#WOW i feel so better thinking of that

[buttercupshands]

I started drawing this next day after I finished Act 6

13 or so days and it's finished!

Main things are traditional and Loop's body was edited digitally after

Unedited it looks like this

I've been torn on how to do Loop's body for the entirety of lining, also

A bit sad the main lines are visible only as a wip, most of this thing is literally just a ton of sharp lines

I think it's also my first day of drawing, Loop is just a sketch here (feat. my leg)

I even finished the beans before it so they were a moral support, because if you let me things like this take a year

[puppyeared]

(guy who has never played cotl) haha au time

[canon-gabriel-quotes]

i am sincerely sorry

I. I-

you know what nevermjsnimhh jj

Eeeeee

Jajhhh gm

yeah ok

[asaethiel]

horror movie twins/gansey's magicians/etc

[rystiel]

would things have been different if stan told ford? will things be different since mabel told dipper?

[teeth-draws]

Chase suffers in love but the other Norms still let him come to their little photoshoot

[twstgo]

so I am Very Normal about how Jamil's voice sounds in this particular card

[mintjeru]

jersey maids 🎀💕

open for better quality | no reposts

[sergeantjessi]

more wow stream gifs woaaahhh!!!

(day 4)

(day 5)

[sskk-manifesto]

Bungou Stray Dogs: Dead Apple and how “ability users” (opposite to “normal people”) learning to accept themselves through the acceptance of their own abilities is a queer metaphor of acceptance of own's sexual orientation and gender: an essay by me

[felonytaxevasion]

Can I hear more about the worm vs the boys please if you want to expand on it on tumblr? I love worm and I don’t really like the boys and I can't quite explain to myself why

Yea absolutely! Im sure there's some other Wormblr posts out there that go into this in more depth but I can paraphrase what I was saying to my friends.

We were mainly discussing the concept of "edginess" and excessive anger, violence, and shock value in media and I brought up Worm and The Boys as examples so that I could sort of warn my friend about the tone of Pact without directly spoiling anything. My main thesis is that Worm is incredibly super duper edgy, however it doesn't come across as nihilistic and misanthropic like The Boys does.

I feel as though too often The Boys is usually taking the stance of "well humans suck so if you gave humans superpowers they would find unique ways to suck and the only thing separating normal people from monsters is power. So no one should have power" which I don't inherently disagree with to an extent. It's an exaggerated critique of capitalism and celebrity. But it's also such a gross way to look at humans/the nature of humanity.

Contrast with Worm that says "bad people with superpowers will use their powers to do uniquely horrible things. But good people with superpowers will also be out there doing uniquely and incredibly good things for the benefit of humanity. Every human as the potential for abhorrent cruelty. But it is just as true that those same humans all have the potential to do good."

I think it's really important that the two final and most major antagonists in Worm are motivated by nihilism and hatred of humans. Jack Slash and Scion both have the philosophy of "Humans are cruel. The parts of humanity that are good are losing out to cruelty. Why try and fight it. It's easier to just kill everyone". Contrast Taylor who, I'm 99% sure, never for a second questions if humanity is worth saving. Everyone around her in Gold Morning says "there's nothing we can do so we should at least die happy" and Taylor says "I cannot die happy unless I spend every second of my last day fighting for the miniscule chance to save humanity from extinction". Taylor and the fucking insane lengths she will go to save humans when she doesn't even like them all that much is the heart of Worm. (And like don't get me wrong worm is also about Taylor fucking failing to not partake in human cruelty at basically every opportunity. Quite possibly the worst anyone's ever done it. But that doesn't change the fact that she is trying and in the doing is pushing the audience to try as well)

And on the other hand I think the attitude of The Boys kind of just IS Jack Slashs. I honestly cannot even fathom what the take away is meant to be beyond "people are fuuucked up dude". If I wanted to be especially cruel I would say that I think a large majority of fan base for The Boys was generated on the basis of shock value and the incredibly strong performances from the cast. It's easy to get in to season 1 because it presents a horrible world with no redeeming qualities but you can assume in later seasons "they're gonna figure it out! Good will win out! Or at least good will lose for reasons that connect with the audience and make it a tragedy" but three seasons later theyre floundering to find a message and a reason people should care about the world and it's characters.

At the end of the day TLDR I think worm works because it has something to say and uses edge to support the thesis. The Boys exists more as a framework to explore cruelty in fiction and I just don't think it has a lot to say outside of that.

[sapphoscreature]

Caitlyn's Act Three Outfit

I think that Caitlyn's act 3 look being devoid of any insignia is a sign that on both a political and emotional level she has rescinded the position as commander as Ambessa appointed her and instead is commander as she is choosing herself to be in order to lead Piltover into battle and face the immediate consequences of her choices.

Now she has power devoid of any others' influence and is guided by her own self-reflection and growth, she has taken on a new look and a new approach. She no longer wears the beret, jacket, trouser outfit she dons in act 1 as we watch her descend into a desire for vengeance, and which becomes part of her act 2 outfit (as well as the cape adorned with the combined Medarda/Kiramman insignia, of course).

Her new outfit is practical but unfussy. It feels more grounded in Caitlyn's determination ('I don't need consolation. I need a plan') and action-focussed personality.

The black turtleneck in particular is really interesting (espc. as she wears it in the opening titles as well). There's a lot it could suggest, and I've seen some interesting interpretations, but for me I think it represents stoicism and solemnity. Grief and guilt led her down a dark path. Now reflecting on that ('hating you, i've hated myself'), Caitlyn will carry those choices with her forever. She will own them, and I think that's reflected through her outward presentation.

That the turtleneck is also a concealing garment could further suggest guardedness. She will not allow anyone else to take advantage of the power the Kiramman name affords her, nor will she lose sight of what is truly important moving forward ('this city needs healing'), and how her privilege could aid that 'fight.' In fact, I think Caitlyn comes into her own in shaping how the power of privilege operates after the battle- e.g. offering her council seat to Sevika.

That it is only with Vi that she removes those layers says a lot about their intimacy both physical and emotional, but that she wears it in their final scene I think also represents how Caitlyn is determined to keep fighting for a better world and atone for her previous choices.

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.

[skelespidey]

hearing them talk about hurting themselves and their attempts actually makes me so sad like why can't i make all their problems and worries go away :(

[wundrousarts]

I discovered these paintings by James McNeill Whistler recently, Nocturne in Black and Gold: Falling Rocket (top) and Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Firewheel (bottom). I’m sharing them because they make me think of Nevermoor, as so many things do.

With paintings, a nocturne refers to the depiction of night. This is derived from the musical term, where a nocturne refers to a musical piece that is “inspired by, or evocative of, the night.” These both just come from the fact that “nocturne” essentially means “of the night”.

On a basic level, this just reminds me of Nevermoor by the aesthetics. The dreamy nighttime setting strikes me the most, but also the sparks of yellow fire that make me think of Wunder. Think of how many important scenes happen at night- Morrigan on Eventide, the Museum of Stolen Moments, and the Hollowpox in Courage Square. But the concept has me thinking, obviously, about the Wundrous Art of Nocturne. The only songs we know are Morrigan and Squall’s, who both chose nursery rhymes as their Nocture. Their choices make me think of lullabies, sung at night… and there’s lots to think about with that.

[cecilscribbles]

I am a little confused so please correct me here you don’t dislike Stanley right?

not at all!!!!!! i find ford more compelling because i relate to him a lot more than i do stan, but i think they're both amazing characters