last night as I was trying to fall asleep my brain gave me a story about Bowser as an imprisoned dragongod who is worshiped but enslaved, kept in a cave where he can't do anything but watch the outside world. He can tell the worshipers what to do (within reason) because his powers are so useful to them that they know if he ever gets angry or miserable enough to off himself they'll all be screwed. They have a LOT of enemies, who all assume that the god is their willing ally, and would be more than happy to crush them the moment they have the chance.
the closest thing to affection Bowser ever had was the woman who decided to bear his child. He genuinely believed she wanted to be the bride of a god, but the moment she was sure she was pregnant she left without even looking back.
years later, when he's told himself he doesn't care anymore (he obviously very much still cares), he sees a beautiful sweet princess and decides he wants her. He orders his "minions" to capture her and present her to him as a... permanent guest. He doesn't think she'll like being a prisoner, of course. HE sure doesn't. But he's stuck down here with no hope of escape, ever, and he can at least make her stay very comfortable. She's a princess, she must be used to being in a gilded cage.
though he knows that the princess has protectors, and they've made things difficult for his followers over the last couple years, he never gives them much thought. Bowser never imagines that they'd be so determined to protect the princess from him that one of them would disguise himself as the princess and willingly get "sacrificed" to the inescapable dragon cave.
(this was briefly brought up as a potential plan by the brothers, but discarded immediately because they don't want anybody to have to be stuck with a dragon forever, especially not each other. But then they got separated and Luigi was the only one left to protect Peach and they were captured and there was no time to spare and... it was the only thing he could think of.)
Bowser is furious, of course, but what he really wanted was companionship. If this random guy is who he's got, it's who he's got. And the random guy is weirdly optimistic about this whole thing, although he's scared of Bowser he never once stops believing that his brother will be coming to save him. No matter how much Bowser explains that not even a god can get out of this hole, Luigi insists that it's only a matter of time. His brother will come for him.
(he does, of course, freeing both of them.)
And that was as far as I got! I probably won't ever write it because it's too dramatic and also absolves Bowser of most responsibility for the evil done in his name. I like Bowser as a villain who really isn't justified in what he does. That's where the spice is! 🌶
But it's fun to think about Luigi being his usual nice guy self around someone who isn't used to being treated like a person, on multiple levels.
22 notes
·
View notes
You have 90 minutes to complete. (original poem: r.a.)
In participation of the MCYT Recursive Exchange 2024 hosted by @mcytrecursive!
Inspired by know that all my love will be your breath (i will save you when your lights go out)
[text under cut]
1. Have you ever been in love?
(Please circle your answer.)
a. It's me and him
b. Our hearts beat in sync
c. Our lives intertwined
2. Do you understand what you’ve done?
(Please circle your answer.)
a. I couldn't do anything
b. I lost my balance
c. I doomed us both
3. It's been god knows how long since you felt phantom hands on your neck and there is no one in sight. If you were soul-bound to him and both of you died at the same time then why are you still waiting in the void?
Please answer clearly, in full sentences.
(Not a correct answer:I just wanted to see him one more time).
4. Define two (2):
Fate | The feeling of his forehead against yours
Curse | The moment you realise he isn't linked to you anymore
5. True or False:
i. It was your fault.
ii. You wish you had met him under different circumstances.
iii. You can’t regret a single moment that you had him.
iv. You would do it all over again if you could.
v. It ended long before either of you said anything.
thumbnails:
sketch cover thing for imgur link:
3K notes
·
View notes
Magnus discovers Jace's heritage
In today's episode of 'imaginary scenes that never canonically happened but still live in my head rent free':
Magnus: "So my dear shadowhunters, what's new? Catch me up."
Clary: "Valentine is Jace's father. We are siblings."
Jace: "And he injected me with demon blood while I was still in my mother’s womb."
Alec: "He disguised himself as Wayland for all those years he raised Jace in Exile."
Magnus, sighing: "... Where do I even begin... Okay. You two are aware that you look nothing alike, right?"
Clary: "Recessive genes can do that."
Magnus, sighing louder: "...Alright, Blondie. Strip."
Jace: "What, why?!"
Alec: "Uhm, yeah, what he said." (not that he is jealous that Magnus wants to see another man naked. No sir. He is very decidedly not jealous. ... he will find a reason to shuck his shirt in front of Magnus later.)
Magnus: "This institute is protected by my wards. As is Pandemonium, as well as my apartment, which is warded even heavier. All of which you have been present in.
You have been to the Silent City and were in the presence of the silent brothers.
There are exactly two ways to keep demonic blood from being discovered by either angelic runes like they are at the silent city, the silent brothers themselves, or my wards.
One is regular contact with a very powerful warlock to cast a very complicated spell on you.
As I doubt you have been seeing one for every month of your life, that leaves number 2. Which is a demonic mark, which can only be given by a greater demon, and can only be seen by those who know it and are actively looking for it. So, off with those drab clothes so I can take a look."
Jace: strips
Magnus: sees the Herondale birthmark, sighs and starts to write a fire message
Alec: "What are you doing?"
Magnus: "Informing the Inquisitor that she has a grandson. 'Congratulations, it's a boy!'"
26 notes
·
View notes
this might sound a bit dumb and out of no where but hmmm. how do i say this... there are a lot of posts and a general consensus about quote unquote media literacy on tumblr and how we feel about it, as well as the things that go hand in hand with all that (discussion of mischaracterisation, symbolism, analysis, etc) and i think people (generally) need to be more open about their thoughts or findings and less i don't know... harsh isn't the word but like, just less assumptive that people are inherently out to be willfully ignorant when it comes to dissecting media thematically or discussing characterisation & the narrative, esp things where the outside factor of the consumer/creator changes things drastically if you do or do not know or experience something (and therefore would have no reason to be like, somehow maliciously interpreting something). i guess?
like i get it and i absolutely understand and also hate when people seem to go out of their way to say all the wrong things and stubbornly cling onto things that are WRONG, and confronting someone's opinion and it being SO wrong that you can comfortably think of a rebuttal is ultimately very satisfying and scratches a certain itch and can lead to a lot of thoughtful discussion despite being essentially a big "get a look at THIS guy". but i do think there is a vast difference between like, a) someone masquerading behind being knowing buzzwords and being able to say the right words in the right order, b) someone who isn't familiar with certain concepts and DOESN'T know the right words to say but is happily open to learning, and c) someone using the guise of talking about "media literacy" to be ignorant, bigoted or willfully misinterpreting something in a biased way who refuses to concede if confronted or goes out of their way to pick arguments. whilst the first two aren't malicious, both could turn out to be, just like the last category tends to be rejects of the first two who dug their heels in about it.
whilst there is a DIFFERENCE if someone was being say bigoted and prejudiced with hateful intent, not being "media literate" is not actually a moral failing as much as it is made out to be in moments of sweeping generalisation, and i think punishing people for not knowing how to hold thoughtful discussion is obviously cruel and dumb and unnecessarily othering. you don't want people to learn things out of a sense of shame or guilt. i know it's not the INTENT, and i don't like, interpret even 99% of discussion about this whole thing that way, but that doesn't change that discussing people very broadly who just Don't Know something is always going to leave the 1% of a LOT of harshness thrown against someone who doesn't deserve that. even if they're the stupidest twitterina known to man or something.
media literacy itself is not inherent and it is HARD, as much as people try to pretend it isn't. personally i am someone who has always and probably always WILL struggle to understand complex themes and often do need someone else to guide me towards thinking a certain way, thinking in these ways don't come naturally to me as much as i try my best to and i often think the "wrong" thing as my natural conclusion. and every Damn time that happens i see someone going "if you didn't realise this you're a fucking idiot" like woah man 😭 calm down. i dunno i feel like people just forget that this stuff is something you have to train like a muscle, esp things like vocabulary or a more complex academic way of speaking, and to some of us that is always going to be inherently inaccessible or it's going to take twice as long for us to grasp, for whatever reason. i just wish people were more fair is all.
7 notes
·
View notes