going to know until you start asking questions, so "this might be ok, actually" is a weird starting point to put out there on the internet, without any other context to make it make sense.

Like I dunno your little bubble of the internet, but normal people with half a brain aren't saying that ALL age gaps are ALWAYS a problem no matter what. Maybe somehow you found some dumbasses who genuinely believe that? They can continue to loudly show off their red flag of not using critical thinking skills and we can all avoid them in our lives.

But I gotta believe the majority of people aren't that stupid. People KNOW power imbalances exist in a bunch of different ways, because they recognize them in their day to day lives. And the way we fight back against those things is by naming them and talking about them freely.

So yea, maybe that 21 yo went straight into the trades and is done with being an apprentice and has a decent union career they're starting and the 30 yo is the one in college. Maybe it isn't the particular demographic of older male preys on younger female. Maybe the money situation is equitable.

But if you're friends with either of those people, what kind of friend are you if you're not asking questions about their new partner? What quality of friendship do you have if you can't talk to each other about power imbalances in relationships?

Sure, it might be fine. But if you don't get the context to determine that, you have no idea what's going on. And having been on the victim end of one of these kinds of things? It's really shitty and traumatizing. And everyone who normalized it was not exactly helping me see things for what they were and escape.

So, again, weird take. Age gaps themselves are not inherently problematic, but since abuse DOES happen along power imbalances, it's-best case-really fucking weird to start writing with "ok they aren't all evil though" nobody is saying that?? Who are you defending here? The adults in risk aware consenting relationships gotta get grilled for their friends to find out things are above board.

Finding out a specific case isn't a case of abuse is not a reason to stop checking for abuse where it occurs more frequently.

can I be so honest. can I be so real. is this a safe space.

I don't actually think that a 21 year old hooking up with a 30 year old is that bad. I don't think it's a problem the way people make it out to be. that's two legal adults having sex, chief.

[shamelessexplosions]

I'm about 8 years late with this but one thing in the Civil War dispute I have never seen anyone from either side point out (and I could just be completely wrong on this):

There is no indication Steve actually knew Bucky killed Tony's Parents

Steve knew it was Hydra because, and as far as I am aware ONLY because of Zola's little exposition scene in Winter Soldier where he shows a bunch of newspapers clippings of things Hydra is responsible for, including Howard and Maria Stark's death.

I repeat: things HYDRA is responsible for. So, yes, Cap knew Hydra killed the Starks, and knew Bucky was working for Hydra. That does not mean, because of that little exposition scene, Cap decided, 'oh yes, in the last 70 years Hydra has only had one man doing all their assassinations, so that must mean Bucky killed Howard and Maria.'

The thought it might have been him could have occurred to Steve, but either way, that would be a theory, and not something Steve has any reason to tell Tony.

For further proof, this exchange from Civil War straight after Tony & Steve watched the security footage:

Tony: "Did you know?"

Steve: "I didn't know it was him."

Tony: "Don't give me that shit, Rogers. Did you know?"

Steve: "...Yes."

To me at least, that 'yes' means Steve knew Hydra, as an organisation, killed Stark's parents, and he elected not to tell Tony, which he is shown to have found out in Winter Soldier so we know that. But his initial statement, "I didn't know it was him", we have no evidence wasn't entirely truthful.

(Whether Tony hears that 'yes' as 'yes I knew Bucky killed your parents' or 'yes I knew your parents death wasn't an accident/orchestrated by Hydra' is ...debatable, but either way I can't see any reason to believe Steve meant the latter, especially since he has already said he knew it wasn't Bucky specifically.)

Why didn't Steve tell Tony Hydra killed his parents?

I can think of a few reasons, whatever side of the Civil War divide you are you can probably come up with more:

1. Steve knew Zola was trying to distract Steve and Nat when he showed those newspapers, so was just trying to keep them engaged, and hinting there might be more to the death of an old friend and get Steve emotional would be a great way to do that. Steve might have suspected it was true, but with no actual evidence he didn't want to open Tony's old wounds.

2. The avengers were going after Hydra post-Winter Soldier, and Steve was worried about what Tony might do/how reckless he might be/didn't trust him enough to risk telling him the people they were targeting killed his parents.

3. It was more than 30 years in the past. If Steve didn't know it was Bucky, it would be likely the person who did it (or at least authorised it) was long dead or unfindable (again, 30 years cold case, no evidence except in a bunker in nowhere siberia that Zemo spent a year searching for when he knew exactly what he was trying to find), so there would be no justice to get, so it would be only hurting Tony for no reason.

But the point is there are a lot of reasons Steve wouldn't tell Tony (admittedly a lot aren't very good or wishful thinking, and Steve probably should have said something, but it is a common theme across the MCU that Steve doesn't always have as much faith in Tony as he should (and then sometimes Tony builds Ultron because he got scared and you can understand why Steve might not trust him when emotional), I'm not here to idolise either of them or say either were completely right in this movie, just point out one thing I see a lot of people complain about). A lot of those reasons don't hold if Steve knew that it was Bucky, and we will never know if Steve might have told him if he did, but you can't blame Steve for not telling Tony something he didn't know himself.

[sapphicslaylist]

STP: Thorn Scarring & Disability

I'm going to gently tap the fandom with a stick: scars are not just a simple cosmetic detail which can be ignored/removed "stylistically" or given to make characters "cool." They impact a person's daily life, confidence, and way of interacting with the world, and need to be handled with consideration. Therefore, as a disabled person with background in accessibility, I think it's my turn to cover this one.

Going to specifically address this with Thorn, but it applies to others as well (not just because she's the most blatant example, but also as she's a character who the fandom likes to "heal" by removing all traces of her scars. Going to address what this implicates below).

Some important details:

She is deliberately depicted with heavy wounds of a variety of different depths. It can be assumed that they have been accumulated and left open for a significant amount of time.

We know the ones along her hands are the deepest because of Narrator's remark wherein "[she] picks up the blade, slicing through what little skin remains" of her hands and wrists. It is very likely these are not only permanent, but also have the possibility of muting or eliminating tactile sensation in her fingers either temporarily or permanently. She would therefore interact differently with the world if written outside the context of cannon

Further mobility issues may result from the wounds along her limbs. Because scar tissue is less flexible than normal skin, this would further constrict movement.

Some of the shallower ones may heal, yes. But deeper scars typically fade, but not vanish entirely.

This inherently makes Thorn disabled, and removing her scars IS disability erasure.

And it isn't just about physical disability, either. Witch & Thorn deal with removing stigmatization surrounding feminine beauty, and removing that detail does also impede the body positivity which she carries for survivors. Scar victims, especially people with deep scars are often considered "ugly." This especially applies to women, who are expected to cover them up or face value judgements regarding their appearance. The game does the opposite, by placing her hands at forefront within the kiss scene. The reason the kiss is so important is because people who are "non-traditionally" beautiful are still worthy of love - something which Thorn struggles to accept with throughout her route.

Overall, I think that people need to understand that they're not merely a literary symbol. But even within that context, the message of Thorn's route is that you can't eliminate your past/go back to who you were before, and that's okay. Because even if scars fade, they aren't something we can simply pretend didn't happen. They remain a part of us throughout the rest of our life, but we don't need to keep bleeding in the present.

Anyways! I hope this explains it. And if anyone does want advice on how to write these out, you're welcome to ask me!

[genderqueerdykes]

its so funny when people see an inclusionist who is part of like, every possible oppressed minority within oppressed minority groups, and then they say something inclusionist that They Specifically are against and they go like "what the hell. i thought u were better than this. i expected you to not have empathy for The Bad People." its ridiculous anyway thanks for being so chill and always open minded ur blog makes me feel safe

it makes me want to bite a chunk out of my desk

i've had this happen to me so many times over xyz thing and it baffles me. i don't get why people think that just because they like my vibe that it means that i'll agree with everything they have to say. and i really don't like it when someone struts into my ask box acting like they have pity for me, or are "scared" for me for "not knowing better". it actually pisses me the fuck off that people think they know what's best for me.

i do not understand why people look at how inclusive i am and go. i bet equinox hates (marginalized group). on what planet? i'm intersex. i'm trans. i'm bisexual. i'm biracial. i'm disabled. i'm neurodivergent. i'm mentally ill. i'm poor. i've been chronically homeless. like i could keep going. why do people think that i harbor hatred in my heart like this? i don't. i don't want anything to do with your hatred and looking down on people

i don't look down on people. i think that's what irritates me the most is when someone projects how they look down on others on to me. keep that to yourself. i'm not in the business of looking down on people who haven't harmed anyone. people really have to learn that something irritating them isn't harming them. getting annoyed is not the same as being harmed.

i don't entertain people like that because i do not owe someone i disagree with validation. i am not humoring people who think it's okay to be an asshole. if i'm well known for not being an asshole, what the hell makes people think i'll change just for them? get real. i'm not going to start excluding random groups of people from communities they rightfully occupy. maybe i just have too much lived experience, but i'm not narrow minded, and my goal in life isn't to make people feel like shit. my goal in life is to help people. hating a marginalized group will never be helping anyone

thank you for this message, genuinely, because the amount of people who have crawled into my ask box lately with the most bullshit exclusionist takes thinking that for some reason, i'll bend to pat them, in specific, on the back, has been staggering. idk why people think that i inherently agree with them just because they agree with me. i'm not your weird little yes man to pat you on the back and give you validation. i'm a person with my own thoughts.

take care of yourself, thank you so much for the kind words! i appreciate it more than i could ever express

[kingedbishop]

"There's three." the android corrected, "Three of us remain on the property."

"What's the point of android animals?" Rook asked, "Do they deviate too? Are they fuzzy at least? Can I pet BeeBee?"

"Rook."

"I want to pet a bear, Willow!"

Willow rolled her eyes, "Yes, the belief that the evil machines are stealing jobs is a myth that only serves the corporations. Unfortunately, most humans are too dense to understand they're considered on par with any other piece of equipment, thus are just as easily replaced by whatever is more cost effective."

So, trying to get the computers out of storage through semi legitimate means was most likely a lost cause. Willow resorted to sending a text instead. "Would you like to have everything delivered to this room?"

"I'm glad you understand now." It still didn't explain why Bishop specifically wanted his counterpart to fail, but that wasn't relevant to the android's argument as to why he felt the need to prevail.

It was a reasonable question, as far as he was concerned.

"Sometimes kids don't know better. Maybe she'll come around when she grows up and starts thinking with her brain." Rook told Daniel, "It's good that you found yourself new people to hang out with, even if one of them speaks in riddles— You've got something to add, Willow?"

"Oh, I was just thinking that Dan was right about most of Jericho's plans."

"Well, I smashed a couple of computers with a hammer to rid them of the curse, but nothing like that." Rook said, sparing the basement another look. She wasn't too happy with being down there knowing exactly what used to go down among those walls, especially when Willow was there too. "I hope that guy got punched or arrested for doing weird shit with the androids. That's probably unsafe handling or something."

It didn't sound like much, but it would have to do until androids rights were formalized. She was expecting Willow to comment on that, but the cyborg was apparently too caught up on the poor handling of the supply chain on that side of the world to participate.

"So, in absence of their slaves, they deemed it more appropriate to halt operations entirely instead of adapting their facilities in order to temporarily hire human laborers." Willow scoffed, "I can imagine the slight inflection in the productivity chart that would have implied is still giving them nightmares as we speak."

Now she was very tempted to add property damage to their list of grievances.

"I doubt it." the android Bishop grumbled. At this point, he was convinced Dan would never agree entirely out of some shallow moralistic views. "My memory has been damaged, but I know I'm right."

"He would be correct." Bishop agreed, "For the sake of this conversation, imagine everything that Zlatko individual did to the androids he owned being done to humans."

He would have remarked not even he would do something like that, but he didn't want to bring too much attention on his own activities.

"But if my counterpart is anything like me, he might still find some use in this unit here."

The comment didn't please his copy, but he stood corrected.

Rook listened to the story with the expression that such awful behavior warranted. "I'd ask how stupid do you have to be to not notice the difference, but it sounds like those guys couldn't make a functioning brain even if they put together all their braincells in a jar."

She could tell the difference between Dan and Daniel by the way they carried themselves as well. Then again, she was trained to recognizing different versions of the same person at this point.

"It's good that you've got something better now, though. I hope you can build something better for yourself."

[phantomrose96]

twice now ive started and not finished silt verses. (no particular reason i didnt finish, ive really enjoyed it both times and keep thinking that i gotta get back to it.)

a moment that really hit me, and i think i'll always remember, is in hayward's first episode. the series starts with carpenter, so we know that worshipping the trawlerman is illegal and a bit about what that worship is like, but not much about how worshipping other gods works. even with the deer/hound people (who i forget if they happened before or after hayward's intro), that's another illegal and hidden religion. it leaves space to assume that the deadliness and the human sacrifice is WHY these gods are forbidden.

and then hayward's ep happens. and he says, offhand, like it's something completely unremarkable (paraphrased), 'people following those kinds of gods wouldn't get in trouble over it if they could just be reasonable about these things. there's a right and wrong way to do this, like how every new building starts construction by drowning two criminals in the cement foundation.' hearing that, and hearing how casual he was about it, i felt my entire understanding of the setting shift drastically.

legality wasn't about whether a group of worshippers do or don't kill. it was about what worshippers kill the acceptable targets, in the right way. and suddenly i find myself much more distrustful of a society that's motivated to create acceptable targets than i ever was of how carpenter and faulkner do things.

its a really chilling and well done bit of writing.

someday ill get past five episodes. im sure i'll really enjoy it.

Yes!!! YES!!!!

I've mentioned once or twice in my ramblings here that that was also my biggest "Oh" moment for TSV.

I started out episode 1 vaguely thinking of Carpenter and Faulkner as if you'd made a podcast following TMA Avatars as main characters. We know right off the bat the Trawlerman's people are human-sacrificing cultists. Obviously Nana Glass wasn't a good person. She killed people! And she got killed in a police stand-off because she was a mass murderer. And we know Carpenter and Faulkner are following in her same line of work so, really, we're following antagonists aren't we?

And then my "Oh" came later with (not necessarily that Hayward scene specifically) but when I went "Oh. The Trawlerman's people are being persecuted by the authorities not because they're human-sacrificing cultists. But because they're the losing human-sacrificing cultists."

Because actually, the legal authorities, the politicians, the corporations, are all very much part of human-sacrificing religions. That part is allowed. These "backwards hick" gods are illegal and horrible, because their kind of human sacrifice is uncivilized. Unlike the civilized people's human sacrifice, which is allowed because the corporations and the institutions have okayed it :).

They do so much with it over the series.

Also I see you're only on episode 5 so actually I'm putting this part beneath a readmore since I checked and this is about episode 7

The episode with Paige recounting what happened to Vaughan is what drove it in for me, I think. It plays out line-for-line like a corporation going through lay-offs "These are tough times :(. We understand this is difficult for everyone leaving us today :(." but they are... just... allowed to kill these employees they're letting go in a ritual sacrifice. To a legal god. And Paige thinks surely they won't--surely good people won't do that--but they do, very much, kill Vaughan.

Money is tight and times are hard and ritualistic human sacrifice is, in fact, incredibly allowed... As long as you're one of the legal powers, doing it the correct way.

[dreamwreaver]

(Every time Alastor and Charlie interact before episode 7)

My Brain: Oh, they're fucking!

Me: They're just talking.

(Episode 7 rolls around)

Me: Oh, they're fucking.

My Brain: OH THEYRE FUCKING

(This is my way of saying episode 7 was peak Charlastor moments)

Oh my god, nonny I am so SO sorry. I had finals and I saw this ask while taking a break and literally forgot it existed. ~~no I don't have adhd what are you talking about lol~~

Also, the prozd reference is both noticed and appreciated.

No but seriously; can someone explain why they are just so all over each other for no goddamn reason? Like I would understand it a bit more if Charlie or Alastor or both were notoriously touchy people, always in the space of others and no concept of personal boundaries. And while yes, Charlie has demonstrated some lack of awareness in that regard it's not to the same level that any character who is physically affectionate in both a platonic and romantic way is. And Alastor... does not like being touched. He will touch other people specifically to make THEM feel uncomfortable. But the show has honestly demonstrated that he really doesn't... need to do that? Like people keep their distance from him and are plenty intimidated by him that he doesn't require using physical intimidation of any kind.

And yet, when they're together, it's like magnets. They gravitate towards each other and just connect. All the time. Also, can we talk about the fact that Charlie asked Alastor of all people to make a commercial? I feel like that's a super overlooked thing that should be mentioned. Like, vaggie is the hotel manager, she would normally be in charge of promotion and stuff like that right? Especially with how much of a technophobe Alastor is. But she asked him to do it? And he did it? Like yeah it's obvious he pulled some serious weaponized incompetence there but he still DID it in the first place. Why he couldn't have just done a radio broadcast like he said he wanted to regardless of what Charlie asked him? I don't know. But goddamn is it funny to see a man so p*ssy whipped without even getting any.

[cpvnksabm]

i think sometimes rtc fans (fic writers especially) who are aware they aren't disability experts will try to "play it safe" and avoid depicting anything that could end up being offensive or inaccurate, because they'd rather not handle something at all than risk handling it badly. i understand this approach, and don't get me wrong, it's a good thing to want to avoid offending people - and it's also a good thing to be aware of when you don't know enough about something to write about it.

but it's upsetting when ricky is sidelined or excluded because people don't know how to depict him. and "include ricky but avoid going into detail about his disability" isn't a perfect solution either - for shorter fics it tends to work fine, but in longer fics, it becomes noticeable when something hasn't been mentioned. ricky's disability would realistically affect his life in many ways, such that if you're depicting him realistically for an extended period it's likely it will be relevant at some point.

on top of that, sometimes the "play it safe, don't do anything that could be problematic" approach extends to people removing parts of canon* that they think may be problematic. and i'm in favour of improving/ignoring the shitty parts of canon, but this needs to be done carefully and with a good understanding of what specifically needs improving and why, because sometimes it's a fine line between "removing the shitty parts of canon" and "erasing disability representation". there are some issues where, even if canon was flawed in its depiction of something, erasing/ignoring it is actually worse.

*when i say canon i mean the 2016-2018 script. i feel we've all agreed that the ableist 2022 script changes are non-canon for obvious reasons

one example of this is ocean's canonical ableism, and how often it's just ignored by the fandom. i think sometimes people are unsure how to handle it respectfully, or feel like it shouldn't have been in the musical in the first place. and different disabled people have different opinions on how well it was handled in canon, i have mixed feelings myself, but regardless of if it was handled well or not, i don't think making her some sort of Perfect Disability Ally Who Loves Ricky in fanworks is a good solution. because as a disabled person, i don't see ocean's ableism as something trivial that can be easily removed, and when people do casually remove it, i find it to be dismissive & minimizing of a real problem. it makes me uncomfortable.

which is funny because i'm sure, at least some of the time, people go with this depiction of ocean because they don't want to risk making any disabled people uncomfortable by depicting ableism!

basically what i'm trying to say here is: when you're depicting a disabled character, you have to make a lot of choices about how to depict them. and if you're scared of accidentally handling something badly, you might try to set it up so you don't have to make a choice on how to depict it, because it just isn't relevant - because ocean was never ableist in your headcanon, or because ricky's disability never impacts him in the story you're trying to tell, or because ricky barely appears in your fanworks anyway.

but choosing not to make a choice is still a choice. when you can't decide how to handle ocean's ableism, so you just don't acknowledge it - that's a choice! when you can't decide how ricky's disability would affect him beyond what we see in canon, so you just avoid going into detail about it, that's a choice. and sometimes the choices that you see as "playing it safe" and "not offending anyone" are, in fact, making some readers uncomfortable - disability representation is very rarely something as simple as "go with the safe option that cant possibly offend anyone", and avoiding showing disability is not a good approach.

and to be clear i am absolutely not saying i think everyone should have to go into full detail on how ricky's disability (& ableism) affects him in every fic. that would create its own set of problems. i think it's important for able-bodied people to be aware that some stories about the disabled perspective are not their story to tell.

but there's a lot of middle ground between "fic entirely focused on depicting disabled experiences in detail" and "ricky's disability is barely mentioned, his backstory is edited to remove ableism references, ocean is his best friend who was never ableist"! having some exploration of ricky's disability as background info or side details can really elevate representation - some of my favourite rtc fics ever are ones where, even if ricky's disability is never plot-important, it was always handled with care and there were clearly no points where the author could have forgotten he was disabled.

i don't have an easy solution here that makes this simple. but i do have some important advice:

just because something can be depicted badly doesn't mean it's always inherently wrong to depict it. there's a big difference between, for example, "the rtc writers could have done a better job handling ocean's ableism in the musical" and "ableism should never be shown in fiction, it was wrong for them to show it on-stage and we must never show it in-fic". there is really no need to entirely avoid something just because it could be done badly.

as i said at the start, it is a good idea to be aware of when you don't know enough about something to write about it accurately. but this doesn't mean you can never write about it, it means you can learn! research is super important and super helpful, and a lot of strictly factual stuff (i.e. the effects of neuromuscular disorders) can be found on a quick google search. writing advice specifically can be harder to find, since it's more opinion-based, but i find you can find a lot of general posts on tumblr and other social media

If you've tried doing research but there's something you don't understand, or you want to depict a really specific situation that nobody has made a general post about - you can ask! my asks are open for this exact subject! another knowledgeable person in the fandom, @icepoptroll , also has asks open and has given me permission to @ them

if you ever DO accidentally come across as ableist or just misinformed... it's not the end of the world. you can receive criticism, and you can listen to that criticism. this happens to everyone because nobody is perfect. you can apologise if necessary, you can go back and edit your own work to make it more respectful if you see a need to do so! while cyberbullying & harassment in fandoms does happen sometimes, most people aren't looking to "cancel" you, and most people will be understanding when you make mistakes.

so if you tend to sideline ricky, or write around his disability, because you're not sure how to tackle it and you're afraid of getting it wrong - please reconsider. there are things you can do to better equip yourself! ricky doesn't have to be a main character, nor does disability have to be the main subject of a fic, but it shouldn't be ignored entirely.

go forth and be brave in your depictions! thanks for reading!

[nebula-nonhuman]

(preface: cluster B-wise, I have diagnosed BPD and from conversations with therapists and my therapy group and people with NPD, it seems that I have a fair share of NPD traits. Which isn't uncommon. My friend has NPD with a lot of BPD traits.)

The question marks because my splitting has been pretty mild for the last year or two and also because I'm unsure if it counts if I can double book keep? Like I usually feel like someone is super ideal and can do no wrong ever but I can recall their "bad habits" and flaws just fine if I force myself to, I just can't change the emotions. And I don't think I feel victimised (or like. I assume it doesn't count if you feel like you deserve it aka if you don't actually feel like a victim) per se but I do feel misunderstood a lot of the time but in a good way. My fears usually concern being understood. Also while I do partake in behaviour I do consider potentially self damaging, I know the exact way the criterion is worded in DSM-V and I know that I don't fit it.

Question marks either because I don't understand (define "often") or because it's something I do only in specific situations (I DO like being the center of attention and when I am I expect the attention to be on me and me only, but it has to be a scripted interaction. I hate being noticed in an average encounter. I'm supposed to be in the spotlight when I'm in a debate competition and speaking, when I'm giving a presentation as my final, when I'm playing theatre, when I'm hosting an event. But I hate when people try to make the situation deviate from the script. If I'm the organisator, I am supposed to be noticed as an organisator. I will not take part in a conversation with you and the me who is suited for a conversation is not the me who is suited for the spotlight. If I am forced to become the other I will no longer be capable of being in the spotlight, and the me who takes part in conversations is afraid of conversations anyways. My point is don't go off script and keep your eyes on me and everyone will enjoy whatever the hell the event du jour is.) or something I used to do much more in the past (I DO exaggerate my achievements but these days usually only when the urge to one-up others kicks in or when they don't have a sufficient reaction to my honest statement). And we've been over the "misunderstanding" thing.

??? - what does that mean. Not yes or no because I am stupid and have no idea what exactly is meant by that and what counts.

Also actually had a problem with the stress and anxiety one. As far as I know it only counts if you aren't stressed in normal and abnormal situations. But I tend to get stressed in everyday situations but when push comes to shove I just go "Oh well. I am The Responsible One now (usually because I look around and estimate that I am the best person for the job or that nobody else would be capable of being responsible and putting their panic or stress aside)." and experience no emotions whatsoever. Also I compulsively lie all the time ngl. For literally no reason. I'll just say something and then go "That's literally not true, I have no idea why I said that."

Made for fun, don't use as a tool for self diagnosis. 🎼

[laauranenn]

in wbk fandom you can't have conversation about the writing, development and complexity, this fandom is overprotective about nii's mid writing, Any comments about his flaw in writing characters or this plot will be shut down , fandom only cares about shipping and yaoi

the side characters especially umemiya are well fleshed out with detailed backstories , everything in the plot literally revolve around umemiya , the antagonists like choji and chika revolved around their obsession with ume , tsubakino and sugishita backstories included ume too ,nii is focusing on exploring umemiya and his past more than his mc Sakura

Nii can't make Sakura the center of the plot, the plot always revolves around the side cast and their issues ,while the problem Sakura has with trusting people has been addressed and nearly settled, the root cause is still left in the wind. It feels like the issue was addressed, but Sakura himself specifically never got his past elaborated on, but there is prime opportunity for angst and character moments, as well as just humanizing Sakura.

Thank you so much for responding!!

When I said I want to have a conversation, I meant it!! I agree that when you've got a fandom for something, the fans tend to be protective of the media and its author, and that shipping is something that is very prominent in fandom spaces.

But for the sake of this conversation, I'm going to do my best to ignore shipping that isn't confirmed or implied in the manga, and I'm going to acknowledge flaws in the writing if the points you bring up are convincing!

(If it becomes relevant, I'll only bring up things such as Endo and Takiishi's relationship and Tsubaki's affection for Umemiya, but I don't think they'll be something I need to really get into. )

I disagree with all the plot revolving solely around Umemiya, despite how relevant he is to most arcs in the manga.

The reason that Umemiya is so relevant, and is so present in the story, is because Sakura is going to take his spot someday. Sakura comes to Furin intending to take the top spot, a position that is currently filled by Umemiya.

For Sakura to make it to the top and it mean something, we need to understand what the position truly entails, and how it came to be. Which is what all the information we get on Umemiya is for. We're learning of his journey to the top and how he has shaped the world and its inhabitants.

For Choji and the Shishitoren arc, I'd like to argue that his obsession with Umemiya is about his position, and not about Umemiya himself. Choji and Umemiya are essentially in the same position, just in different teams. Which is why Choji focuses on Umemiya the way he does.

Choji and Togame share the same notion of power being a means to freedom. Choji latches onto this and decides that he wants to be the strongest, and therefore the freest. But when he reaches his goal of being the strongest, it turns out to not be like how he imagined, and the team takes a turn for the worst because of this.

Umemiya, however, is the strongest of his team. Yet he isn't experiencing the same boredom and despair as Choji is, despite being at the top. This is what Choji is so focused on. It's less about Umemiya as a person and is instead about the position he's in.

Sakura does also play an important role in the Shishitoren arc. The whole conflict likely wouldn't have started, or wouldn't have gone the way it did if it weren't for Sakura being there. Without him, the conflict likely would've been resolved differently.

Sakura and Togame's fight is important for both characters. For Sakura, he has a fight with someone where they both respect each other, likely for the first time. And for Togame, Sakura opens his eyes to the ways he's been acting, the ways he's gone against his own beliefs in order to salvage what is left of Shishitoren.

As for Tsubakino and Sugishita, they've both known him for years and he's played an important part in their lives.

For Tsubakino, Umemiya has been his friend since their first year in junior high. He learns that Tsubakino just wants to be himself and love the things he loves, which Umemiya praises him for, and tells him he's going to help back him up if someone tries to hurt him again. And they've been close friends all the way to where we currently are in the manga! Umemiya shows up in Tsubakino's story because he's relevant. It'd also be a little strange for Tsubakino to be one of the four kings without Umemiya showing up somehow, don't you think?

And with Sugishita, Umemiya also plays a similar role. Sugishita gets himself stuck in a spiral of meaningless fights he doesn't even want to be a part of, which Umemiya then saves him from. Umemiya saves him and brings him the peace he wants. This then manifests into his loyalty to Umemiya, as well as his friendship with the four kings.

With Sugishita, this also gives us insight into why he seems to hate Sakura so much. From the start we've known the main reason for it, which is Sakura aiming for Umemiya's spot in the school. But with the most recent chapters, we see why exactly he is so offended by this idea. Umemiya brought Sugishita peace, something that Sakura is actively disrupting. How could someone like Sakura, who's constantly snapping at people, and running into fights possibly measure up to Umemiya and what he's done for Sugishita?

It adds another layer to Sakura and Sugishita's rivalry, which I find incredibly interesting!

It's true that a lot of side characters are getting detailed backstories, while Sakura hasn't really had one yet. But in my opinion, this works out nicely with the way it's executed. It adds to the worldbuilding and makes the characters and the town feel more real, more solid.

I've really enjoyed learning about all the characters, as well as their relationships with each other. It makes Makochi and Furin feel like actual places with actual people, rather than just something that's there to only serve the main character.

As for Sakura's lack of backstory? I can see why you're itching for one, but I can't see it fitting into the story well if we got it right now. I also don't think that there even is a lot to it, not a lot to tell. We've already got a lot of info about Sakura and why he is the way he is, even without a proper backstory.

Even the first chapter makes Sakura's past very clear. He's a boy who's been mistreated for his looks for his entire life. It's brought up a couple times in the first few chapters even.

"How ya look doesn't matter in a fight, that's why I came to Furin"

"This is more like it. This is the right reaction. Everyone is always pushing me away, rejecting me, dismissing me-"

Sakura is someone who's been isolated growing up. This shines through in the way he interacts with others. Sakura is much more confident in a fight, he handles himself better in a fight. But when he interacts with others in a casual setting, he stumbles and gets flustered easily. A lot of the things that show just how alone he's been are subtle or might even be played as jokes, such as the only contact in his phone being a bot that gives you the weather forecast for the day. He also takes things literally. This could be just a trait of his, but it's likely a result of his lack of experience in social situations.

It's a lot of little things that add up. He's slow at texting because he's had nobody to text. He holds a spoon weirdly, likely because nobody corrected him growing up. Doesn't know how to open a Ramune bottle as he's never had one before. (This last one could also just be coincidence, but it all does still add up.)

I'm satisfied with how much we know about Sakura, but I'd love to hear what you'd like to get from a Sakura backstory!! Because it is true we haven't gotten a lot of info on where he was before Makochi.

The lack of backstory for him is because Wind Breaker isn't about his past, it's about him moving forward from it. It's about how Sakura makes a space for himself in Makochi. It's a story about him being accepted, about how a boy hated by all others becomes the hero of the town!

Please do respond again!! Share what you think of what I've said and give me your own observations! I'd love to keep the conversation going :)!!

[tumbleweedsthesecond]

CLONE HIGH CLOTHING SWAP!!(I'm gonna lore drop abt them but more importantly Anna )

Yayy lore time. So Anna is the clone of Anastasia Romanovna but she says she's the clone of Anastasia Romanov. This is because the other Anastasia Romanov is more well known and I like to include historical references in stuff. From what I know her body was never officially found, she was considered a mystery she was important because of that. Many people think she lived and escaped instead of being killed. Some people also pretended to be her or tried to for money from the aunt as is shown in the Disney movie. specifically Anna Anderson I think which is why I nicknamed her Anna. (If anyone needs to correct me on some of this stuff Ik its been a while since I've done research on the topic I've been researching other stuff.)

When Anna was cloned her foster father believed she was that Anastasia, so up until she was like 11 or so she believed she was Anastasia Romanov, she felt important. She watched the movie and loved the idea of being a princess, of being the one everyone was waiting for. Until one day scudworth told her she was wrong and got the names mixed up. So Anna saw Ivan and cried her eyes out. She didn't want to be the clone of some guys wife. She wants to be more important than that and not live in his shadow. She thinks she's important and seeing her dad disappointed about that really hurt her. So she decided that she was going to just cope. She'd forget everything scudworth said and live that lie. And it felt great for her, she brags about it alot. Though she's gone so far into coping she does almost believe it. because of that she's obsessed with popularity and living up to the real Anastasia Romanov. She wants to be famous, she studies hard and everything. She's even a cheerleader. Because of the coping thing it does make her view other people just as extensions of their clone parents. She thinks everyone thinks the way she does cause she's preppy. Also on why she expects people to be extensions of the clone parents is also due to some self loathing because of who she really is. That doesn't make her any less annoying though but I forgive her❤

Orginally Anna and Ivan were a ship because she couldn't fight her genes or whatever that's been erased actually I decided it'd be more interesting of she was a lesbian. ivan and her are still rivals. She doesn't know she's a lesbian yet tho cause comphet she's also Topher stepsister!! Basically they hate hate each other at first for obvious reasons and Topher even blackmails Anna. Then he does reveal who he's a clone of and she full on ignores him and calls him disgusting for like a week. But eventually they talk and they become a little closer? Anna starts understanding people aren't just their clone parents and she still like trying I guess? Topher also learns to not blackmail her so yay They have some solidarity, a little. They still don't like each other but its more in a sibling way.

Okay now Fyodor. Gonna guess no-one(but like one person) knows who Fyodor Basmanov is. I learned about him through some movies, basically Ivan the terrible had this alleged male lover. He was in the Oprichnina, like a secret police Ivan had made, and he rose in ranks fast. He was known as the favorite of the Tsar many people thought they were a thing(probably). There was rumors he'd wear skirts and dance for Ivan and stuff. Whether or not that's true in the Ivan the terrible movies he's in they actually do address it. In the 1940s two part one he sings this song abt killing people in a dress and a mask that is supposed to resemble Anastasia Romanovna in the beginning of the film. Which is actually why I made them do a clothing swap in the post. In the 1991 version he is sooo pretty and I can't understand everything in the film because no subtitles but I was able to get some context to what was happening. The story from what I know goes Fyodors the favorite and he uses that alot over other people, he sits next to the Tsar during meals and stuff, poisons people for him etc, then he tries to trick this other guy to get rid of him with witchcraft but word got back to Ivan and now they think Fyodor committed treason. So hes like no not me!!come on Ivan listen to me I'll tell everyone about us or something like that I don't know I could only understand some and he's dragged away. Real Fyodor apparently did get accused of treason by Ivan and he was ordered to kill his father. Some say then Fyodor was executed others say he was just sent away I don't know what really happened. Shrugs. Anyway

I made a clone of him just because I can ❤yay❤ he's Ivans ex friend they don't hang out anymore because Ivan thinks he's better than him. Fyodors just a chronically online guy that uses discord too much(gamer). He wears skirts too not for Ivan just cause I like gnc characters. Yay❤. Also Ivan and him weren't a thing though Fyodor probably does have a crush on him for a bit, the most Ivan does for him is buy him discord nitro. Which he doesnt do anymore. Fyodor does still sometimes try be friends with the bleacher creatures mainly cause sometimes he feels like he's nothing without Ivan so. Yeah. He's unsuccessful tho he's annoying af. He's cringe. He thinks it's funny tho

Anyway just realized I made three clones of Ivan the terrible lovers and I don't ship any of them with him(Maria's the third ill post about her another day. Her and Anna get together tho) this guy had like eight wives. I should really just clone all of them and make them a polycule(minus Ivan ofc) this is why I shouldn't study historical figures

[astrowarr]

obsessed with your dl analysis. scar hurts himself [to hurt grian] while grian opens up because it sets the precedent, i think. it's his first decision after he discovers (or can't pretend not to know anymore but. y'know. unreliable narrator will unreliably narrate.) that FOR SURE grian is his soulmate and by going and punching the jellie it establishes their dynamic as scar keeping grian hostage in a way? or testing him? considering that he actively weaponizes it later in a soulmate torture for no apparent reason at all, it reads to me as almost punishing. again, all scar has been saying since the start of this season is that he doesn’t need a soulmate, that he doesn’t want to know who he’s bonded to, etc. and grian forces him to acknowledge the bond, keeps on insisting that they base together, that they work together, that they are together because they are soulmates. all the things that scar is averse to. explicitly. now, i don't know what would happen if grian left scar alone before that point or gave up on him after that punch, because we know that grian is incapable of giving up on scar and that universe does not exist, BUT. i think that scar genuinely wanted to be left alone there, "there" meaning the whole season. and after he didn't have that choice - because grian asked him to base together and scar is incapable of denying grian - he wants a little payback? maybe? another thought is that after all of that in scar's eyes grian goes and 'forges his own destiny' with his 'secret soulmate'. his blame can so easily intertwine itself with grian's guilt and they both need to die.

oh im obsessed with this thank you so much for some beautiful scar goodtimes insight... i was definitely also considering the payback theory you mentioned, especially when you think about the fact that prior, grian had Dropped dripstone on his head. and actually, now that I think about it, i feel so much of his behavior might be desperate attempts to attain some sense of control over his circumstances?

i totally agree that the torture was always a form of punishment. i think a big miscommunication between scarian at all points in time is that grian, as a character, holds a lot of agency. he highly prioritizes Choices, and hates relinquishing control. he can't fathom staying anywhere or doing anything he doesn't want to, so what he doesn't understand is that scar isn't like that. when it comes to grian, scar does not care.

he will do literally anything so long as grian stays by his side. like you said, he is physically incapable of denying grian. but on grian's part he cannot even consider that scar is sacrificing anything for him here, because he wouldn't do that. he doesn't think he's ruining any of scar's soulmateless plans because he just fundamentally doesn't understand the power he holds over scar. part of that misunderstanding is definitely by scar's design, who is allergic to letting anyone Know him, especially post last life

it definitely makes sense why scar would be frustrated. a lot of his problems in last life were forged by his choicelessness: his only friend turned red and was forced to cut ties with him, the boogeyman curse continued to alienate him further, it goes on. so here he is in double life, ready to start anew, but then here comes grian his soulmate, asking for his hand. grian, who just by virtue of existing enacts upon scar a specific brand of choicelessness. and now scar is coming to terms with the fact that his feelings for this force of nature of a man have bound him to powerlessness ONCE AGAIN!! FOR THE REST OF HIS LIVES!! and it places him in this gross push-pull where he doesn't want grian but he Also can't help but want him desperately .. and that's how we get his behavior throughout DL. dear God i just love him

[arkadijxpancakes]

There are a couple of angles you can take:

1) Remember that "No" is a full sentence. You can just decline, without elaborating further. As she is your friend, you might want to cushion it a little bit, but you don't have to give any reasoning for not wanting to watch that show. You could try to offer some alternative, too. (Example: "Hey friend, I know you are interested in that new HP series everyone is talking about. Personally, It's just not for me. Therefore, I won't watch it. How about we watch/play/read [other thing] instead?")

If she keeps pushing after that, just redirect her to your "No". If she refuses to accept your boundary, it might be time to reevaluate (parts of) that friendship.

The other angles kind of depend on who your friend is, what she does and doesn't know about Rowling and on what she values. If you want to discuss this with her, try to make it personal. If she is passionate about something (trans rights, workers rights, etc.) focus on that. Avoid arguments she isn't interested in/doesn't care about. You can mix and match as needed, but try to stick to one or two main arguments. (That way, it's easier to keep the discussion on track. It's easy to get sidetracked or derailed, if there are too many arguments floating around. It could also cause her to get overwhelmed - and someone who is overwhelmed is unlikely to listen.)

But lets look at the different angles:

2) Focus on Rowling and her bigotry. She has (and, in a lot of cases, still does):

spread misinformation about transness and trans people. She constantly tries to stir up moral panics about trans women in public bathrooms, prisons and sports.

refused to accept the results of scientific research. She is just as anti-science as many climate change deniers.

used ableist and infantilizing language against autistic people. (This usually boils down to the idea that autistic people do not understand how the world works and should not be allowed to make divisions about themselves and their own bodies.)

supported involuntary conversion therapy. (She also named one of her pseudonyms after Robert Galbraith Heath, a pioneer of conversion therapy. When called out on this, she refused knowing about Robert Galbraith Heath. Apparently, she just really likes the names Robert and Galbraith and had to mash them together without doing a quick google search. She did not change the pseudonym and is still publishing books under that name.)

used her wealth and reputation to influence British politics and lobby against trans rights. (For example, the right to self-ID and the right to trans inclusive healthcare.)

caused and participated in multiple harassment campaigns against women of color, by claiming they were men. One of her targets is Imane Khelif, a female boxer who participated in the Olympic Games 2024. Rowling targeted her, after she won a match against an Italian boxer. She also targeted Lin Yu-ting, another boxer.

She is on record for denying crimes committed by the Nazis. In particular, she called the fact that trans people were targeted by the Nazis as a "fever dream". When called out on this, she doubled down and tried to hide behind semantics. She also allowed literal Neo Nazis to support her on this. Note: When people talk about this, they often use the term "Holocaust Denial" - which it totally is. However, I would refrain from using that term, because it could allow your friend to derail the discussion by focussing on semantics instead of on what Rowling did. Many transphobes and Rowling apologists love to claim that it isn't Holocaust denial, because the Holocaust was about the genocide against Jews and trans people aren't Jews. They will also claim, that it isn't Holocaust denial, because she isn't denying that the Holocaust happened. You really don't want to get swamped with that bullshit, so don't say "Rowling has committed Holocaust denial." Instead, try to be specific. (Example: Rowling called the idea, that trans people were persecuted by the Nazis during the Third Reich, a "fewer dream". This includes her denying the fact that the Nazis raided the Insitut für Sexualwissenschaft and burned its library. (At that time, the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was the leading research institution for gay, transgender and intersex topics.)

3) Focus on the bigotry in the books. The books just don't have aged well. If the series sticks to the books, there will be a lot of questionable stuff in there. This includes in no particular order:

The houself-plotline that Rowling introduces in Goblet of Fire depicts an enslaved fantasy species that loves working for their masters and sees payment as an insult. They also react with mental health issues and alcoholism, when freed. When Hermione starts to advocate for them, her activism is treated as a joke. Her contemporaries laugh at her, the house elves resent her and the lesson she learns from all of this is "They like it that way!"

There is no fucking progress. At the end of the books, the house elves are still enslaved, Hermione has stopped her activism and “All was well.”

The way, female characters are portrayed in the books, is pretty misogynistic. Firstly, there is just a lack of important female characters in general. (Most characters, especially when it comes to important characters, are male.) Secondly, the female characters that do exist, tend to fall into iffy tropes. Hermione and Ginny fall into the “not like other girls” trope. Adult female characters are often reduced to their roles as wives and mothers. Female characters, who perform femininity wrong, get criticized and condemned by the narrative. (This includes feminine characters who are too feminine, characters who are too masculine and characters who refuse to be good little wives and mothers. Examples are Fleur Delacour, Lavender Brown, Rita Skeeter, Dolores Umbridge and Bellatrix Lestrange.)

There is a lot of colonialist thinking in the books. You can see this in how characters from other countries get stereotyped a lot. It’s also reflected in the way non-wizards are treated.

The teaching methods that are depicted in the books are just awful. Most teachers we see, simply shouldn’t be put into a classroom full of kids. And it’s not just Snape, either. (At least, his teaching “skills” get criticized in the books.) McGonagall plays favorites, while pretending to be fair, Dumbledore regularly endangers the kids in his care (and it’s not just Harry either) and let’s not even try to talk about Hagrid.

There is a lot of fatphobia in the books. It’s mostly reserved for characters who are bad or evil. (Just look at how Dudley is treated, for example.)

There is a lot of ableism in the books.

There is a lot of black-and-white-thinking in the books. Stuff the good guys do, is usually depicted as good, Stuff the bad guys do, is usually depicted as bad and evil. Even if they do the same thing. (Snape or the Slytherins bully Neville? How could they! Outright evil, all of them! Harry or other good Gryffindor characters bully Neville? Oh, that’s just a little bit of fun and comic relief. No big deal.)

In addition the black-and-white-thinking, there is also a lot of mean-spiritedness in the books. On a fundamental level, most characters are pretty mean. And it’s not just the bad/evil characters, either. At times, Harry, Ron and Hermione are pretty mean to other characters and each other. As are good characters like McGonagall and Molly Weasley, and lovely old Hagrid is even worse. Then there are all the bullies on the Gryffindor-side of the good-vs-evil divide. (Mostly the Marauders, but also Fred and George.)

4) Focus on the series itself. It’s very likely, that this series will be nothing but a cash grab. You can point at Fantastic Beasts. It might have started with a pretty solid film, but after that the quality of the films fell down a steep cliff. The films got canceled after film 3. It is very likely that the TV series will suffer the same fate. Because it’s not about revisiting the books and making a high-quality series about them. There are already movie adaptations of the books and they are good enough and new enough. There is no need for another adaptation. So no, it’s not about making a good adaptation. Warner is simply trying to milk their cash cow.

If you are a marauders fan/ you support or are in the queer community then do Not watch the upcoming Harry Potter show! Do not support it! Do not interact with posts in support of it! We do not need anymore content from jkr! Buy the books second hand! Don’t buy official merch! Stop giving your money to her! Stop being transphobic!

Edit: I have a reply in the reblogs to those mentioning to pirate the show

[heliomanteia]

Caught these on the second replay as Taash's commentary on one of the regrets and I think it's very demonstrative of why I adore Taash & think that people who believe that Taash is a "stereotypical comic relief with no depth" are a bit stupid.

Aside from this specific sentiment of "you waited too long to tell someone you care about something important and now you will never get to" being personally relevant to Taash, I think the whole scene is very telling of their character. Because Taash is the one to make a joking comment about Solas and Mythal "doing it" — and Taash is the one to deliver a profound reading of the regret. It's not even the case of deceitful appearances, Taash is just both direct and without a filter & wise in their own way. And I adore it about them.

Taash functionally does what Sera did, and if you cared enough about Sera to do her questline in DA:I you know she's got more depth to her than she lets out; same is true for Taash. I think a lot of people stumble over their direct/brash approach (that they themselves admit helps them because they don't always understand what people mean) and assume that Taash has no depth but Taash is genuinely my favorite companion because they challenge your ability to look past the surface and actually listen to what the character is saying, analyze them, consider them.

No big conclusion here but I genuinely feel like people hating/disregarding Taash-like characters are the reason less and less exposition is offered in meaningful ways and instead gets served like the player is a toddler. Because an alarming number of people cannot handle characters that challenge you to listen to them. Anyways I love Taash.

[burr-ell]

If the De Rolo children ever decide to become adventurers in their own right, what class would each kid be....... and how would Vex and Percy react when they tell them.

So to begin with, I honestly think Percy and Vex encouraged their kids to be adventurers, or at the very least encouraged them to pick up the skillsets and travel. I don't think they want them actually doing anything dangerous, per se, but I think they're both practical and self-aware enough to know that the things they learned about the world as adventurers made them better leaders who could be more responsive to the needs of their people. (See: the passage in Tal'Dorei Reborn that mentions them rehabilitating criminals instead of punishing them; Percy and Vex both know from firsthand experience that the root of most crime is poverty and suffering.) So I don't think they'd necessarily want them slaying dragons or traveling to the Nine Hells or anything, but I think they're probably aware that their kids will both need and want to go off on their own eventually, so they'll give them the tools to defend themselves and encourage them to do so responsibly.

Now I feel fairly confident we'll find this out one way or another when the short story anthology comes out in March, but I have my guesses!

Vesper: She could go a lot of different ways! Based on 3x112, where she's seen with a bow over her shoulder and telling Vex she's going to bring back a few more rabbits, she's a hunter in some capacity. Taliesin mentions that she's going to be taking Cassandra's place politically and Cassandra is a Fighter, which raises the potential that Cass and Vesper have a close relationship; to me it's between a Ranger or a Fighter. My guess? Probably a Hunter Ranger, just based on what we saw in C3, although personally I'd love it if she was a Fighter/Rogue like her aunt.*

Wolfe and Leona: We saw them in 3x36 coming back from a hunt with Vex, bickering about who caught more, and Leona claims Wolfe is terrible at it "every time", so it's safe to say they regularly learn hunting from Vex. When Vox Machina leaves Whitestone in 3x112, Vex specifically asks Leona to keep an eye on Gwendolyn and not to let her follow, and we know from 3x36 and 3x76 that Gwendolyn is particularly sneaky, so Leona is probably in turn particularly perceptive. That doesn't necessarily mean Wolfe is not, though; Matt notes that out of all the children, both Wolfe and Leona are the ones who seem to most understand the gravity of the situation. So all that to say, they're the ones I think are the most likely to be some distribution of Ranger/Rogue, probably Hunter or Monster Slayer and Scout, combining the best of their mother and what she learned from Vax (maybe with some lessons from Aunt Cass on the side). They're the ones likely to properly join the Grey Hunt.

Vax'ildan: Freddy's a bit of a wild card here, because the only things we know about him so far are that he's an outrageous little shit and that he's close with Trinket's cub Charlie. I've enjoyed the headcanon that he's close to his Aunt Keyleth and is learning to become a Druid because of it, but I think that holds less water as of 3x112, where neither he nor Keyleth really react to each other. He doesn't appear to be particularly sneaky, either, so I'd rule out Rogue. We do learn in 3x112 that he was on a bit of a holiday with some friends nearby, and between that, the attitude, and being the fourth of five children, we can reasonably infer that he doesn't have a lot of responsibilities and that he's mostly just a sociable teenage boy, so he probably isn't worried about optimizing a skillset (read: being a little munchkin like Dad). With all of that in mind, my guess is he's a Beastmaster Ranger who, if he were to be a proper adventurer, would be more of a laid-back sandbox kinda guy.

Gwendolyn: Rogue. At a young age, she's sneaky in a way that only Orym can detect. According to Taliesin, Percy and Gwen have a game they play every time strangers visit the castle where she has to find out three things about them that they haven't spoken aloud and then report back to him. Vex tells Leona to keep an eye on Gwen and to not let her follow them. She also doesn't seem to have much interest in the outdoors, which would rule out a Ranger multiclass (she knows who Galdric is, but he's also the protector of the city and there's a gate named after him). @rightpastnowhere and @snowthelostgirl have both suggested Arcane Trickster, which I personally really like and would pair well with her Thaumaturgy, but it's also possible she's Inquisitive or Mastermind, given the aforementioned secrets game and that Vex switched to the Inquisitive subclass as well.

*I do, however, have a soft spot for Nova's headcanon that Vesper is actually a Divine Soul Sorcerer.

[blodgmonster]

Bro. I have been writing fanfic since I was 12, before I even knew it was a thing. But I only just started posting fics online within the last year or so. I was/am terrified of negative feedback, I have very low self-esteem. I have 7 works on AO3. Some are fairly popular, a few are not. Generally on my authors note I say something like "kudos and kind comments appreciated." I don't want/ask for criticism. I did that in uni creative writing class and the panic was so bad I'd generally excuse myself afterwards to go hyperventilate in a stairwell.

My latest fic has gotten a decent amount of hits and kuods but the handful of comments have been...unnecessarily hurtful? A lot of "I don't understand why the character would do such and such" and "she doesn't deserve so and so because she shouldn't have done such and such" and "why the hell would she do that?"

I can't decide if they have poor reading comprehension or if I'm a genuinely terrible writer. I specifically ask for kind comments only. They don't listen. I try to write a story with nuance and characters making mistakes because people make mistakes and I try to write a story in shades of grey and with strong female relationships (generally platonic) at it's core. And they don't...understand the characters motivation, don't understand how she could possibly make a mistake, don't understand how she could see the good of both sides of a conflict because THEY are so single mindedly on a team, how could she like someone on the other side? Am I that bad a writer or are my readers incapable of comprhending something beyond the 5th grade reading level that doesn't hold their hand and guide them the whole way?

My real question is why do people feel obligated to comment on something they don't like or don't understand? It's fanfic. No one is making you read it. You have paid no money to read it. I'm not writing it for you. If it doesn't resonate with you then it's not for you? Leave my page and good luck finding something you like. There's no reason to be mean.

It makes me want to stop writing altogether. Makes me want to delete all my fics. This is why I didn't post before. And apparently teenage me what right.