#and I want to know how common of an opinion that it

[edmundtheartist]

Ah, you're defending the fandom behavior because you do it yourself. Woah… I got deja vu! I swear I had this exact conversation with someone before and it was just as mind numbing as this time. It's all a repeat of "I never said x or y" "don't be mean just because someone doesn't think you", and "the beauty of the fandom is that we all have our own perspective" when in reality it's all bullshit to justify why you grasp at straws to find something in a story that isn't there. From what I have seen these people only have this perspective on Connor because they want to see THEMSELVES in him rather than appreciating him being his own character regardless of whether or not you relate to him on specific circumstances. At that point it's no longer a matter of opinion, it's common fucking sense, if you're going to alter everything about the established lore, then what is the point of source material to begin with? I know full well not everyone thinks like me, because hardly anyone does so it ain't a new concept to me, I've been here since 2020, and somehow I still manage to have more confidence in myself no matter how much backlash I have received as a result of having unpopular opinions. And you clearly did not pay attention the game directly saying that they won freedom for the moment, thus the battle is not even close to over yet, and Connor's personality isn't just gonna fully change in an instant, he is still very professional and manages to maintain his composure a lot of the time because 1, he doesn't have the time to get emotional because of circumstances as well as bigger things at stake and 2, it's a core part of his character that he is very business oriented and still manages to pose a threat. I said I wasn't gonna further respond, but it seems I have more to say. A lot of the time these people who portray Connor as some childlike dork who needs comforting give me the suspicion that they have troubled lives and that someone must have hurt them so they project their insecurities onto characters to feel better about themselves, and I have experience with people like this irl because one of them is my brother and lemme tell ya, he really grasps at straws and he has a very troubled past that he can't bring himself to move on from. I find it really tragic that we have gotten to the point of living in this happy fantasy bubble instead of embracing reality for what it actually is.

The Fandom: "Connor is just an innocent dorky cinnamon roll who needs a hug!"

Literally Connor:

[saurons-pr-department]

I was reading a Reddit thread earlier (I know, my first mistake) where people were getting into a rather heated debate about whether or not the Jedi got what was coming to them, were their actions in the lead up to Order 66 appropriate, should they have even been involved in the war, yadda yadda... Anyway, I was struck with how much it felt like reading people discuss the actions of a real-life institution, whose actions had real-life implications for real-life people. It also reminded me of reading discussions on here about actions taken by the Feanorions, Elwing, the Valar etc etc. It got me thinking about how stories and characters are often discussed in fandom as if we lived in their world and how I don't always... get it? I suppose.

What I mean is, for me, characters and their arcs are tools in the craft of storytelling. Yes, I do get emotionally invested in them (as anyone who was around during my peak Sauron girlie moment, or who's currently following the Tech obsession on my main will know), but I'm not interested in making a personal judgment of their actions as if I lived in their world too. To me a character is 'good' if I feel they fit their niche in the story well. A wonderfully slimey antagonist brings me just as much joy as a warm and kind-hearted hero. A 'good' ending to me could be happy or tragic or bitter sweet, as long as it fits the overall tone and message of the story.

I'm not here to say much of anything against the types of debates that I've mentioned above. Do fandom your way. It's just that, they are quite common in fandom and I find that I really can't get into them and felt like musing on it this moring. These conversations just don't make sense to me. I can't get angry at this flawed character's terrible decisions because this is a story of how a flawed person's life ends up going to shit. The flawed decisions are the point. I'm only going to be annoyed at their decisions if I find any of them character breaking in order to force the story to where the author wants it to be. And at that point what I'm annoyed with is poor story construction and not the character themselves. Conversations where people state that their dislike for a character, fictional institution or group stems from a personal disagreement with their actions, and where they seem to get genuinely angry about it just... confuse me.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm reading or watching stories dispassionately. I too think "wow, this guy makes terrible decisions", "that organisation's actions are vile", "this character is so sweet I would do anything for them". I love when a story can make me feel real feelings towards a character, despite them never having been a real person. It's something that takes great skill and I admire people for posessing it (I greatly wish I had this skill). It's just that my enjoyment of a character or story is almost completely detached from my agreeing or disagreeing with their actions. It's why you'll never find me being anti/pro Valar, Jedi etc. They're not real. There is nothing to be anti or pro towards.

I say 'almost completely detatched' because of course, characters can commit the mortal sin of being annoying to me personally! In which case they can fuck right off. And, on a less silly note, I can also disagree with an author's depiction or framing of something based on my own personal opinions. And, like every other human on the planet, I am flawed and come to a story with my own biases and presumptions. These will colour my interpretions of characters and their actions, and will affect my enjoyment of them.

Again, I'm not really going anywhere in particular with this. It's just I saw people interacting with stories in a way that is very different from how I choose to do it and felt like thinking out loud. Maybe other people feel like joining in (we don't join in on tumblr as much as we used to I feel). In short though, conversations like the one I saw this morning on Reddit don't really make sense to me. I don't really see the point in getting caught up with whether or not I agree or disagree with a charcter's actions because sometimes the disagreeable actions are the whole point of the character and their story. If I like the story, why would I go getting angry at it's point?

[sixfootrod]

I just read you takes about Price and they were so refreshing, now I’m curious to know how you would view as a husband and father?

Oh man I absolutely love talking about this.

I have mixed feelings about Price being a husband and father.

On one hand — I’m a firm believer of Price not wanting to be with someone at all. Honestly, I think he believes he’ll end up too much like his father. It’s something that’s consumed his entire being over the years. Something he sees everytime he looks in the mirror and hyper-focuses on the angry look in his eyes. The same one his own father had.

He prioritises his work over anything else. He doesn’t get attached to people. He’s John Price. The man who killed a general and did so many unspeakable acts that sometimes it makes him feel unloveable and broken. A common trait that comes along with PTSD is feeling often broken by your own trauma — and John heavily resonates with this.

He doesn’t have time for a partner. Or kids, really. sometimes, he’ll find himself thinking about having a mini version of himself running around.

Now, let’s get into the actual part. Price being a husband/father.

The man’s a real gentleman. The first few dates are nice. He takes you to a nice restaurant just outside of town, pays for your dinner, pulls your seat out for you to sit down and drives you home. Majority of the time he may not stay in contact. But if you’re lucky enough, it may progress.

At first, he’s how he is with everyone else. He still stiffens and tenses up when you put a hand on his bicep or reach up to give his scratchy cheek a kiss. But as time goes on, he almost finds himself looking forward to it. And even starts wrapping an arm around your waist. Cuddling you at night (because he wants you to feel safe in his arms and so he knows you’re alive. White knight complex.)

And when the subject of kids comes up, he’s hesitant. First off, let’s go back to what he said earlier. He often feels like a carbon copy of his father. He’s blunt. His temper can still be a hair trigger at the worst of times, and he’s a man who enjoys having his personal space.

Yet, once your child is born — that little baby is his pride and joy. Maybe some genetics have passed down onto the child, and he’s never been prouder to see a freckle form on the tip of the babies nose. On the fence about which kind of dad he’d be. I’m leaning onto girl dad, but at the same time, the image of him watching a football game with his son really tickles my brain and brings a chuckle outta me.

He’s there as much as he can be. For both his partner, and his child. Teaches them basic skills, congratulates them on their achievements and takes all the anger that comes with the onslaught of teenage hormones. He takes it all, and still, nothing could change the way he feels about his family.

I like to think that Price would retire at some point and truly try to settle down for the sake of family. But I think after spending just over two decades in the military, he’d probably have trouble settling back into civilian life. It would be rough.

Personally, I see him more as the kind of guy to go home to an empty apartment with a cat who curls up on his lap whilst he drinks a glass of whiskey and goes over the things he did wrong. But that’s just my opinion. Thank you so much for the ask.

And also. @yeyinde , do you have any input on this? Sorry for the consistent tags.

[spacedoutman]

Vinnie Vincent redesign

I know it doesn't necessarily fit Kiss' aesthetic but Eric's didn't either. I wanted to go more historically based since i was VERY obsessed with ancient Egypt throughout my childhood. I also think this drawing is too chaotic. What do you think?

Fun facts about ancient Egypt:

Their Gods are actually really cool and generally pleasant and non-oppressive despite how they're portrayed as evil in a lot of media (Looking at you, America) Ancient Egypt was a relatively harmonious society unless you lived in that one mining town at the time of that guy who lobbed bricks at you from rooftops for no reason

They were VERY colorful. Their clothes, jewels, everything! Their humor too. Humor was very important to them. They use a lot of euphemisms and even in official records they were constantly cracking jokes.

There was actually a time of somewhat anarchy during the uhh er I forgot era, between the middle kingdom and the old kingdom. It was a time where, though there was civil war, there was also more quality than ever seen before. Crafts were rising and the common people could enjoy more luxeries than in any other era.

We live closer to Cleopatra than she did the construction of the pyramids.

Woman actually could divorce and had a surprising amount of rights compared to others of that era and hell, even in the future.

Politics warning.

Did I mention Egyptian society was harmonious? They're often demonized, but to the douches who demonize ancient Egypt's beautiful culture: Fuck you. I'm being deadass. Grew up in the south where it was so yeah. Thanks for reading my rambles if you're here lol

Controversial opinion but this is why I fucking hate prince of Egypt. Yeah. It's a good and well-written movie but it demonizes and entire culture and religion for Christianity's sake to conform to the values and racism of American conservatives and fear-monger about what they see as different.

[rolandkaros]

random tennis ask game

[idk. ask games are super fun and i wanted to make my own...i tried to think of some (slightly) less common questions? so anyways, feel free to rb & hope u enjoy!!]

⏫️ tournament you'd like to promote to a higher level? (i.e. 250 to 500, 500 to 1000, etc.) ⏬️ tournament you'd like to demote? 🔄 discontinued tournament you'd like to bring back? 🚫 tournament you'd like to ban entirely? 🥰 quickest way for a player to endear themselves to you? 🥴 pettiest thing that will make you dislike a player? 💗 player who has grown on you the most? 🥸 favorite TRULY underrated player? (i'm talking truly underground. no tea no shade but no top tenner is truly underrated...) 🔜 player you think will win their first main tour title this season? 👥 favorite past doubles duo to watch? 👯 favorite current doubles duo to watch? 👤 opinion on singles players who play doubles? (excluding players who balance both disciplines) 🚥 kick, slice, or flat serve? 🖕 out wide, body, or down the T serve? 📌 pinpoint or platform serve? 🎨 best looking hardcourt colors? 👕 best looking kit? (not general brand, but a specific kit!) 🏸 best looking racket? (i know that's badminton emoji...they didn't have a tennis racket :( sorry) 🎧 if you could choose a walkout song as a player, what would it be? (promoting my agenda to allow players to chose their own songs for walkouts & changeovers) 🐦 hawkeye: yay or nay? 🤖 servebots or pushers? 🌅 day sessions or night sessions? 🏟️ quiet but respectful crowd or rowdy but enthusiastic crowd? ➕ which "one-slam wonder" would you give another slam to? 🔠 favorite score ticker design (past or present)? 🔊 which former player would you want to coach your fav(s)? ⚙️ what aspect of your fav(s)'s game do you most want them to improve on in terms of technique? 📸 favorite photo(s) of your fav(s)? ❤️ favorite nickname given to your fav(s)? 🏆 if you were a tennis player, which slam would you most want to win? 💔 do you prefer rivals that hate each other or rivals who love each other? (ignoring the obvious nuance that it's basically the same thing...CHOOSE ONE) ❤️‍🔥 what developing rivalry are you most looking forward to watching in the coming seasons? 💞 best rivalry involving your fav? & how do you think their h2h will finish? ⁉️ make your own question!

[toastytrusty]

thinking a lot tonight about my favorite hickey interpretation which is that he is essentially a failed religious fanatic. to Me it is so much more compelling if he genuinely reveres the tuunbaq. he doesn't want to dominate it, he wants to worship it, or exist alongside it. he is deep in delusion and truly believes he has a genuine connection to it. he thinks that if he sacrifices the remaining men he has under his control to it, the tuunbaq will accept him as a follower. he has always believed himself separate to britain and its empire, an exception to its corruption. he believes that using the imperialist system to get away from the imperialist nation he hates makes him different than those who use the imperialist system to carry out explicitly imperialist endeavors. he thinks his past actions are inconsequential, thinks his resentment exempts him, thinks denouncing britain and allowing the tuunbaq to kill his crew will win him the respect and acceptance of this godly creature. but it doesn't. he isn't different. the pain he has caused for his personal pursuits is just as damaging as pain caused for grander, imperial pursuits, and is in fact the same thing. he is just as much a force of destruction as anyone else, just as much a target of the tuunbaq's rath as anyone else. perhaps more than anyone else. he lived his life hating britain, yet he still exhausted his endless quest for connection and purpose within the british framework before looking outside of it. he thought crozier saw things the way he did, recognized the same things he did, and he played the imperialist game as he saw it to be (abusing native people), attempting to chase that connection. but when crozier came up lacking and he came up brutalized, he stopped trying to find it there. he thinks instead that the tuunbaq sees him, recognizes he is different in a way crozier never did, can give him the soul bonded Purpose that he so deeply craves. he is genuinely mystified by it, sees it as so much larger and holier than anything britain has ever offered, and thinks it respects him the same way he respects it. tuunbaq killing him is much the same as crozier lashing him. he committed acts of violence to appeal to both of them, thinking it would win him their respect and admiration, only to end up as a subject of their violence in return, because he isn't what they want and he is never able to truly connect with people in the way he wants

[bubble-jasmine]

I feel like the writing in this game would instantly improve around the middle/endgame if Bachikin was allowed to cuss out Sigkin at length.

(At any point really, but especially after either battle with Jungle or after he drops the whole “yeah they have the Homobi robots because I gave them the blueprints and traumatized all those kids years ago. Anyways-”)

[longagoitwastuesday]

So so indebted to u for posting those lovely illustrations from Cyrano <333 & even more so for yr tags!! I'm completely in love w yr analysis, please feel free to ramble as long as u wish! Browsing through yr Cyrano de Bergerac tag has given me glimpses of so many adaptations & translations I'd never heard of before! I'll be watching the Solès version next, which I have only discovered today through u ^_^ As for translations, have u read many/all of them? I've only encountered the Renauld & Burgess translations in the wild, & I was curious to hear yr translation thoughts that they might guide my decision on which one I buy first (not necessarily Renauld or Burgess ofc). Have a splendid day & sorry for the likespam! 💙

Sorry for the delay. Don't mind the likespam, I'm glad you enjoyed my tags about Cyrano, and that they could contribute a bit to a further appreciation of the play. I loved it a lot, I got obsessed with it for months. It's always nice to know other people deeply love too that which is loved haha I hope you enjoy the Solès version, it may well be my favourite one!

About translations, I'm touched you're asking me, but I don't really know whether mine is the best opinion to ask. I have read... four or five English translations iirc, the ones I could find online, and I do (and especially did, back when I was reading them) have a lot of opinions about them. However, nor English nor French are my first languages (they are third and fourth respectively, so not even close). I just read and compare translations because that's one of my favourite things to do.

The fact is that no translation is perfect, of course. I barely remember Renauld's, but I think it was quite literal; that's good for understanding the basics of the text, concepts and characters, but form is subject, and there's always something that escapes too literal translations. Thomas and Guillemard's if I recall correctly is similar to Hooker's in cadence. It had some beautiful fragments, some I preferred over Hooker's, but overall I think to recall I liked Hooker's more. If memory serves, Hooker's was the most traditionally poetic and beautiful in my opinion. Burgess' is a whole different thing, with its perks and drawbacks.

Something noticeable in the other translations is that they are too... "epic". They do well the poetic, sorrowful, grief stricken, crushed by regrets aspects of Cyrano and the play in general, but they fall quite short in the funny and even pathetic aspects, and that too is key in Cyrano, both character and play. Given the characteristics of both languages, following the cadence of the French too literally, with those long verses, makes an English version sound far too solemn at times when the French text isn't. Thus Burgess changes the very cadence of the text, adapting it more to the English language. This translation is the one that best sets the different moods in the play, and as I said before form is subject, and that too is key: after all, the poetic aspect of Cyrano is as much true as his angry facet and his goofy one. If Cyrano isn't funny he isn't Cyrano, just as he wouldn't be Cyrano without his devotion to Roxane or his insecurities; Cyrano is who he is precisely because he has all these facets, because one side covers the other, because one trait is born from another, because one facet is used as weapon to protect the others, like a game of mirrors and smoke. We see them at different points through the play, often converging. Burgess' enhances that. He plays with the language itself in form and musicality, with words and absences, with truths masking other truths, with things stated but untold, much like Cyrano does. And the stage directions, poetic and with literary value in their own right in a way that reminded me of Valle Inclán and Oscar Wilde, interact with the text at times in an almost metatextual dimension that enhances that bond Cyrano has with words, giving them a sort of liminal air and strengthening that constant in the play: that words both conceal and unveil Cyrano, that in words he hides and words give him away.

But not all is good, at all. Unlike Hooker, Burgess reads to me as not entirely understanding every facet of the characters, and as if he didn't even like the play all that much, as if he had a bit of a disdainful attitude towards it, and found it too mushy. Which I can understand, but then why do you translate it? In my opinion the Burgess' translation does well bending English to transmit the different moods the French text does, and does pretty well understanding the more solemn, cool, funny, angry, poetic aspects of Cyrano, but less so his devotion, vulnerability, insecurities and his pathetism. It doesn't seem to get Roxane at all, how similar she is to Cyrano, nor why she has so many admirers. It does a very poor job at understanding Christian and his value, and writes him off as stupid imo. While I enjoyed the language aspect of the Burgess translation, I remember being quite angry at certain points reading it because of what it did to the characters and some changes he introduces. I think he did something very questionable with Le Bret and Castel-Jaloux, and I remember being incensed because of Roxane at times (for instance, she doesn't go to Arras in his version, which is a key scene to show just how much fire Roxane has, and that establishes several parallels with Cyrano, in attitude and words, but even in act since she does a bit what Cyrano later does with the nuns in the last act), and being very angry at several choices about Christian too. While not explicitly stated, I think the McAvoy production and the musical both follow this translation, because they too introduce these changes, and they make Christian as a character, and to an extent the entire play, not make sense.

For instance, once such change is that Christian is afraid that Roxane will be cultured (McAvoy's version has that infamous "shit"/"fuck" that I detest), when in the original French it's literally the opposite. He is not afraid she will be cultured, he is afraid she won't, because he does love and appreciate and admires those aspects of her, as he appreciates and admires them in Cyrano. That's key! Just as Cyrano longs to have what Christian has, Christian wants the same! That words escape him doesn't mean he doesn't understand or appreciate them. The dynamics make no sense without this aspect, and Burgess (and the productions that directly or indirectly follow him) constantly erases this core trait of Christian.

Another key moment of Christian Burgess butchers is the scene in Arras in which Christian discovers the truth. Burgess writes their discussion masterfully in form, it's both funny and poignant, but it falls short in concept: when Cyrano tells him the whole discussion about who does Roxane love and what will happen, what they'll do, is academic because they're both going to die, Christian states that dying is his role now. This destroys entirely the thing with Christian wanting Roxane to have the right to know, and the freedom to choose, or to refuse them both. As much as Cyrano proclaims his love for truth and not mincing words even in the face of authority, Cyrano is constantly drunk on lies and mirages, masks and metaphors. It's Christian who wants it all to end, the one who wants real things, the one who wants to risk his own happiness for the chance of his friend's, as well as for the woman he loves to stop living in a lie. That is a very interesting aspect of Christian, and another aspect in which he is written as both paralleling and contrasting Cyrano. It's interesting from a moral perspective and how that works with the characters, but it's also interesting from a conceptual point of view, both in text and metatextually: what they hold most dear, what they most want, what most fulfills them, what they most fear, their different approaches to life, but also metatextually another instance of that tears/blood motif and its ramifications constant through the whole text. Erasing that climatic decision and making him just simply suicidal erases those aspects of Christian and his place in the Christian/Cyrano/Roxane dynamic, all for plain superficial angst, that perhaps hits more in the moment, but holds less meaning.

Being more literal, and more solemn, Hooker's translation (or any of the others, but Hooker's seems to love the characters and understand them) doesn't make these conceptual mistakes. Now, would I not recommend reading Burgess' translation? I can't also say that. I had a lot of fun reading it, despite the occasional anger and indignation haha Would I recommend buying it? I recommend you give an eye to it first, if you're tempted and can initially only buy one.

You can read Burgess' translation entirely in archive.com. You can also find online the complete translations of Renauld, Hooker and Thomas and Guillemard. I also found a fifth one, iirc, but I can't recall it right now (I could give a look). You could read them before choosing, or read your favourite scenes and fragments in the different translations, and choose the one in which you like them better. That's often what I do.

Edit: I've checked to make sure and Roxane does appear in Arras in the translation. It's in the introduction in which it is stated that she doesn't appear in the production for which the translation was made. The conceptualisation of Roxane I criticise and that in my opinion is constant through the text does stay, though.

[cottagecori]

hey. send the message. do it.

[yume-fanfare]

people will say they want evil women and then they can't even handle a slightly mean honeyworks 16 year old

[light-wrath-paradise]

Me right now: "The Smitten is just like me for real."

Like???? I hope not??????

[icewindandboringhorror]

my personal Media Genres tier ranking and also Neopets Species tiers. put together in the same post just due to being adjacently related because they're on the same website lol

links to the specific tier makers: Media Genres --- Neopets

[kkujo]

last night i had a mix of tinnitus and sleep deprivation induced auditory hallucinations which was basically just like. literal microphone feedback. and i think it was triggered by me testing my microphone yesterday bc the feedback was awful but yeah i was lying awake and all i could hear was extremely loud microphone feedback in my brain i'm so glad it's over 😭

[pyrriax]

How about c!Redd, c!Guts, or c!Krow for the character bingo if you’d like! Or Branzy or Zam if you wanna do some lifestealers instead!

i love a challenge and am now gonna do all of them :3

(done with the utmost love, i'm very fond of all of these characters actually <3 i just honed it to base opinions)

in order: c!krow, c!red, c!guts, branzy, zam

((i will say that i haven't watched c!red or c!guts' povs, which is why i lack opinions on them. i've been meaning to and then i got dragged into being hopelessly fixated on lifesteal pfvdfnjk; and for the fact like 98% of what i've written recently have been branzy-centric fics that actually include zam a Lot. so. you've handed me my blorbos on a platter and asked for opinions pdfvfndjk))