#Yeah this is an interesting topic. It's interesting how the characters perceive their actions (or themselves) and how that affects the Mv | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chemzee · 10 months ago

Note

also sorry i know you said you're currently on a morgan kick but i've been dying to know more about te and v. what's dulces sueños de las almas anhelantes? why are these kids wanted by the authorities? who is the host?

OH MY GOD DUDE WHOEVER YOU ARE THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR ASKING THIS I LOVE YOUUU 🧡🧡🧡🧡 YOU ARE THE BEST 😭😭😭

OOF I doubt I could be able to tell everything because there's SO MUCH TO TELL. But I'll try to be as brief as possible.

Dulces Sueños de las Almas Anhelantes (or Sweet Dreams of Yearning Souls) is a personal project of mine, which I had been developing and writing for almost 4 years now.

I wanna turn it into a series or comic some day (although it was at first thought of as a game but my ass has no idea how coding or game design works do yeah), high chances are, it might not happen because I'm lazy so blep. ✌

(‼️TW for some rather sensitive/uncomfortable topics‼️)

It follows the story of, primarily, 4 people, who are stuck in a weird Wonderland like place, as they go down a memory lain and recall events that led them there. Each of them has a unique narrative style which reflects the way they think/perceive the world/how they compiled their stories. These 4 people are Doc, Man in Red, V and Te (artworks of them shown in order (Doc and Man in red are old artworks and I wanna redesign them)), although V and T are THE main characters/protagonists.

Action takes place in a fictional country that is sorta like combination of Spain and England, that has suffered from an unusual sudden epidemy of unknown disease that sets everyone into panic, yet suspiciously, government does nothing. The four characters in question rebel against that, which leads to them being persecuted by the government (which is hard due to their anonymity). (NOTE THAT IT'S NOT BASED ON ANY REAL LIFE EPIDEMIC!!! It's a fictional disease that has no basis on any real diseases or real epidemics)

Te and V are couple of besties™ who are two teenagers who due to their own personal motives are taken in under the guidance of Becca (I have art of her but no reference yet) , a lady who owns an unusual private investigation centre, that uses unconventional means of solving cases. She insures that the identities of her workers and students are protected, which is why they go by codenames, in case of Te and V they are Number 4 (Quarte) and Number 5 (V) respectively.

V is a detective in training, who aspires to become a professional investigator when she becomes older. And she's a good one at that: not only is she smart but also determined, she's not gonna stop until she won't find out the truth (I like to joke that's she's a professional doxxer for a reason).

Te is also a detective of sorts, but it's not exactly what they focuse more on (and tbf they's not looking to pursue this career + V is a lot better detective). They are a medium, as they can hear the voices of the dead and they seek to help those souls fulfill their "unfinished business".

All the 4 characters stumble upon many enemies and foes, even considering each other their obstacles, but the most formidable one of them all is The Host. (Another old artwork and another character I wanna redesign)

The Host, as it seems at first, is their biggest ally: he, just like the 4 , protests against Government's passivity. Beginning as a humble news presenter, he then becomes progressively more relevant in news media, as he calls for action. He takes a particular interest in all 4 protagonists, as he thinks of them as most reliable sources for his campaign to succeed. Believing that he can get away with everything, he's determined to do anything in his power to make these 4 join his side, no matter the cost, no matter their economical situation, health issues, employment, personal life or age.

#ANON AGAIN I LOVE YOU SM 🧡🧡🧡#GOD BLESS YOU #dulces sueños de las almas anhelantes #btw this title makes sense in context of story but shhhh #v #te #man in red #doc #the host #my gay european criminals 🧡#answered asks #thanks for asking!

2 notes · View notes

silvernevermind · 2 years ago

Text

there should be a word for this level of dedication to bits that ""humour"" is derived from the perceived weirdness of the bit. like this dude doesn't actually care for Maizono. that's just not actually what this is about. I emberassingly dedicated myself to role-playing as a DR character for most of my middle school life, i can say with full confidence that there simply isn't enough to Maizonos character to "love". shes literally the first to die in game about murder mysteries. he doesn't actually love her, or care about her, at least any more than any other fictional character (with more screentime) that he enjoys. he chose her, likely at least partially on a whim, to ride or die for the spectacle of it.

and like, that's what this is for. it's for the spectacle. if you actually loved an anime character, if you actually enjoyed her writing and her personality and daydreamed all the time about getting to meet her and date her, you wouldnt act like this. because if you did for even a minute youd realizd that taping her face to a printer would make her like you less. so your not doing it "for her". if forced to switch into a new life where he could never publicly display "affection" for her, he'd forget about her within a week, likely just doing the exact same thing with a different anime girl. 99% of the reason he does any of the this is because he enjoys the feeling he gets when someone perceives him as odd for doing it. and like, yeah duh, everyone's like that at least a little. but when it gets to the point that your spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars just to continue to one up your "weirdness", it's too late. because now every dollar spent, every picture taped up to the wall, every foot of cardboard is now a raw number that you can keep track of your "dedication". it's like a cookie clicker effect on your brain, everytime the number goes up you get some enjoyment out of it, but eventually that enjoyment dwindles until you get a REALLY big poster and that makes it go up again, so on and so on.

so you pick a bare bones character to publicly go crazy for and never actually care for her. going back to what I said about her barely having any story/character, that probably helps the perceived spectacle of it all in his eyes. like there are genuinely interesting characters in dangan ronpa, ones with unique and interesting stories, characters whose actions are compelling and make for a good story. there are fans of Komaeda who could write real, not a meme essays about him and his character. but if this tiktok dude picked an actually interesting character, he'd be in trouble. his image wouldn't be maintainable. him printing 100 pictures would be put next to someone who could actually discuss and analyze their fav for hours and then the jig would be up, people would recognize the other person as "the bigger fan" and he wouldn't get the bordering-on-an-exhibitionism-fetish rush that he does now.

so, like, sure. I hope this guy gets a kick outta the attention. i hope people follow him on tiktok and he keeps spending 100 dollars on shit that doesn't make him happy. and then when the attention dwindles, when he runs out of people to flaunt his ugly fucking house to like a MLM runs out of idiots to sell to, I hope he realizes how stupid it was. i hope he sits around for months, no longer posting photos of his printers and no longer buying new cutouts, but doesn't take the old ones down. because taking then down is admitting the bit was never that funny, was never worth the cost. and then I hope he finally does decide to actually throw it all out. take down the shitty tape on his walls and just get rid of it. I hope he has to awkwardly avoid the topic around his friends cause he knows they'll tease him about it, know they'll remind him of buying a useless cardboard cutout for hundreds of dollars for a character he doesn't like. and then I hope enough time passes that all of it is truly behind him and all that's left is a mild regret. or none of that could happen, I don't really care except I do know for sure he's going to hell when he dies.

6 notes · View notes

fanficmaniatic · 1 year ago

Text

I was just thinking about this, because it is interesting isn't it? But I think it has to do with both what Tommy Andreasen wanted vs what the writers did.

Similar with what happened in the episode "The return of the Ice Emperor" Tommy had instructed the writers to make a reference about the Ice emperor, and the way they fit it in as a comic relief, because they needed to alleviate the moment. Tommy later said that this is not what he wanted, but that he would not make a writer do something they did not want.

With that being said... I might also be the reason behind Cole's falls. but dare I say, even if the other characters joke, or act cartoonish about the topic of Cole falling, Cole himself does seem to be panicking, or stressing over with it. So there is some work there, that I find is more than just a joke.

Take s11, for example, he almost falls, and he though so much about how he almost fell that he ended up having a nightmare about it. Not only that, he thinks so low of himself and this perceived weakness that he went by himself to get the Traveler's tea. Him almost falling might be presented as a joke, but the episode after, there is an argument to be made that his actions are just a trauma response.

s12 "The Cliff's of Hysteria" fall I think is taken a bit more seriously. He seems clearly distraught, he says "not again" but, the others help him this time. Kai, who was the one that was willing to move the Bounty back to save Cole, Jumps off, risking his only life, to save him. Yeah, we also have Nya, who previous to the fact was telling Cole to hurry up, making the scene more comedic, but the moment the rope snaps we don't get spoken jokes, just a teammate saving another. And though noting explicitly says Cole just relieved one of the worst moments of his life, and the show has to continue with the plot, I feel like it is pretty telling he is just sitting in the background when they get to the top.

I don't have much to say about Master of the Mountain in rewards of his falls, but more about his character as a whole, and though "The Real Fall" might as well be the funniest Ninjago episode, after this Cole, as a character, hit rock bottom. He is weighted down by his actions and grief, he quite literally has nothing to do but get up. In my head it fits, it fits that his last two falls are more comedic when overall he is already at the bottom, there is nowhere deeper to go. Because he gets up, he heals and becomes more comfortable with himself after Master of The Mountain in a way he never was.

Is like, they took this one aspect of Cole, his adventurous side that reached for the highest mountains to climb and realized that he couldn't keep climbing, not when the weight was dragging him down. So they let him fall, and with each fall he got back up, he climbed a little bit, tried to get better, fell again, he hit rock bottom, the source of his depression and sadness, his mother's death, he saw that he didn't need to be her. He heals. Through falling he slowly realizes how to do it, and i think that is beautiful.

All of this is to say, hey... At least the joke got somewhere, and frankly I like where Cole is at.

Tbh I'm really curious about what made the Ninjago writers want to turn Cole's fall into a running joke. Aside from the initial fall in March of the Oni, you also have:

His March of the Oni teaser poster (which is debatable but I'm considering it a joke about his fall because without context it feels like they're saying he's gonna die but nope. They mean it in the most literal sense)

In season 11, he falls off a cliff in the Land Bounty in a dream (might be a stretch but I don't doubt that it's a reference to his fall in season 10)

In season 12, he falls off the Cliffs of Hysteria while fighting some Red Visors, saying "Not again!" while trying to regain his grip on his rope

In season 13, The Real Fall is just one massive reference to Cole's fall in March of the Oni

In Crystalized, after the ninja get trapped in the tunnels, Cole responds to Kai's question of "How deep down are we?" with "I've been deeper" referring to his fall and subsequent time trapped in Rock-Bottom (again, this one's debatable but I'm adding it anyway)

Considering Cole was likely traumatized by this (hell, he was traumatized just from being touched by the Oni cloud) and the fall itself is heartbreaking, what possessed the writers to make Cole's fall a running joke

#I AM SO SORRY FOR THIS RAMBLING I JUST REALLY THINKING ABOUT HIM A LOT #AND I HAPPENED TO BE THINKING ABOUT HIM AFTER MOTM AND HOW HE HEALS #LIKE #UGH #I NEED TO MAKE AN ANALYSIS ABOUT HIM #also sorry i hope this was okey #I didn't mean this in like a bad way i just wanted to add that #cole ninjago #ninjago #ninjago motm #unintencional character analysis op #character analysis #cole's fall

112 notes · View notes

prongsandhisfoot · 2 years ago

Note

haha no need for an apology. it’s always interesting to see differing peter opinions (esp since i’m not attached to him so discourse can actually be fun) so in that vein, i hope it’s okay i pitch in?

ur definitely right that his betrayal still means something for all those reasons—the potters dying, harry becoming an orphan, sirius going to azkaban—but i’d argue that it became as personal as it did because he was a friend. after all, it was war time, people they knew were dying left, right, centre. violence was everywhere. they knew it could come for them anytime. that it came from one of their own, it had to have hit deeper no?

i guess the reason i feel like peter was One Of Them (beyond personal hcs) is 1. the potters trusting him with their safety in the middle of a war 2. peter being an animagus, knowing & protecting remus’ secret 3. the ‘died for us, as we would have done for you’ line from sirius.

i know there’s parts there that indicate exactly the opposite, the potshots sirius takes at peter’s intelligence + skill + general disposition in the shack but i’d always seen it as more hurting him where it hurts (with the benefit of hindsight) rather than always believing it. the way you’re aware of your friends’ faults but you don’t bring it up unless you wanna hurt them, if that makes sense? (i guess also the ambiguity around peter’s actions make this whole thing more tricky—why did he turn? when did he turn? what was the pipeline like?)

all of that being said, i definitely do agree with you that in that moment it was about james & lily & harry for sirius. when i said ‘the betrayal meant something’ i was talking more of in a larger sense of peter’s actions, not specifically sirius’ pov. some random guy betraying the potters is yeah, fine, whatever, wartime. but their own friend stabbing them in the back is what makes it a true tragedy (kind of like how sirius’ perceived betrayal hit harry particularly hard after the three broomsticks scene because he was his dad’s best friend & best man) but that’s just my opinion!! i’d love to hear ur thoughts :”)

first thank you so much for being ok with my post and second thank you so so much for answering! i love having conversations about this stuff more than anything and it's so rare for the conversation to be two people disagreeing but being considerate since usually this type of stuff ends up for me either just an argument or very one-sided so this is really fresh!

i love love love your last paragraph and i think that's what resonates with me best and kind of makes me see this in a different way. i always viewed the "the betrayal matters since peter was their friend" comment as a very in-plotline/character thing and didn't stop to consider it in the more metaphorical sense, which is always an important interpretation too.

and i'm not saying that to vaguely agree--i love talking about the marauders/their storyline in a metaphorical way. like i may have said before how i see james and lily as the golden age in a metaphorical sense--married, had a kid, the epitome of happiness, head boy and head girl and head of the world; but then they die and whoops there's a war and hey their parents were dead and their son is an orphan. they represent what never was; what harry longed to have but couldn't have (partly why the epilogue is so important). they're the idyllic until they aren't, and their story is riddled with flaws and holes since most importantly it fell apart.

that was off topic but your words got me thinking about the betrayal in the metaphorical/big picture sense rather than the "what were the exact feelings of the remaining marauders" sense and also like...of harry, too. firstly i very much agree--the idea of the tragedy, the betrayal as a whole of the friend who then wasn't. imo it's still about how he wasn't their friend in the first place--on the large interps, poa is when the books start to deviate from black and white and begin the theme of what-you-think-isn't-always-what-it-is (bad wording but you get the idea!) which is huge with the marauders (bully james, werewolf remus, not-murderer sirius, death eater peter) since the first impression ends up being the wrong one but they all stay consistently complex. (james goes from 100% good to bully to complicated but good. remus goes from perfect professor to werewolf to an occasional asshole that's a bit edgy--aka complicated but good. sirius goes from murderer to godfather to responsible to irresponsible to elf hater to dead...definitely complicated but good. peter goes from good and dead to alive and pathetic to evil to pathetic to evil to complicated but dead and bad. snape goes from evil to evil to evil to complicated to what the fuck.) and i believe the peter plotline follows that things-aren't-what-they-seem theme through that his goodness wasn't actually good and that his friendship wasn't actually friendship. big-picture wise.

but--in terms of harry. definitely definitely definitely. actually in terms of all of this -- the wording of "some random guy betraying the potters is yeah, fine, whatever, wartime" is what i'm thinking of right now--how the word friend is important in all of this; no matter what, it's extremely important that peter had a connection with james and with harry, and that it was his friend is definitely what hit hard. especially since sirius and remus and peter all use their connection/friendship with james to get at harry, so that they're important is important. but imo there's the parallel between harry believing peter was his dad's friend -> harry learning peter betrayed his dad (aka was definitely not a very good friend at the very least 💀) to james believing peter was his friend --> james learning peter wasn't his friend...well, not that he learned peter wasn't his friend, but that he died, sadly.

and to clarify, i 100% agree with the sentiment of peter shouldn't be "left out of the marauders" in fics (well you can do that if you want, no need to follow canon, just that it isn't canon) and that they 1) all believed he was a part of the marauders and their friend (including peter, up until the whole joining-the-death-eaters thing) and 2) included him as much as remus was included. and 10000% agree that peter being left out would make the betrayal hurt less--fully agree that a lot of it was about their closeness; i simply believe it to be a perceived closeness.

the way you’re aware of your friends’ faults but you don’t bring it up unless you wanna hurt them, if that makes sense?

irrelevant but slay lily 😍

ok i'm gonna be a bit annoying (as if this isn't already help) and just kinda...answer those points? but first i want to clarify i'm part of the marauders-weren't-real squad (i really need to make that post don't i) so that probably results in a large disjunction here since my stance of peter not being "one of them" includes that there is no "them" in the first place but that's a somewhat separate thing

i think that's a super important point of the sort of trust given since trust is a major thing here. again with the parallels (whoops) james trusted peter just as harry trusted peter (ish) and remus (the more prominent poa parallel) and didn't trust sirius. same with harry trusting dumbledore until he didn't, and not trusting snape until he did, and the list goes on and on. and i don't want to invalidate anything and 100% agree the potters trusted peter and that's super important! but imo that shows the "fake" side rather than the truth ig? like the other potter-parallels in poa are of james and lily not trusting dumbledore (and then dying) and sirius not trusting sirius (and then them dying) and there's a lot of. Here's One Side. hahahaha that's wrong you're dead. so i do very much believe the potters believed in that sort of idyllic marauder concept, including with peter as a friend, just that it was wrong and peter was already disillusioned by then.

the animagus stuff is interesting because even then peter is portrayed as behind sirius and james, not on their level, needing help, etc. he's still separated even then, and regulated to level of opening-the-tree-trunk compared to the actual task of holding remus back. and looking at it symbolically, him being a rat even as a 15 yr old is consistent with his portrayal in swm--that he always kinda sucked (not in the terrorism way in the gross-teenager way), and always wasn't a real one of the gang in a sense. but also, yes, there is a definite bond between them and there was a secret kept between the four so you're entirely right there!

this is way too long so i won't go off here but imo all the marauders are very often hypocritical (a parallel to the things-aren't-as-they-seem theme!) and sirius is no exception and well...this line has nothing really to back it on sirius's end given he and none of the rest of them show any willingness of the sort at any time period so imo the sort of symbolism of that line is more 1) the contrast between the other marauders and peter and 2) the fumbling of what's right and what's wrong

i am so so sorry for this long af post but genuinely thank you!!

#peter pettigrew #i have my math final tmr morning i haven't studied for and i'm doing this instead #thank you padfootastic ily and i love your posts even if i don't agree with some of them!#sharing opinions is so nice when they don't have to be kept in 150 word tiktok comments #then again perhaps a limit would have condensed this unfortunate...thing

16 notes · View notes

darkshrimpemotions · 3 years ago

Note

While we're talking about the whole male power fantasy thing... they tried so hard to accomplish that and we got... whatever we got instead

Well it's 7:16am and I can't sleep so welcome to my insomnia thoughts but YES. EXACTLY YES. Like.

Other writers have already written more and better on this topic but when you push too hard at the Manly Man Who Does Man Things button you WILL eventually spill over into Man Who Does Men territory. It's just inevitable. The hypermasculine power fantasy is a drag persona. No real man operates that way. Trying to have a character or story embody that was always going to come off queer to queer audiences (and/or anyone bothering to think critically about the show for .5 seconds or more).

And like. See my On The Road tag for more on this (like a goddamn dissertation on this) but I also think a not insignificant amount of the reason for that is that the very archetype of (white, because let's be real, SPN is very white) American Manhood they were working off of was. Always queer.

Like. On the Road. James Dean. Even Han Solo (or really any Harrison Ford/Lucasfilm collaboration from the 70s-80s). These are all stated inspirations for Dean in particular. Which isn't surprising! That image of masculinity is so engrained in the white American psyche. It's the blueprint nerdbros like Kripke build their power fantasies on and has been for...most of my fucking life, now that I think about it.

But those archetypes come from a very queer place--that gets handwaved or censored or ignored, sure, but it still exists. On The Road is still Jack Kerouac's vaguely horny bi panic journal whether the scores of straight men (and "straight" men) who love it so much want to acknowledge it or not. James Dean was bisexual whether the guys who cream their pants over his car (because there's definitely no homoerotic displacement going on there) want to think about it or not.

And Han Solo...listen. Do I think there's secret gay subtext intentionally written into Han Solo's character? No. Do I think there sure is some tension and subtext between him and Luke and him and Lando anyway? Absofucking lutely. The character (and frankly all of Star Wars) is also camp as hell, but that's a discussion for another day, preferably one when I've had sleep.

I could also go on a whole rant about how of course the queer aspects of these character archetypes get ignored and attempted to be excised in each successive iteration, because many straight men view queerness with a sort of abject horror only rivaled by that with which they view women (daily reminder that another big inspo for SPN was "Buffy but Manly Grrr").

Thus SPN really embodies this cultural anxiety about masculinity and perceived "threats" to it in a unqiue way that somehow combines the worst gender tropes of the horror and action genres. And hoo boy, if you want me to expand on that line of thought let me know, because I could get sooo in-depth with that, particularly as it relates to Destiel and Dean's early string of fleeting women love interests.

TL;DR: Yeah we got...whatever that was because the fraught underbelly of American Masculinity is gay as hell and straight men will write a wholeass show instead of going to fucking therapy to deal with that. Among other things.

#supernatural #dean winchester #dean studies #destiel #ask box #spn meta #eyesfulloffstars #horrortropesnatural #on the road #lizawords #buffynatural #y'all are gonna make me have to reread fucking kristeva #also i cannot tell you how hard it was to resist adding Argh after that Grrrr #spn gender studies

116 notes · View notes

prokopetz · 4 years ago

Note

One of the impressions I get sometimes from your blog is that some tabletop RPGs seem to exist more to be talked *about* rather than played? Like, the rules and premise and conceits seem either so vague and broad or so specific and niche that it becomes hard to imagine them being played. I'm sure most of this is due to my limited play experience of TTRPGs (mostly just D&D, Pathfinder and GURPs) but are there TTRPGs that really do just sort of exist as concepts rather than things to be played?

I’m guessing this is prompted by my recent Glitchposting.

Part of it can totally be a reflection of limited experience with the hobby, yeah. Tabletop RPGs with extremely specific premises – and extremely specific rules to support that premise – are the norm rather than the exception. Heck, Dungeons & Dragons itself is a perfect example of a game with a really weirdly specific premise and mechanical framework, if you take a step back and look at it in the light of day; it just doesn’t seem like that because the conceits of its gameplay and default setting are so widely talked about and imitated that it’s easy to lose sight of how laser-targeted some of its baked-in assumptions really are.

On the other hand, it’s also true that many tabletop RPGs are better approached as a sort of esoteric literature rather than as games you actually play. Broadly, these can be divided into three categories:

1. Worldbuilding bibles for the author’s original setting, with a set of game mechanics crudely bolted to the side.

These games exist mostly because it’s extremely difficult to sell a standalone worldbuilding bible unless your work is already very popular, but if you stick some dice on it and call it an RPG, you can usually get at least a few hundred people to plunk down some cash for it. Increasingly, this is associated with using a crowdfunding campaign for a tabletop RPG as a sort of back-door advertising for the author’s prose fiction. Such games were formerly also produced to serve as technical references and/or episode guides for popular media, but this use has largely died out with the rise of fan-curated wikis.

You can usually identify a game of this type because a. it’s a huge brick of a tome whose contents are about 90% worldbuilding lore, and b. there’s a notable lack of guidance regarding what player characters who aren’t the associated fiction’s protagonists actually do.

(Several classic Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings fall into this bin. No free guesses which ones those are!)

2. Games that are basically essays in tabletop RPG form.

The motivation behind these is similar to the preceding entry: it’s hard to capture a significant audience if you’re just some random schmuck infodumping about a topic or experience of interest, but if you make a game of it, the perceived entry barrier is considerably lowered. Topics can range from a particular era of history, to a specific genre of media, to social or cultural issue that’s on the author’s mind.

You can clock a game of this type because the text puts a great deal of word count into explaining what the game is about, and very little into explaining how to actually play it. If you’ve ever encountered, say, a game that bills itself as “anime style”, and opens with a twenty-page essay explaining what anime is and providing an overview of the history of the Japanese animation industry, you’ve seen this in action.

(One of my perennial favourites, Wisher, Theurgist, Fatalist, is an especially stark example of the type: it’s a tabletop RPG about the process of writing tabletop RPGs, and much of its “worldbuilding” is a coded discussion of tabletop RPG design patterns and philosophy.)

3. Games that are about themselves.

This is the third and least common major category of tabletop-RPGs-as-esoteric-literature, and it’s the one you’re partly alluding to in your initial message. Sometimes, an author wants to create a game simply for a game of that type to exist. When folks describe a tabletop RPG as “high concept”, this is frequently what they mean: a tabletop RPG that prioritises fidelity to its high concept above any consideration of playability. The “big idea” at the heart of that high concept can be a particular dice trick just as often as it is a particular narrative premise. The resulting game’s mechanics may be incomplete; incoherent; deliberately unplayable; or perfectly sound in theory, but logistically impractical to actually carry out at the table.

This is generally an I’ll-know-it-when-I-see-it category. However, it’s important to note that not all extremely high-concept games fall into it; there are plenty of games with perfectly playable mechanics whose premises simply happen to be weird as hell!

(Players whose only prior experience is with Dungeons & Dragons often misidentify big chunks of the indie RPG sphere as games of this type, typically because they’re trying to inappropriately universalise some of D&D’s weirdly specific gameplay assumptions, and crashing headlong into games that don’t share those assumptions.)

#gaming #tabletio rolepplaying #tabletop rpgs #game design #worldbuilding #swearing #kyliafanfiction

437 notes · View notes

onelinemanytimes · 4 years ago

Text

To all people who enjoy content:

There is a HUGE issue that needs to be addressed in how people react to things online and how they decide to deal with perceived issues. Specifically, in regards to content creators online, and the content they create.

I want to clarify, this post is talking for the most part about creators who did something multiple years ago that they currently don’t agree with. I’m not talking about people who are CURRENTLY horrible people, but if you want to know please do ask.

Basic synopsis: Purity culture is being used to shame people for their interests and to actively control and manipulate what people are “allowed” to like, which is often harmful and toxic; it is also being used to condemn people for the entire rest of their lives over doing something in their past, with no regards to if an apology was offered- which is harmful to people trying to unlearn toxic mindsets and be better people in the present day.

So, let’s talk about Purity Culture. I don’t know what else to call it, so if someone has a better name for it go ahead and say it- but, essentially, “The idea that every piece of media you consume must itself be good, AND has to have been made by a “good person”,” with no exceptions. This belief means that if a creator is seen as a bad person, or the media itself has a troubling aspect, you are NOT allowed to like it, DO NOT INTERACT, YOU’RE PROBLEMATIC AS HELL TOO IF YOU LIKE IT!!!!

That may sound like an exaggeration, but it’s only mildly so. There is, however, a much more harmful part to this mentality: Judging people for things they did years ago, and not allowing them to apologize and be forgiven, and USING this purity culture ideal against THEM as well. The idea that people can’t be forgiven, can’t change, and have to have been perfect always to be valid is extremely, extremely toxic and harmful, full stop. There are so many underlying issues that can both lead to someone being “problematic,” but that is so much less the issue than the fact doing this discourages real change.

People DO change over time. And if you find out someone did something in their past, you ARE allowed to not forgive them! However; That does NOT mean you should condemn them and everything they do as problematic horrible and unforgivable, and ATTACK other people and make WARNING posts in the tone of them STILL being “””Problematic”””! That is in some cases, BLATANT MISINFORMATION, and in most cases, encouraging the mentality that people don’t change.

Now, who is this a problem for? Because someone saying horrible things about minorities of any kind is legitimately harmful in its own right, and can hurt people who find it, which deserves to be addressed. (Again, YOU are not required to forgive them, and you have the freedom to not engage.) Purity Culture hurts People with RSD (Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria), and people who cannot control what they hyperfixate on. It can ALSO harm people who are struggling to get past toxic mentalities for any reason, and people who are trying to improve themselves and be better., and people who HAVE improved themselves and gotten better after being a person with (arguably) horrible views.

For people who experience RSD, seeing people denounce a piece of media for “””Something problematic””” (creator or otherwise), and in some cases seeing people ATTACK those who enjoy that media, can be physically painful and extremely, extremely stressful. Especially with the prevalence of this mentality right now, it makes engaging with anything a VERY stressful experience, because if what you enjoy isn’t perfect in every way you will be shamed for it, and rejected for it, and actively hated for it, and there is NO compromise on that point.

This is twice as volatile an issue when you ALSO cannot wholly control what your brain hyperfixates on. Hyperfixation (the word) has two main uses; in regards to a single task/activity (in which you’re unable to pull yourself out of said task and cannot switch focus to anything else), and in regards to media consumption (having an intense, very focused interest in media or a character, that can feel very consuming and intense in some cases. This extends even MORE so to special interests).

Hyperfixations in those who are neurodivergent (don’t think the same as the wider population- such as people with ADHD and Autism, amongst other things) are NOT typically something they can control. Not without exceptional effort and potential detriment- one of the fairly unfortunate coping mechanisms I have for this (speaking, yes, as someone with ADHD) is to Completely ignore new media, wholesale, to avoid gaining a hyperfixation in relation to that media. Even still, I obviously still SEE things because I exist in the world and things are everywhere- and while I can enjoy content normally, it is MUCH different when I see something and feel unable to focus on ANYTHING else for WEEKS on end.

You can hyperfixate on something before learning about “X problematic thing,” and then when you’ve already gotten very attached and deep into the media people will start attacking you with it! And saying “Oh, you like THAT??? That was made by a super problematic person, you can’t like that!!!” It’s EXTREMELY difficult to explain how harmful that is when I A: Can’t control it, B: Didn’t know, and C: Suffer from RSD in the first place. It DOES NOT stop you from engaging with the content, because you are hyperfixated on it and you literally can’t avoid it, but it DOES overwhelm you with guilt and make you withdraw from the people around you because now YOU must be problematic and horrible and you’re a horrible person for liking this media and everyone must HATE you.

The above was not an exaggeration. That is legitimately how it feels.

People are talking about how “Cringe Culture is dead,” but it being replaced by a MUCH more insidious “Purity Culture” that is MUCH MORE toxic, MUCH MORE manipulative, and also inherently flawed to begin with!!! You CAN’T and SHOULDN’T be a perfect person, that is why you CHANGE AND GROW. You should ALSO be judging a piece of media on its OWN merits, NOT on the merits of what’s behind it (not wholesale like people are intent on doing).

Now, all things in moderation. If a piece of media was created with malicious or biased opinions in its core: It IS important to address that, and to acknowledge that this aspect is not something you should support, and something to be mindful of when thinking about the content. It’s also good to be aware of how people currently are when participating in media spaces- you don’t have to be perfect at this, but if you don’t want to engage with things made by people who have horrible current views that is absolutely your choice.

However, this doesn’t excuse constantly shaming and attacking people, ESPECIALLY people who are aware of a media’s flaws and able to both recognize that and amend that in a respectful, understanding way. You can enjoy a story about a murderer without also being a murderer and knowing that murder is wrong. This extends to other actions as well by the way (and the desensitization of people to murder in modern day media is also a wild topic for another day because wow some people really be out here like “yeah literally ending someone’s life in fiction is fine but x is absolutely abhorrent and unforgivable,” like what??).

The real thing here is, this: If you don’t like content, or you cannot in good conscience enjoy that content knowing about something that happened relating to it: Don’t interact! If you are for some reason, stuck participating in and interacting with something you personally feel is horrible, don’t shame and hurt other people for more honestly enjoying it, especially the good parts. What you CAN do is inform people, respectfully!

And with ALL the details please. Because I see a lot of times, especially with creators: Someone will dig up something the creator said years ago and say, “THIS CREATOR IS (X) YOU CAN’T SUPPORT THEM OR ENJOY WHAT THEY MAKE BECAUSE IT’S PROBLEMATIC!!!” And, actually: They have since apologized for what they said, and actively made efforts to change. “But they did it in the past” Is NOT a valid argument, and honestly?? If you’re the same person you were even two years ago, that’s wild, and I hope you’ll understand that some people can change drastically in that time after being properly informed about issues.

Again: If you don’t want to interact with a piece of media, okie dokie! It’s up to us to respect that, and to tag our stuff and not shove it down your throat, y’know? But maybe, if you don’t like something, you shouldn’t decide to hurt the people who do like it, because I think that’s pretty harmful, and man imagine someone digging into your life 3 years ago and finding one sentence you said to judge your entire life on and force people to hate you with. Haha that’d suck, right?

If you read all this wow thanks, and also I’m well aware most my fellows with ADHD probably skimmed it because yeah it is a lot man whoops- I’ve just been thinking about it for a while because yeah. Yeah. “I do not control the hyperfixation” is not just a funny meme y’all it’s a thing and it’s legitimately exhausting and painful to see everything you enjoy be hated and be told you’re wrong for liking it in any way, shape, or form.

#fnf #Friday Night Funkin #Yes this is about friday night funkin #long post #ADHD #important #if you have a problem with this #I give you permission to send asks and slide into my dms #I would be absolutely willing to have an open respectful conversation w ya #This post is a bit meanly worded sometimes #Sorry about that!

234 notes · View notes

thejudgingtrash · 4 years ago

Note

Annabeth is a good person,but not a nice or pleasant one,IMO.

YES.

That’s it. That’s the post. Pack it up everybody, we just cracked the case and cleared up one of the most compelling fights in the PJO fandom since forever. Good job everybody, clap it out and there’s the door! Don’t forget ordering the drinks at Starbucks, Mitch! They’re on me!

Okay, but on a more serious note: YES. YES EXACTLY.

And before some of you roll your eyes or grab your pitchforks – put your biases aside and hear me out for once. I like Annabeth. She’s my in my top three characters only second to Percy himself. I love Percabeth. It’s my favorite ship in the entire series and to be frank, the only ship that I care about PJO wise. Hell, I spend my time creating my own headcanons or writing my own fanfics with Percabeth being the star in them.

But that is not to say that I’m unable to see how certain things have developed over the years or where they stand now in regard to Annabeth. I’m not here to ignore things that have been said and/or done due to or in the name of Annabeth and I’m not here to vilify anyone that doesn’t like her. And I’m here to admit that I’m guilty of some of the things that may be addressed in this meta essay that you will read in just a second. However, I try my best to assure you, that I’m for once able to recognize my own bias.

Warning: a monster essay lies right upon you.

This should count as a paper of its own.

Back to the statement on top: I would go out even further to reframe your claim, anon:

Annabeth Chase is a good character but not a nice or pleasant person.

Annabeth is a wonderful character but she isn’t a nice one. Or at least not nice to everyone. She is (construction wise if I dare say) the best character out of the series. She has her positive traits (she’s caring, she’s emotional, she’s encouraged and volunteers, she fights for what she believes in, she forgives (even if doing so begrudgingly)) but she also has her negative traits (she’s stubborn, she’s brash, changing her mind takes forever, she is prejudiced, she baits others). That balances things out. She is branded as the intelligent kid but does irrational things (like I’ve just said a) she’s a kid and b) she’s not a robot). She should probably know better, but we all make mistakes and hopefully grow and learn from them. The clouds in the sky do blur and cover our visions sometimes.

Annabeth had clashes with other characters or was about to have fights due to her stubbornness or jealousy (Rachel, Reyna, etc.) and has of course her problems with the mortal world and her family but she also found new friends, some things cleared up throughout the narration and she was/is quite popular in Camp Half-Blood.

The thing is: she doesn’t have to be nice or pleasant (as a character). Or at least not all the time. Her character is humanized. That is what or who she is. Human. She does stand out as a character, not just because she’s the (future) love interest. She feels like someone you could meet in real life and either adore from the top to the bottom or declare as your biggest enemy. And that’s totally okay if you lean either way – liking or disliking her. Or even feeling indifferent about her. Also great!

To say that she has been the best character that Riordan has crafted is easy to say, because she has been sculpted after Riordan’s wife. He had a model he could rub some of real-life events or traits on. That’s not the problem. The problem truly doesn’t lie on Riordan’s side for the most part for once.

The problem is inherently on the fandom’s side. What the fandom does, how it acts and how it treats Annabeth as a character is the problem. The problems vary but it’s mostly the mischaracterization of Annabeth, starting fights and fan/ship wars, internalized misogyny (in some cases) and how some of the Annabeth stans lash out (ha, got firsthand experience in that field among many of my friends and mutuals!). There is a reason why many people are wary of people that have Annabeth or Percabeth related URLs.

The fact that we see Annabeth mostly through Percy’s lens and (until the Heroes of Olympus saga hits) we never really see her in chill everyday situations is essentially Riordan leaving the back door of the house open, ready for all of you asshats to rob his mansion in Boston. Because a frame on a character means that we don’t get to see the character in its entirety (unlike we do with Percy in PJO for the most part). That means a bunch of stuff is left open for interpretation which is the reason why Annabeth gets so many polarized headcanon and opinions tossed around. I think that is one of the true appeals of Annabeth. You can add on stuff and it necessarily doesn’t have to contradict itself.

We have people calling her abusive due to a (n admittedly stupid and unnecessary) judo flip and we have people that act like she’s never done anything wrong. People sorta use this excuse to form and shape Annabeth however they want and distort her characterization.

People in the fandom act like Annabeth is some weird prized possession. We perceive Annabeth mostly through the eyes of others (Percy, Apollo, etc.) and when we had some sort of insight in her ways (MOA, HOH) it felt… weird? Somewhat? Like Riordan left two bullet points of her characterization and told the ghostwriter: aight, fuck it up, gringo, see you on Tuesday and greet Fred the next time you see him for me.

There have been many posts lately (by Tharini, Simi, Sawasawako, Jewishpercy and Annie I believe?) that HOO Percabeth felt weird. That they felt weirdly constructed, that there was no conflict, no growth. It felt stagnating, like we’re turning back. We had five books prior where we had Annabeth and Percy slowly shifting from disliking to liking and crushing each other. True development. And when we finally got the cake it felt… dissatisfying. Like the cheap box stuff and not the delicious exquisite taste that we were promised.

I said it previously in my Percabeth ship roast, but let me repeat myself: many Percabeth related things are straight up fanon. Some of it is very old fanon so that’s been unable to distinguish unless you’ve read the books recently and subtract nearly 99,9% of things you see on Tumblr (and occasionally the other shitty parts of the fandom like Reddit, IG, Twitter. Although they mostly steal and recycle tumblr stuff oh well. But back to the topic).

The way people treat Annabeth is so strange. She’s either an innocent fluffy smush baby that’s never harmed a fly and all that she wants for Christmas is being Percy’s lapdog or she’s the devil incarnate, broke into your house, killed your parents Batman style, kicked your puppy and didn’t flush the toilet on the way out. I think this is what mostly makes people hate her or the ship Percabeth. And both extremes are wrong and right at the same time? She is multifaceted so both stereotypes are true and untrue and sorta cancel each other out in the same way.

The true reason why people dislike Annabeth is because the stans are doing the most. (The haters as well, don’t get me wrong, but oh boy. Piss of a stan and you’ll know what I mean). That isn’t inherently new. Are you guys old enough to remember the ship wars that have happened cross platform? Perachel vs. Percabeth? Oh boy, oh boy. I saw some kids on tumblr a few months ago trying to infiltrate both tags and start shit (and also fail). The fact that Rachel still gets used as the bitchy (ex) girlfriend in fanfics? It’s 2020 guys. I know this apocalyptic year is far from perfect and over but I think we can let this trope die, right? Right? I thought we’ve established that Rachel is a pretty chill charcter by now… right?

If you posted your stuff on FFN back in 2010-2013 and it wasn’t the typical cutesy Percabeth story (Goode High, the gods read TLT, punk/prep Percabeth, college AU, etc.) people would’ve come for your fucking throat. Not because the story or the narration was shit. But because the pairing wasn’t Annabeth and Percy (in the sense that Annabeth had to be paired with Percy. I mean Percy gets shipped with everyone and their mother but for Annabeth it was strictly Percy. As annoying as this whole Connabeth thing is – the people behind it actually had a point. She never had a different love interest unless it’s a Percy centered story and he goes off dating Athena, Artemis and Zoe at the same time for some odd reason. Yeah, FFN Percy ships are something). Or it wasn’t the action filled canon compliant story or it wasn’t an AU that was popular.

People were really stubborn, snobbish and wanted their stuff in the four five boxes that were the most popular ones and that’s it. People have been bullied off the site in many fandoms, so it’s not a PJO-only thing but it’s still sad that it happened. (Off-note: most of these FFN tropes are still alive and well and thriving on AO3. Don’t be so snobbish and pretend that every piece you’d find there is a holy grail. There’s a lot of trash you have to waddle through. Same with Wattpad, Tumblr or anywhere else where fanfics get posted. Also had this discussion with Annabeth stans. Sigh).

And Tumblr back then? Forget it, wasn’t much better.

That view has sorta changed (at least for people that have been in the fandom for several years or have managed to find a way to navigate through it) but some of the negative sentiment from back in the day has survived. Be it by new fans coming in or from old fans that never let their stance die. The aggression feels differently and somewhat not. (I don’t know if the anon function had been abused that much back in the day. I was an observer not a participant in the fandom).

Crack a joke at Annabeth’s expense (Kal’s famous “Annabeth is a Republican” post or Dee Dee’s and many others “Annabeth has the education of a second grader, chill with the college plans, girlie” stance) and you have people insulting you, making callout posts, unfollowing and blocking you (based on only that? Okay, honey), making aggressive counter-posts, etc. in a minute. If you respond with “It’s a joke, it’s not real” you have a 50/50 chance of either getting blown off or embarrassing them so that they apologize for once.

This isn’t just about jokes. You can make a headcanon that’s not the cozy cute convenient mainstream saga and people would react the same way. Or art piece (no, not including the whole Tannabeth Blackchase shtick done by Viria and others) or fanfics.

People project so much onto the unfinished canvas that is Annabeth Chase that any form of negative sentiment as little as someone not liking her to straight up criticism, regardless of how tiny it may be, seems like an affront. Like an invitation to a fight. Like an insult to them, their character, everything they believe in. Let me state something:

You are NOT Annabeth Chase. Annabeth Chase IS NOT you. Annabeth Chase is NOT real. Her feeling cannot be hurt. Someone criticizing, disliking, joking about her or even insulting her will not bother her. Someone making a statement about her is not an insult to YOU.

Let me repeat that:

Annabeth Chase isn’t real. Annabeth Chase isn’t you.

So think a little before you act? I get it when you’re a kid and new to fandoms or haven’t been up with fan cultures in the past and are back in the scene. But if you’re in your late teens or even older as an adult and you’re unable to understand that you aren’t what you like – you aren’t the extension of a fictional character – I feel incredibly sorry for you. Because that’s just incredibly sad. Someone disliking something you like isn’t an attack of your character. It shows you that you are you and the other person is a human just like you. That they just have different taste. Disliking something you like isn’t a crime, you know? But me feeling sorry for the way some of y’all act won’t mean that that’s even remotely okay. Especially if you’re no longer in the intended audience for PJO age wise and should know better.

This isn’t a “white stans” only thing. I’ve seen and witnessed firsthand how people of color, mainly women of color, act the same or not even worse when it comes to her character. People have projected their problems and real-life occurring events into her character (I’m sure that she isn’t the only character nor that this is the only fandom where this is happening) and in some cases like I’ve said cannot separate their own personality from the fictional world. Fights with woc happened because of Annabeth fucking Chase. So many things have happened in the fandom the past few months, mostly due to people being forced staying at home because of the quarantine but I’d say it’s 10% on quarantine and 90% on people for acting up like this.

So here’s a little story: There was the act of Riordan blowing the fandom up because of his own stupidity and being unable to apologize for his mischaracterization and lack of research (the whole Piper fiasco) back in June (?) and admits the upset fandom, people on Twitter, Tumblr and Discord legit thought that none of that mattered and that the outcry was destroying Annabeth Chase’s birthday. That’s right. People thought that Annabeth Chase’s non-existing birthday because she’s a fictional character had a higher priority than the rupture and prevalent racism in the fandom. Okay. This isn’t a great look, Annabeth stans. And this of course pissed a lot of people off. I made a post about it and someone not only berated three other people on said post but no, we had a mighty argument which had disrupted many friendships in our circle which haven’t recovered until this very day. We both had our parts in it and no one is innocent. But the cause of this still remains Annabeth Chase or how people prioritize her non-existing well-being. Anyway. I’m getting agitated just thinking about it.

Let’s go back to the characterization thing with Annabeth. Let me remind you:

Annabeth Chase is an asshole. There I’ve said it in a post ages ago (too lazy to look it up, sorry) and I’ll say it again. And that’s not me insulting her. That’s me actually loving that about her. Annabeth is one of the very few unapologetic female characters that really showed all young readers across the world that you can be a girl, a badass, smart, strong, standing up for yourself and what you believe in. You don’t have to be nice. You don’t have to hide your feelings. You don’t need a man in all cases but it’s also okay to accept help and defeat.

A large reason why I think she’s an incredibly important character in children’s literature/YA because many other novels (mostly (sadly)) have the “Oh, I’m a white skinny dark-haired girl that likes unconventional things like READING. I’m not like the other girls, that take care of themselves and pamper themselves by enjoying shopping and wearing make-up. No, I’d rather be one of the boys but a sweet cute little boy and not the jock fuck that drank vodka shots out of a filthy shoe once. Despite me calling myself hideous every man in a 10-kilometer radius falls in love with me and tells me I’m oh so sexy and by the way I’m only 16 years old” shit going on for no goddamn reason.

Yes, I do blame Twilight for this mostly in recent years, but this trope isn’t by any means knew. Pretty sure that you could even use classics as Pride and Prejudice and dissect them in the same manner (Bold statement: Lizzy Bennet is the OG Bella Swan. There. Go fight somewhere in the corner, people). The new wave of YA focuses on girls belittling themselves and only starting to believe in themselves because someone else (mostly the male love interest) tells them they’re worth it. And these books hit the mainstream because they’re incredibly bland and picture perfect white.

With Annabeth it’s different. She shows up for the job and is done with it. (Brie Larson would probably be the perfect in real life version of her. You either like or dislike her. Or you really don’t care). That is what is so refreshing about her. Her unapologetic nature. Can it be off-putting? Yes. Is it annoying? Yes! Hell, every time I read The Lightning Thief, I want to rip her goddamn head off. And it’s just so well written. Her shift from mistrusting Percy but secretly still believing in him to her opening up. Wow, Riordan did something right there.

Annabeth Chase isn’t a young character. She has existed along with PJO for 15 years. She’s on her way to the second decade. I’m pretty sure that with the success of Percy Jackson (and Harry Potter) many lives have been warped and shaped.

But when I say the problem lies mostly in the fandom, it doesn’t mean that Riordan’s completely innocent. The only problem that I have with Annabeth lies not truly with her but the fact that Riordan is only able to produce three variations of female characters:

The sweetheart (Hazel, Silena, Calypso, Hestia)

The strong feminist (Annabeth, Piper, Thalia, Reyna, Artemis)

The bitch (Drew, nearly every female goddess in the goddamn Riordanverse next to every female monster)

And these female characters only know three endings:

End up married with a mortgage, three kids, two dogs and a cat somewhere in Connecticut by the age of twelve

Get dumped into the hunt

Chill on Mount Olympus and only come down to be a nuisance and/or give a cryptic message before going back and doing a godly rave party or something

We know Annabeth as the badass strong female first (or the bitchy character we’re supposed to actually like. Choose your approach), the blueprint so to speak, so some of the other characters feel almost pale in comparison and almost not needed? Doesn’t mean that other characters can’t behave similarly, but it feels kind of redundant especially if their character arcs end in a rather anticlimactic way (Thalia, Reyna). The new additions are the much needed woc as the main story with PJO was inherently white (anyway stan black!Percy and Grover, folks). So it’s not to bash on the new characters, it’s more Riordan’s fault more than anything.

Since Riordan only knows three female character arcs it feels like he tried to copy the formula several ways with different nuances. Some more or less successful. This is where fandom actually comes in handy and helps create more distinguished and fleshed out characters in form of headcanons or fanfiction.

But even in these cases people still make it about Annabeth when it’s time for characters of colors to shine. Remember that whole spiel and discussion that broke out when people (Kal, diver-up, Caitlyn, Bee, reynaisalesbian, etc.) joked about or criticized that Annabeth thinks that she’s having it harder because she’s a blonde? In front of Hazel and Piper? If she would’ve been a real person that’s an invitation for getting decked. And then all hell broke loose because Annabeth stans couldn’t accept the fact that in the real world and/or in fictional worlds the woc/coc have it harder? That the white woman wasn’t the victim that needed the coddling? Yeah, that was mad pathetic.

I hope you people get my point?

Well fuck. I wrote so many things and have the feeling I’ve said nothing. Anyway, I hope I made sense. This is way too long.

TLDR: Chill about Annabeth please. She’s an important character but that doesn’t mean that everyone has to like her, regardless of being a character in the books or a reader/fan of PJO in real life. She isn’t nice or a sweetheart all the time. She also isn’t the monstrous asshole that some try to make out of her.

Peace out.

#Mel answers #pjo #percy jackson #Annabeth chase #percy jackson and the olympians #Percabeth #pjo Meta #Heroes of olympus #hoo #trials of apollo #toa #hazel levesque #piper mclean #reyna avila ramirez arellano #rachel elizabeth dare #pjo fandom #coc #rick riordan #riordanverse

708 notes · View notes

icravestrawberryflavoureddeath · 3 years ago

Text

See, I think nicos personality is very complex.

At first he’s an annoying ten year old who is full of wonder and questions. He’s super cheery, talkative, and has many special interests. He’s the kid who tries to be friends with everyone even if they want nothing to do with him.

After biancas death, he closed himself out and pushed everyone away. He tried to swallow himself up in his own sadness but that kid has adhd and no matter how depressed and brooding he wants to be, he still is the kid who will talk your ear off. This is heavily shown when he interacts with Percy at the end of the labyrinth to talk about immortality. You can see how despite he wants to appear, that part of him that hyper fixates on topics and can’t shut up is there. He wants to talk and be friend with Percy, (albeit a bit of that comes with the crush) but he is fighting with his anger over his sister.

After this we see him at the battle of Olympus. He starts to come into his own near the end of the series, being able to rely on himself. He’s now self conscious which is to be expected of someone his age but he knows how to hold himself when he needs to. He is even willing to give being a camper another shot but his own insecurities that came with leaving camp the first time take over.

Throughout the second series, we can see how just plain awkward he is around people. Nico has amazing people skills but he doesn’t always know how to use them around people that might intimidate him (which should never be a problem with him but he second guesses himself a lot). He tries to communicate but adhd comes in all forms and (I even have a theory as to why he might even be on the spectrum but that’s for another post) and this leaves him with a small disconnect with what he says and how people perceive his humour. Nico is still the kid who cracks jokes but not many people get the dryness he has with them.

In toa, however, we see Nico starting to go back into the same pattern we knew from when we met him. He’s opening up in conversation, still making friends with everyone and everything that is willing to hear him out and not run away. It’s obvious that Will is able to understand his way of thinking which is why they become close. When Nico tries to push people away, despite not really wanting to, Will was able to separate what he was saying and what he meant. Nico might not be the best when it comes to using his words (maybe bc English is his second language) but he always means what he says.

Nico is not some UWU baby, or some depressed scene kid. Nico is a awkward 14-15 year old who still doesn’t know they cured polio, who loves to talk to people but is often misunderstood. Percy didn’t have time to really translate what Nico was saying and that’s how we are introduced to him. His thought process is much clearer in his POV and we are able to see how he just goes from one thought to the next without vocalizing it. Nico is literally a kid who deals with his trauma through dry, crude jokes and is misunderstood by those around him. Nico is the kid who drops a joke about their shitty life and you don’t know if you should laugh or not so u awkwardly chuckle.

Anyways, I have a lot of thoughts and feeling about Nicos character and until we get a solo book in his POV, since he’s technically a side character, we are only seeing him through a lens of other characters perspectives. But yeah. Nico is just the same loud, curious kid he was at the beginning, he’s just finding a way to deal with his own trauma and insecurities and is often misunderstood in his words and actions.

#percy jackson #percyjackson #nico di angelo #pjo #i will die on this hill

20 notes · View notes

calliettes-posts · 3 years ago

Note

Okay so my guesses for where S7 might be headed assuming that Ismail will be the main are as follows.

How to navigate questioning your gender / gender expression especially given the circumstance that the German language is very binary. Basically just gender ✨ (maybe also how it does /doesn’t interweave with sexuality). Weaving in the communities / informations that exist online might also be a great topic to explore

Furthermore I think the whole being a person with a Turkish background in Germany (I think that’s confirmed canon right?) could be very interesting to explore. Especially also maybe highlighting the the difference of you’re perceived by others (as foreigner basically) vs the fact that Ismail might have never been to Turkey and was born and raised in Germany. Generational disparities between parent and child generation might also be a way to go. Simply having a multi faceted view of a character with a Turkish background living in Germany, that doesn’t relate to a migration story (as in trauma centered) or serve comedic purpose, would be quite important in terms representation me thinks (hope it’s kinda clear what I mean)

Or also just maybe Ismail kind of distancing themselves from Constantin, especially due to Kieu My as well as Zoe (and therefore Finn) now probably also being more affiliated with the cashqueens. So moving on and how to deal with changing a changing friendship landscape could be interesting. Personally I would also be quite fond of a story line that would show Ismail not really being attached to any certain friend group as such (not being able to mend the bonds wiht the cashqueens just yet but also no more instas). A character kinda being not exactly friendless but having to navigate going their own way outside of a group could be interesting as well, especially if connected to kinda loosing your social safety net if that makes sense

Well this was a lot but you kinda asked for it so, hope you don’t mind :) wishing you a lovely day!

I don't mind at all!! And yeah ,I agree, I would find it very interesting to see how druck will handle the topic of gender expression, especially like you said, since the German language is so gendered, it would be really nice to see their take on this, and if and how they'll introduce gender neutral pronouns. As for the migration topic, yesss I don't want to see any trauma about it, I really liked how druck approached fatous and kieu mys ethnic backgrounds, while their backgrounds weren't their whole personality, it wasn't erased, but highlighted through specific actions, like the facetiming, fatous traditional dress in ep9, kieu my and fatou talking about their experiences as children of immigrants, and as an immigrant child myself I could relate to both of them in that aspect (I think I also made about 7282 essays about that lol), so I think druck will be able to handle that aspect of ismails character appropriately, I trust them in that aspect. As for the friendships, I really hope they cut off constantin for good at the end of the season, I can also see druck making ismail floating around in between different friend groups, but still feeling lonely, i mean, they asked a lot about that topic in the survey (I'm still waiting for the answers btw) so I can see ismail being very lonely . I also hope they apologise to ava for their bullying, and that we'll learn more about it, without having to see ava suffer, I really hope that

I hope you have a lovely day too!!!

#druck #s7 headcanons #druck s7

13 notes · View notes

kironimus-blog · 3 years ago

Text

WARNING! SPOILER ALERT! LOKI EP4 + AGENT OF ASGARD COMICS!

About (Self)Love and Narration

So, a lot of things happened in Ep. 4 and it got me thinking about the topics of narration and (self) acceptance/love in this show. After a healthy amount of deliberation I‘ll even dare to theorize about how this season will progress. Just hear me out.

First of all I think we have to view the events of the sacred timeline as a literal narration. Loki as a character in this narration has a single (not so glorious, heh XD) purpose. He‘s a mere plot device, the villain, designed to move the plot forward and help build and develop others characters. Mobius, who takes on the role of the observer, says so himself in Ep. 1!

„You weren‘t born to be king Loki. You were born to cause pain, and suffering and death. That‘s how it was, that‘s how it will be. All so that others can achieve their best version of themselves.“-Mobius Ep.1

It‘s important that this comes from Mobius, someone who has not only studied the life of „our“ Loki but has seen the stories of many other Loki variants pan out. And the common denominator seems to be Loki‘s repeated failure which leads to him becoming the villain of the story.

And of course, once "our" Loki quite literally leaves the narration (as he escapes via Tesseract and is brought to the TVA, a place seperate from the normal flow of time) and becomes an observer of his own story (in the time theater, Episode 1), he begrudgingly realizes this as well. As the God of Mischief, he of all people, despises the idea of a single establishment (the TVA) holding so much power over the universe and his own path in life. But at the same time his views on choice and personal freedom at the beginning of Episode 1 aren‘t much different from the TVA‘s… in fact they're eerily similar.

„For nearly every living thing, choice breeds shame, and uncertainty, and regret. Theres a fork in every road, yet the wrong path always taken.“-Loki, Ep.1

He even uses the same exact phrasing when criticizing the TVA‘s motives and later on explaining his own actions:

„It's an illusion. Ist a cruel, elaborate trick conjured by the weak to inspire fear. A desperate attempt at control.“ -Loki, Ep.1

Fast forward to Episode 4, where we find out that the time keepers are nothing but an illusion. Another interesting parallel, don't you think? So now the big question is of course, who‘s the mastermind behind all this? That‘s where my theory comes into play.

I think the ‚big bad' is none other than Loki himself. And I mean not just any of the many variants we know exist, but a future, alternative version of „our“ Loki. The Loki who still holds onto the believes „our“ Loki exhibited in Ep.1. Someone who lost over and over again, which led him to believe that no matter what choice he made, he was destined to fail. So what did he do to break the vicious circle of choosing and failing in an attempt to regain control? Easy, he simply took away the choice and took the narration of the story into his own hands. And this carefully controlled story is the ‚sacred timeline'. He created the TVA and the time keepers as a guise, so he could remove every Loki variant that didn‘t act according to his script. (This may explain the flock of variant Lokis in the post credit scene of Ep 4)

Another reason why I believe this theory to be true are the parallels between this show and the ‚Agent of Asgard‘ Comics by Al Ewing. In fact Al Ewing and Lee Garbett are even mentioned in the Credits! (Caution! Spoilers for AoA incoming!) The storyline of the comic series is that of a future, „evil“ („“ because, as we know „no one bad is ever truly bad") version of Loki, who, frustrated by his lack of control over his own life, tries to manipulate his younger self into becoming this evil version of himself sooner (and isn't that ironic…and a bit hard to grasp as well). In the end Loki has to reinvent himself by letting go of past grudges in order to free himself from his destiny to turn into the villain of the story once more. By actively changing his present self and becoming the god of stories he is able to change his seemingly set path. In the end it is a story about self love and growth and the understanding that nobody has power over your future but your present self.

And I think what we learn in Episode 4 about self acceptance and self love is massively important in order to predict and understand what comes next in the series. At the beginning of the episode we see Sylvie and Loki on Lamentis, sharing a moment of mutual admiration in the face of seemingly certain death. Three things about this scene I find very interesting.

1. The composition of the scene with Loki and Sylvie sitting next to each other in a mirrored position. This emphasizes that while they may be variants, they still are reflections of one another.

2. The fact that this shared moment creates a massive branch in the sacred timeline. Why does this happen? I think it‘s because Loki shows actual love/ acceptance towards himself (even though it may be through his variant). And that‘s not „supposed to happen“, because the key ingredient for „our“ Loki to turn into the „evil narrator Loki", is a whole lot of self-loathing.

3. Loki‘s quote about surviving no matter how bad the loss. Which is an important bit of character development in itself but it’s what he said next („But we don‘t die“) that got me thinking. And I consider this to be one of the most important clues regarding my speculation. Loki has „died“ dozens of times during MCU history but he never stayed dead. Why is that, if he‘s merely a plot device, you ask? Well, I think it‘s because „evil Narrator Loki“, while not allowing „our" Loki to make his own choices, still doesn‘t want to kill himself off. So he simply deus ex machinas his escapes from death time and time again.

Considering all these details from Episode 4 I‘d like to theorize a little bit further about the ending of the show. I think the ‚big bad‘ they will face is future, „evil“ Loki himself. But by then our Loki will have learned to be at ease with himself with the help of the support system he built during the last episodes (Mobius and Sylvie). He no longer needs to keep up the illusion in order to trick himself and others in a desperate struggle for control. Because now he truly values himself enough to have confidence in himself and his choices. Because of this advancement in character his „future“ version will simply cease to exist because the foundation of self-loathing and perceived helplessness are no more. (Yeah it sounds a bit cheesy. I will admit. But it's a nice ending, OK?)

That‘s it. Hope this made any sense at all and if not…oh well 😂

#marvel loki #loki #loki episode 4 #loki spoilers #loki theories #loki tv series #loki tv show #loki tv spoilers #fan theories

17 notes · View notes

makeste · 4 years ago

Note

Did you see the Japanese tweet that went viral (100k likes&22k RTs) by niconicogalaxy where they said (I'm paraphrasing) that every time Bakugo did or said a good thing,they kept thinking "great, now apologize to Deku" because they hadn't forgiven the bullying? It was tweeted a week before chapter 284 came out so some ppl think Horikoshi was actually influenced by it (I doubt it). I'm surprised that the JP fandom is still so hung up on a verbal apology. Thought that was mostly the western fandom

I haven’t seen said tweet, but yeah you’re absolutely right in doubting that a viral tweet posted a week before 284 was released would have any influence whatsoever on the content of said chapter, since Horikoshi would have already finished the final draft several weeks earlier. I think that in general, the writers/artists are roughly a month ahead in terms of what they’re currently working on vs what’s being published that week. not only that, but major plot points like this would have been planned months if not years ahead of time. I have no doubt that Horikoshi is influenced by the fans at least a little bit here and there, but it wouldn’t be anything nearly as direct as that. this was definitely something he had in the works for some time beforehand.

that being said, the topic of Japanese fandom’s reaction to the whole Bakugou bullying situation is pretty interesting to me because there are multiple cultural factors at play. first of all, I feel confident in saying that there is absolutely no culture in the entire world in which bullying your old childhood friend and cruelly suggesting that he fling himself off a roof is in any way even remotely acceptable. I think it’s pretty much universally agreed that that’s pretty fucked up. in this respect Japanese fandom would be no different from the western fandom; both are in agreement that Bakugou went way too far.

I think the bigger cultural difference comes in terms of how bullying in general is commonly perceived and handled. Japanese culture is really big on harmony and everyone getting along and working together for the benefit of all. in theory that sounds great, but unfortunately in practice a lot of people are much more concerned with maintaining the appearance of harmony, and will prioritize that over making sure that things are actually harmonious. so for example, rather than taking any meaningful action to stop bullying, a lot of teachers and school administrations are more concerned with covering it up in order to save face and preserve appearances. it’s very much a culture of “I pretend I do not see it” taken to extremes. everyone just pretends like nothing is wrong and ignores the problem, because to actually acknowledge and address it would mean potential shame and embarrassment for everyone from the school to the teachers to even the victims themselves, and their families, as fucked as that is. and so a lot of times the bullying basically just goes unchecked, and so it becomes a huge problem.

and so the end result of this is that you have a culture where in theory everyone agrees that of course bullying is wrong, but in practice kids are raised in this society of “I pretend I do not see it” and learn from a young age that that’s just how the world seemingly operates. and I suspect there are a lot of people who have very strong feelings about that, and feel kind of frustrated and powerless about it. and so I think there are probably a surprising number of people in the Japanese manga fandom that feel much more strongly about the bullying depicted in BnHA than one might expect, even if they’ve learned to have tempered expectations when it comes to similar situations in real life.

so in that regard it actually doesn’t surprise me at all that the Japanese fandom would view a Bakugou apology as a requisite for his redemption arc just like many in the western fandom do. and also add on to that that apologies are a hugely important part of Japanese culture, again as part of the whole “everyone getting along in harmony and putting the needs of the group above that of the individual” thing. so it carries that much more importance, and is seen as that much more essential. and so it honestly wouldn’t surprise me at all if there were actually more people in the Japanese fandom than the western fandom who view a verbal apology as being absolutely crucial to wrapping up Bakugou’s character arc, because it’s seen as a critical part of accepting responsibility.

fortunately for both fandoms, Horikoshi seems to feel the same way, and even mentioned in an interview with Cinema Today Japan last December that “[Bakugou] still needs to apologize to Deku.” and he’s well aware of how polarizing a character Bakugou is, and that there are people in the fandom that hate him. and so I’m pretty sure that we can expect to see an apology scene at some point, which I have no doubt will be a highlight of the series for me, and which will also rip out my heart and stomp all over it before lovingly piecing it back together and bandaging it with feels. I’m looking forward to it lol.

98 notes · View notes

goldenkamuyhunting · 4 years ago

Note

this might come off as strange, but its been something on my mind. what are your thoughts on ogata possibly showing autistic behaviors? i was thinking about some of his mannerisms such as rubbing his hair and his difficulty showing facial expressions. these can be explained by other means, but i thought it was an interesting idea.

Hum...

I guess I’ll go with a premise first.

It would be absolutely great if GK were to have an autistic character. People with autistic disorder are greatly underrepresented in manga and anime (I think I’ve hear only about “With the Light” by Tobe Keiko which remained unfinished due to the author dying but I hope I’m missing something) and it actually would be awesome to give autistic people more representation.

And if you’re asking me if you can headcanon Ogata as autistic, yeah, sure, why not? As long as you’ve real knowledge on autism and aren’t you just trying to use the term because nowadays it seems it’s... ‘trendy’ to call a loner or a character with unusual quirk autistic, as if it were some sort of umbrella term for a certain type of character and not a real disorder with whom people in real life has to spend their life with.

If we’re however talking of the author’s intent, no, I fear the chances Noda intended to portray Ogata as an autistic character are pretty low.

Why?

The reason is more in how media, the production of media and portrayal in media of disorders work.

Basically when you create a character and give them certain characters traits they all have to have a use in the story and have to be easily recognizable.

You have to understand WHY a character acts a certain way otherwise you’ll end up confused and his actions need to have a purpose in the story otherwise they’re a waste of time, both for the writer who write them and the reader who read them.

This creates various consequences, among which the fact that many authors prefer to go for a ‘trope’ version of disorders, diseases and cultures more than a ‘realistic’ version of them.

In fact not only the trope version requires less research on their part but it’s also easily recognizable from the readers, regardless of it being accurate or not.

For example let’s think at Sugimoto and at how we all know he has Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) even though Noda never came and said it out loud (and it couldn’t really say it in the story as this name was given to this disorder in 1980 so way after the time GK take place).

Why is that?

Because Sugimoto basically checks all our expectations for a functional version of someone with this disorder right from the start of the story.

- He’s a veteran who lived through traumatic experiences during the war.

- He’s still plagued by nightmares about them.

- He is afraid to go back home because he perceives himself as different and he fears he’ll be rejected.

- He view himself as some sort of monster due to the guilt for the people he had killed.

- He had undergone a personality change of some sort (in Sugimoto’s case he moved from a person unable to kill to one who can do it in a blink if threatened)

This basically checks everyone’s list of expected things for a veteran with PTSD and, at this point, we don’t care if his PTSD is represented faithfully or not, we’ve just accepted Sugimoto has it.

We don’t really theorize Sugimoto has PTSD, we know he has it, it’s under everyone’s eyes and Noda here and there refresh our mind about this just to make sure we don’t forget not with words but with discussions about how war affected him, with nightmares and so on.

PTSD is the first explanation that comes to the mind of everyone who knows PTSD exists, and if you offer other explanations for all this, although they can be possible, they fundamentally feel unbelievable and failing to get the author’s message.

So what about Ogata and autism?

You said it yourself, Ogata’s traits can be explained by means different than autism and this is what is usually done. Which means if Noda instead wanted him to be coded as an autitic character he has failed to pass the message.

Ogata doesn’t really check right from his first apparition all the viewers’ expected checkboxes for autism, quite the opposite and, what’s more, while Noda returns to the topic of Sugimoto and his PTSD, having the character discuss it and struggle with it, the topic Noda returns to talk about with Ogata is his family trauma, not his disorder.

We don’t get explanations on how Ogata had to deal with what you suggest are autistic traits through all his life and how they affected him, not we’ve pages about his family drama. We’ve chapters completely dedicated to them and minor references to them because Noda wants us to notice this about him, his own personal trauma, but Ogata’s family drama isn’t an autistic trait.

Or we’ve the dozens of cat references that toss in the idea that Ogata is modeled after a cat.

Long story short, I fear I can’t say Noda deliberately coded Ogata to be an autistic character because this doesn’t seem to be the message he seems to want to deliver with the way he structures the story.

Of course I’m not Noda, I’m not even Japanese and I might be wrong as I might be missing clues that would be obvious to a Japanese reader but not so much to a western one.

Sometimes a difference in culture cause troubles in understanding a message that’s being passed.

Said all this, it doesn’t mean Ogata SURELY doesn’t have autistic traits.

Ogata’s traits can be interpreted as autistic. The autistic spectrum is pretty large and he can fall into it.

Ogata is not a real person who either has autism or doesn’t.

Maybe it’s by coincidence that Noda gave him traits that might cause him to fall in the autistic spectrum.

Or maybe Noda knew a real person with autism and took inspiration from him/her for Ogata but was hesitant in giving away the fact that he was taking inspiration from that person, which is why he didn’t bother to code the message in a way that would be immediately delivered to the viewers.

In short, as said before, if you feel like reading him as an autistic character because you are knowledgeable about autism and know what you’re talking about, please, feel free to go for it and don’t let anyone stop you.

Thanks for your ask!

#Ogata Hyakunosuke #Ask

21 notes · View notes