#Not maintagging this because I am a coward

[gemwolfz]

unexpected one more image before bed because plates your image sparked something in me

[afoundunkindness]

Not maintagging because I am a coward, a version for my oc who I want to crush in a hydraulic press much to Astraeus' despair.

Link (they/them)

[2ofswords]

I think I kind of figured out why I sympathize with Dankovsky so goddamn much. (I mean... aside from him being a really interesting and amazing character, but almost all of the Patho characters are so that’s not really an argument.) And interestingly enough, a lot about it has to do with his character flaws and how they make a character not only more appealing or interesting but sympathetic as well.

Firstly, I think it is exactly the lack of empathy and his concentration on general topics as well as the tunnel vision that really gets me. I would still call myself a compassionate person but also a very theoretic one and an abstract idealist that dreams of things that has problems to stay in everyday life and also to connect with people. Like... keeping contact is hard for me and I know that I am the person who needs to be approached in the first place to name an example. So the struggle to do good and help people while not noticing the here and now or having trouble continuing close relationships really gets me. The question what to do if you mostly have the big picture in mind and if abstract ideals can do you any good is so important to me because I’m anxious about the same thing and think about it a lot. (It’s also why I always feel a bit uncomfortable when people are acting like forgetting about these close relationships means not caring at all. Totally get seeing him this way and everyone can interpret a character however they want, but… Ouch. That one hits too close to home!) 

The second point is high ambition. Trying to do things perfectly and setting ambitions so high and precise (or being hold to these ambitions) that you just cannot archive them at all. Setting yourself up for constant failure and seeming arrogant and foolish while doing so. That is also a character flaw of mine and probably the reason I’m a firm believer that ideals do help even if they are not archivable at all because they make you strive to do better. Having lofty ambitions and suffering for them is just very relatable to me and I refuse to not see any good in it.

I really love the exploration of those topics and I also love how both of these aspects of Dankovsky hinder him and sometimes lead him into fucking disaster. It’s really good storytelling and I love how the game doesn’t pull any punches. That is another thing I love about his character but also about the game in general. They make an intelligent and arrogant character but what normally is the Sherlock Holmes that everyone sucks up to, the tendency not depicted as clever but he is mercilessly beaten into the ground for it. Because… yeah. You piss people off, if you act like you’re better than them and throw around oneliner like they’re candy. (And no, I don’t think it’s always ill intended at all.) It’s a really good subversion of this specific character trope and I genuinely do think his struggle with it makes not only the narrative but also Dankovsky himself way more sympathetic. (I genuinely believe the reactions to a character can be as important than the character themselves for developing sympathy and engagement because interaction and therefore development is always two-sided.) The consequences to his tone can strike back twice as bad and it develops a genuine character flaw but also is deeply sympathetic at the same time. (Day 1 in the Haruspex route comes to mind, where literally everyone trashtalks the Bachelor and sometimes it’s like “Man, he really did a lot of shit really quickly” but sometimes it's also like “Oh my god, you probably didn’t even meet him, how has the town this opinion after he was there like five hours??? That’s horrible, poor guy!”) It paints the character as human and flawed but rooted in this world.

The same goes with the other flaws. I like that they are harshly punished and lead into fucking disaster! But I also feel for him because of this. Having him trying to engage with his own actions because of this harsh reaction and reality is way more sympathetic than just hearing someone being cool without facing any consequences. He has a struggle and boy does he struggle with his flaws and this is why I want him to succeed in the first place! And even if I do not relate (which in this case of prickliness I actually do not… though I can get pretty pretentious I guess…), I love to see it! (And Dankovsky (and Patho-characters in general) being dynamic throughout the story actually helps this matter a lot!) I love him and wish him the best and I actually am invested in him as a good person for this exact reason! Because I genuinely want to engage with the good sides of him because of his struggles. I want to see, how there is something good to be found in them.

So what do I want to say with this? Mostly that I really love Daniil Dankovsky and I think he is amazing as well as amazingly flawed, and still manages to be humane and engaging. But what I also figured out with these vague musings is, that the flaws of a character and our engagement with them as well as our sympathy with their consequences can be a big part about liking a character. They’re not a counterweight to their strengths for some realism reason, they are as engaging and important. It is inspiring to see someone succeed, but seeing someone with relatable or interestingly described problems – even and maybe especially self-made ones! – struggle with them can make us care about them more and not less and actually make us sympathize with them. Showing the problems that we feel for as well as the good or the potential development that come with character traits (since a lot of traits have their good as well as their bad sides), are not only equally important but a big part about our emotional bond. We do not only need to laugh and condemn character flaws, sometimes we can go “yeah, I relate to this and like the character even more. I want to see them as positive despite this flaw, I want to see them get better and focus on the positives, exactly because they have this specific thing they need to work through!”) It’s not necessarily ignoring that but engaging with it out of compassion and/or relating to their struggles. And a lot of struggles and negatives come with positives that will inspire us even more with both flaw and virtue creating consequences. I think about Dankovsky’s tunnel vision as much as I’m inspired by his determination. I feel for his lack of connection as much as I love his idealism and dreams. And I want to actively think that something good can come out of this, that there is change and ways to get better and work out these flaws. And I want to highlight that what he is doing can be worthwhile, that there is good inside him despite these flaws. That is what character sympathy is for me.

But of course, this way of relating to a character is deeply personal. I’m not saying that this is the right way to interpret Dankovsky, it’s just my way of engaging with his character and the reason I find him compelling. And judging someone for the bad things they do (for example judging Dankovsky for wanting to destroy the town) and not engaging with their flaws is completely valid as well. People find different character traits engaging! I know some Patho characters where I cannot get over their flaws and actions but completely get why some people find them compelling for the exact reason I cannot sympathize. I just thought it says something interesting about character engagement in general. Pathologic is really good with showcasing struggles and being harsh about the characters flaws but compassionate about their humanity at the same time. It’s painting a very nuanced picture that cannot be categorized in “good” or “evil” this easily and I think this is why I love a lot of their characters so goddamn much.

[astraphase]

True mechanisms brainrot is accidentally reading “brain” as “brian”

[justalittlebluetiefling]

I know we have shipper glasses but I don’t see why is said Jester already moving on or almost done based on her song when to me the song is more of a “i like you so much but maybe I shouldn’t anymore?” and her actions also show that? She was very moved by their talk too idk

Yeah, Summer’s Gone was a very interesting choice for one of her Fjord songs. I think some folks got stuck on the line “I can’t wait for you anymore” and “the summer’s gone”. 

It’s always easy for us to see what we want to see. Some people want Jester to have moved on from Fjord, so that’s what they focused on. The people who ship them focused on other aspects of the song. Like the fact that the entire line is “The feeling’s strong, but the summer’s gone”.

I mean, even taking those two lines into account... the whole song is about how painful it is to pine after someone when you’re not sure if they have romantic feelings for you, too. And how the person knows it’s healthier for them to try to move on. But god they like them so much. It’s a rollercoaster. 

The way I saw it was that Jester’s feelings have evolved into something way stronger than a crush, she can’t tell if Fjord likes her back, and she’s pretty sure he knows she likes him, but she’s scared to say anything, because what if he doesn’t. And it also felt like she’s reached a point where she is worrying more about herself which is good. If Fjord didn’t have feelings for her, I wouldn’t want her to sit there and pine. That fucking hurts. The other thing that it projected was that the ball is in Fjord’s court. And if he waits too long, she may have moved on. 

It’s so much fun angst which I think has been complicated by their time on the island. Jester thinks she should move on, but here’s Fjord being supportive and telling her he doesn’t want her to get hurt and saying that they’ll always be there for her and that he doesn’t care about 200 other people he cares about her and that she can talk to him! Specifically him! He’s taking these little steps trying to figure out how to tell her how he feels while not putting any pressure on her and it’s so sweet, but I imagine it’s making her a little more confused than she was before. 

I guess this is just a long rambling way to say I agree with you. When I watch, I don’t see a Jester that’s moved on. I see a Jester that’s accepted that maybe she should move on if Fjord doesn’t like her. But he does and he’s starting to be more obvious about it, so it feels like a matter of time before they have an actual healthy conversation about their feelings. 

[miss-allsundays]

would it be a hot take to say that one piece and yona of the dawn (specifically the arcs AFTER the yotd anime) are quite similar

like I'm barely at ep 100 of one piece so i could be wrong, but at the very least the characters' tropes

sanji and jae ha are the SAME character; hak and zoro are also very similar.

when it comes to yona i would say she reminds me more of vivi?? purely cause, again, i've only watched like, a tenth of one piece so i wouldnt know who else to compare her to

chopper would be kind of a mix between shin ah and yoon; nami and lili are also similar, although not the SAME, and so forth...

anyways my point is that people that watch one piece would prob also enjoy yotd (the manga especially, it is easily in my top 5 manga)

[ranvwoop]

i spent way too much time on these

1/2