#and i agreed with a lot of points
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
hot take but we as a society need to be more comfortable about discussing "icky" parts of history, and even telling the side of the "bad guys"
hear me out
history is written by the victors, and will be heavily biased. The defeated will be painted as evil, deviants and/or like they have always been "the bad guys".
Reducing people to "the bad guys" does a huge disservice to the opportunity of learning from the past, because it creates a distance between the modern reader and the actual events, it creates the comfortable position of "I'm not like the bad guys, so i will never make their mistakes"
I think is important we understand how and why people believed in something, and where did things turn a certain way. Yes. Even "the wrong side". Even the nazis. Even those people you are thinking about, whoever they are.
Because you are not immune to propaganda and it's so so so so important to understand what happened and how did we get to those points before we fall to the same techniques again and again.
"Learning from the past" isn't deleting the ugly parts or cringing when someone brings up war. Thinking otherwise is a huge mistake and precisely what someone who wants to make the same mistakes wants you to think.
#rant#gil talks#not to get too real on main#but this comes from watching a funny haha video about vampire diaries#and the essayist wanted to discuss how the series treated certain parts of US history and sure it was bad#and i agreed with a lot of points#but the whole 'this character was a confederate soldier and eughhhh' cringing hard#honestly i would focus more on the wasted opportunity of discussing the guilt of fighting for the wrong side than eughh they portrayed this#idk man people sometimes chooses the wrong side?#same with twilight#which btw jasper acknowledges is was bad and he was young and impressionable and just wanted to be a soldier#still fandom is like OMG STEPHENIE MEYER HOW COULD YOU#bruh#yes. even your blorbos can be in 'the wrong side' and they are not evil incarnate
159 notes
·
View notes
Text
day 1421
#uh just a heads up if you expand the tags to see all there's. a lot. very long#amphibian#frog#poison dart frog#based on my most popular frog to date (day 651)#inspired by everyone pointing out what they think it looks like#here's a fun secret fact the original guy is actually a phantasmal poison dart frog (Epipedobates tricolor)#(according to the original artists title of the drawing)#not Anthony's poison arrow frog (Epipedobates anthonyi)#i feel too awkward to really point it out though because they look the exact same. i cannot tell if there is a difference#im half convinced the same frog was just discovered and named twice#its very curious btw if you go on the (english) wikipedia page for either species it doesn't mention the other#while hereptiles.info (no idea if this is a trustworthy site) lists both names as common names for the same frog (incorrectly??)#while inaturalist lists them as two different frogs. curiously with tricolor having wayyyyy fewer photos#ok anyway that's my rant i went on a whole journey trying to figure out if these are the same frog or not and i have no answer#i did some more 'research' and i am more confused. some sources seem to imply they are now considered the same species ( e. tricolor)#i think my conclusion is i am willing to agree the drawing looks more like e. anthonyi. it seems like tricolor is generally less vibrant re#and the white is darker and more green?#i feel like thumblr should stop me from typing more in the tags at this point this is a whole essay#at this point i am failry convinced this is specifically the Santa Isabel frog. isthat the real subspecies or morph or whatever#or just the name pet sites are using to sell it??#i even found some sources (frog selling websites) refering to it as “Epipedobates Anthonyi 'Santa Isabel' Phantasmal Poison Dart Frog” lol#Anyways if you read this far hi. species are confusing. i am not a frog scientist#the first few tags are like an hour old now i just kept trying to figure it out and adding more tags
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
‘Dungeon Meshi isn’t focused on romance and you may be missing what it’s trying to say if you only focus on that aspect’ and ‘trying to shut down conversations about farcille completely is kinda lesbophonic when that energy isn’t directed towards any f/m or m/m ships’ are both true statements btw.
If you find yourself annoyed that shippers are focusing on farcille but don’t care about other shippers then maybe keep that to yourself. There is a conversion to be had about how fandoms hyper focus on ships but trying to say any f/f ship is responsible for that is kinda insane to me.
#dungeon meshi#farcille#delicious in dungeon#falin touden#marcille donato#I feel like a flip floper#because I was just annoyed about how people were forgetting that everyone was involved in Falin’s resurrection#but I just keep seeing people really annoyed about how people are viewing Marcille’s motives from a shipper point of view#and you aren’t going to sit there and tell me that Marcille doesn’t view Falin as the most important person in her life#like#that’s not me being a shipper lmao#Marcille’s love for Falin IS what is causes a whole lot of problems#if you view that love as romance is irrelevant#Laois and Marcille agree to bring her back using the dragon because neither could dare do otherwise#just#ahhhh
424 notes
·
View notes
Text
i would give anything to watch a full movie on how the entirety of brooklyn came to be "spot conlon's territory". half of the brooklyn newsies are practically grown ass men, and they answer to this scrawny blond fifteen year old??
like come on
#seriously those are wholeass MEN#what made them go 'yes this child will be the best possible leader time to let him make all the decisions'#and like. they agreed to walk a few miles to newsies square just to put themselves at risk of being beat up or arrested ??#also they're like. entering a zone where they could very easily get trapped (like the manhattan newsies were)#and they didn't even know how many strikebreakers there would be ?? for all they knew they could have been outnumbered ??#so these guys literally risk everything because spot says so ??#anyway kudos to them bc like. i would have said yeah nah you have fun with that tho#but yeah logically this is a v inaccurate depiction of brooklyn newsies bc like. they wouldn't bring the 9 year olds to a fight#BUT STILL MY POINT STILL STANDS THAT IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BOTH OLDER THAN AND MUCH BIGGER THAN SPOT#newsies#newsies fandom#92sies#spot conlon#brooklyn newsies#newsies 1992
284 notes
·
View notes
Text
relatedly i'm not entirely willing to let go of the reading of tolkien as environmental, like i think there's a lot to be said for it i really like & would stand by. but at the same time i do think some of that reading has to be tempered with an understanding of how anti-industrialism can very much lead to or go hand in hand with a sort of idealization of pre-industrial (particularly rural) life in a way that's both ultimately conservative and overlooks a lot of issues, particularly to do with class. if that makes sense
#i see a lot of posts about tolkien & environmentalism i mostly agree with except when they try to paint the position as like unambiguously#left wing or something. which it's not. i just thing we really need to start understand tolkien's strong points without trying#to paint him in a way he wasn't e.g. ''''progressive''''#we don't need to worship the guy. i'm begging you not to worship the guy in fact#thoughts#tolkien
742 notes
·
View notes
Text
i don't personally have any problem with angels being a meme, especially if it gets people interested in the actual theology behind it, but it is a little annoying sometimes when you're trying to discuss it from a more genuine sincere angle and someone is like "oh like biblically accurate angels lol". like ugh now i have to go on a tangent about how the phrase "biblically accurate" is in fact an inaccurate term and that the descriptions of angels often used as "biblical" examples are actually usually taken from jewish theology, and-
#🐉#seen a post going around about how annoying the biblically accurate meme is and while i somewhat agree#my stance on it is a bit more nuanced. because that meme got me into angels! but it was only a starting point.#and its a little embarrassing to look back on. but like. i did have fun and learned a lot.#very much a let he who is without cringe cast the first stone situation#angels
894 notes
·
View notes
Text
Something I think thats interesting/really tiring about the wwx morality debate is that I think some people, in an effort to understand wwx as a "morally good character", tend to take their own preconceptions of moral ideals and then squish wwx into that box, whether or not he did or would actually share those ideals. But in my opinion, that's kind of like putting the cart before the horse-- wwx already has his own ideals and actions that make up who he is, and those are what define him as good. It's not necessarily that he did all this positive action because he's supposed to be a great person, but that he's a great person because of who he is and what he does
#this might be controversial idk#but i think it fits enough with the themes of the book and analysis of other characters#especially ones like jgy or wq where good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things#anyway this is about 'wwx wouldnt cheat because i think cheating is bad but wwx is good'#he canonically cheats like a lot guys idk what to tell you#but that doesnt make him a bad person because he does some bad things thats like. kind of the point of the book#its not a test to be like wwx would do everything i specifically agree with and nothing that i dont
137 notes
·
View notes
Text
Love that the Batfam consistently ruins and is largely incompatible with any and all of Alfred's attempts to nuclearify the family.
#Sorry this is based on several “visions” reminisce-ments? things that Alfred has done#where he gives Bruce like the stereotypical family#and he's clearly pushing for it a lot#and I think the Batfam's a) too complicated b) not all the members even agree they're part of it c) fucking weirdos all of them#so Alfred is consistently thwarted and annoyed#But also Alfred himself complicates the nuclearification by encouraging the kids to step outside traditional roles of child to be co-parent#or therapist#or some other shenaniganery#you get it or you don't is my point lol#batfam#alfred pennyworth#“if not for those meddling kids”#batman#dc comics#bruce wayne#batfamily#personal#the entire post is in the TAGS LMAO#no regrets
87 notes
·
View notes
Note
I would LOVE to read your analysis of louis as byronic hero as apposed to his reading as gothic heroine. lots of the latter and zero of the former in the fandom.
Sure! Mmm, okay, so –
What are we talking about when we talk about Gothic Heroes?
When we talk about gothic heroes, we’re really talking about three pretty different character archetypes. All three are vital to the genre, but some are more popular in certain subgenres i.e. your Prometheus Hero may be more common in gothic horror, whereas your Byronic Hero might be more likely to be found in gothic romance. That’s not to say they’re exclusive to those subgenres at all, and there is an argument that these archetypes themselves are gendered (in many ways, I think people confuse Anne being an author of the female gothic with Louis being a gothic heroine, but I’ll get into that later), but this is also not necessarily something that’s exclusive.
Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself, haha, so the three gothic hero archetypes are:
Milton’s Satan who is the classic gothic hero-villain. You can probably guess from the name, but he was originated in John Milton’s 1667 poem, Paradise Lost. He is God’s favourite angel, but God is forced to cast him out of heaven when he rebels against him. As an archetype, he’s a man pretty much defined by his pride, vanity and self-love, usually fucks his way through whatever book or poem he’s in, has a perverted, incestuous family, and a desire to corrupt other people. He’s also defined as being “too weak to choose what is moral and right, and instead chooses what is pleasurable only to him” and his greatest character flaw, in spite of all The Horrors, is that he’s usually easily misguided or led astray. (I would argue that Lestat fits into this archetype pretty neatly, but that’s a whole other post.)
Prometheus who was established as a gothic archetype by Mary Shelley with Frankenstein in 1818. Your Prometheus Hero is basically represented by the quest for knowledge and the overreach of that quest to bring on unintended consequences. He’s tied, of course, to the Prometheus of Greek myth, so you can get elements of that in this character design too in that he can be devious or a trickster, but the most important part of him is that he is split between his extreme intelligence and his sense of rebellion, and that his sense of rebellion and boundary pushing overtakes his intelligence and basically leads to All The Gothic Horrors.
And the Byronic Hero, who as the name implies, was both created by and inspired by the romantic poet, Lord Byron in his semi-autobiographical poem, Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage which was published between 1812-1818. The archetype is kind of an idealized version of himself, and as historian and critic Lord Macaulay wrote, the character is “a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection.” Adding to that, he’s often called ‘the gloomy egoist’ as a protagonist type, hates society, is often self-destructive and lives either exiled or in a self-exile, and is a stalwart of gothic literature, but especially gothic romance. Interestingly too, in his most iconic depictions he’s often a) darkly featured and/or not white (Heathcliff being the most obvious example of this given Emily Bronte clearly writes him as either Black or South Asian), and b) is often used to explore queer identity, with Byron himself having been bisexual.
Okay, but what about the Gothic Heroine?
Gothic heroines are less delineated and have had more of an evolution over time, which makes sense, given women have consistently been the main audience of gothic literature and have frequently been the most influential writers of the genre too. The gothic genre sort of ‘officially’ started with Horace Walpole’s 1764 novel, The Castle of Otranto and Isabella is largely regarded as the first gothic heroine and the foundation of the archetype, and the book opens even with one of the key defining traits – an innocent, chaste woman without the protection of a family being pursued and persecuted by a man on the rampage.
The gothic heroine was, for years, defined by her lack of agency. She was innocent, chaste, beautiful, curious, plagued by tragedy and often, ultimately, tragic. Isabella survives in The Castle of Otranto, but she’s one of the lucky ones – Cathy dies in Wuthering Heights, Sybil dies in The Picture of Dorian Gray, Justine and Elizabeth both die in Frankenstein, Mina survives in Dracula, but Lucy doesn’t. There’s an argument frequently posited that the gothic genre was, and is, about dead women and the men who mourn them, and Interview with the Vampire certainly lends itself to that pretty neatly.
Of course, the genre has evolved, and in particular by the late 1800s, there was a notable shift in how the Gothic Heroine was depicted. The house became a place of imprisonment where they were further constrained and disempowered, she was infantilized and pathologized and diagnosed as hysterical, and as Avril Horner puts it in her excellent paper, Women, Power and Conflict: the Gothic heroine and ‘Chocolate-box Gothic’, gothic literature of this era “explores “the constraints enforced [by] a patriarchal society that is becoming increasingly nervous about the demands of the ‘New Woman’.”
This was an era where marriage was increasingly understood in feminist circles to be a civil death where women were further subjugated and became the property of their husbands. This was explored through gothic literature as the domestic space evolved into a symbol of patriarchal control in the Female Gothic.
Female Gothic vs Male Gothic
Because here’s the thing – the female gothic and the male gothic are generally understood to be two different subgenres of gothic literature.
While there are plenty of arguments as to what this entails, the basics is that the male gothic is written by men, and usually features graphic horror, rape and the masculine domination of women and often utilises the invasion of women’s spaces as a symbol of further penetrating their bodies, while the female gothic is written by women, and usually features graphic terror, as opposed to horror, while delving more specifically into gender politics. More than that though, its heroines are usually victimized, virginial and powerless while being pursued by villainous men.
The Female Gothic as a genre is also specifically interested in the passage from girlhood to female maturity, and does view the house as a place of entrapment, but she is usually suddenly “threatened with imprisonment in a castle or a great house under the control of a powerful male figure who gave her no chance to escape.”
That’s not Louis’ arc, that’s Claudia’s arc twice over, first with the house at Rue Royale, then with the Paris Coven, and Lestat and Armand aren’t the only powerful male figures who imprison her.
Claudia as the Gothic Heroine
Claudia in many ways is the absolute embodiment of the classic gothic heroine. Even the moment of their meeting is a product of Louis’ Byronic heroism – his act of implacable revenge against the Alderman Fenwick which prompts the rioting that almost kills her. She’s a victim of Louis’ monstrousness before they’ve even met, and while he saves her, he arguably does something worse in trapping her in the house with both himself and Lestat, holding her in an ever-virginal, ever-chaste eternal girlhood, playing into Lestat’s Milton-Satan by enhancing the perversion of family and ultimately infantilizing her out of his own desire for familial closeness.
Claudia has no family protection before Louis and Lestat – a staple of the gothic heroine – she is completely dependent on them in her actual girlhood, and again in adulthood, never developing the strength to be able to turn a companion, to say nothing about the sly lines here and there that further diminish and pathologise her (Lestat calling her histrionic, Louis making her out to be a burden, etc.). This is all further compounded again with the Coven, and when the tragedy of her life ultimately leads to the tragedy of her death.
Louis as the Byronic Hero
Not to start with a quote, but here’s one from The Literary Icon of the Byronic Hero and its Reincarnation in Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights:
“Generally speaking, the Byronic hero exhibits several particular characteristics. He does not possess heroic virtues in the usual, traditional sense. He is a well-educated, intelligent and sophisticated young man, sometimes a nobleman by birth, who at the same time manifests signs of rebellion against all fundamental values and moral codes of the society. Despite his obvious charm and attractiveness, the Byronic hero often shows a great deal of disrespect for any figure of authority. He was considered "the supreme embodiment [...] standing not only against a dehumanized system of labor but also against traditionally repressive religious, social, and familial institutions" (Moglen, 1976: 28).
The Byronic hero is usually a social outcast, a wanderer, or is in exile of some kind, one imposed upon him by some external forces or self-imposed. He also shows an obvious tendency to be arrogant, cunning, cynical, and unrepentant for his faults. He often indulges himself in self destructive activities that bring him to the point of nihilism resulting in his rebellion against life itself. He is hypersensitive, melancholic, introspective, emotionally conflicted, but at the same time mysterious, charismatic, seductive and sexually attractive.”
Louis as he exists in the show to me is pretty much all of those things, and I think to argue that he’s a gothic heroine not only diminishes Claudia’s arc, but robs Louis of his agency within his own story. Louis chooses Lestat, over and over again, he’s not imprisoned by the monster in the domestic sphere, he is one of the monsters who’s controlling the household, including making decisions of when they bring a child into it and when Lestat gets to live in it – he wanted to be turned, he wanted to live with Lestat in Rue Royale, and while there are certainly arguments to be made about their power dynamic within the household in the NOLA era, importantly Louis actually gained social power through his marriage to Lestat, particularly through The Azaelia, he didn’t lose it in the way that’s vital to the story of the gothic heroine.
Daniel Hart even said it in a recent twitter thread about Long Face, but there is an element of Lestat and Louis’ relationship that is transactional, and to me, for that to exist, they both have to have a degree of control over their circumstances and choices in order to negotiate those transactions. Claudia is the one who can’t, she’s the one who’s treated effectively as property, and she’s the one who lacks control over her circumstances.
While you could perhaps argue the constraints of the apartment in Dubai lend more to the gothic heroine archetype, I’d argue it as furthering the Byronic trope again by being representative both of Louis’ self-destruction and self-imposed exile. As Jacob has said a few times, Louis does seem to have known to a degree that Armand was involved in Claudia’s death on some level, and it’s that guilt and misery that has him allowing Armand his degree of control. The fact that Louis was able to leave Armand as easily and as definitively as he was I think demonstrates that distinction too – after all, to compare that ending to Claudia’s multiple attempts to leave the confines of the patriarchal house, both in Rue Royale and Paris, which were punished at every turn – first by her rape, then by Lestat dragging her back off the train, and then by the Coven orchestrating her murder.
Louis gets to leave because Louis can leave, he has both the social and narrative power to, and the fact that he does is, to me, completely at odds with the gothic heroine. Louis can, and does advocate for himself, Louis is proud, moody, cynical. Defiance is a key part of his character, just as his exile from NOLA society due to his race, and his chosen rejection of vampire society in Paris, is. He’s intelligent and sophisticated, travels the world, and has misery in his heart, guilt that eats him up, and self-destructive tendencies. That’s a Byronic Hero, baby!
#i also agree with jacob when he says he has a lot more power in his relationship with lestat than he'd admit to#i also think the house in rue royale is both constraining AND liberating for louis#as he's able to live with a sort of honesty he couldn't in his mother's house#lestat wields a lot of power in it of course but louis does too#i could keep talking about this but i think that's probably enough for this morning haha#louis de pointe du lac#amc interview with the vampire#iwtv asks#claudia de pointe du lac#welcome to my ama
131 notes
·
View notes
Text
A little late Halloween sherliam doodle 🤭❤️
#someone pointed out I draw sherly on the floor a lot and you know what they’re right#he just looks good on his knees#liam agrees#( ◠‿◠ )#now imagine that devil tail lifting Sherly’s chin#or tugging at the collar#sherliam#yuukoku no moriarty#moriarty the patriot#ynm sherlock holmes#liam james moriarty
78 notes
·
View notes
Text
god what really gets me about dead boy detectives and what i think i love so much about the show and the relationships in it is that like. the romantic and sexual relationships aren't portrayed as being more unique or important than the platonic relationships. they're all just RELATIONSHIPS.
charles and crystal's attraction to each other and eventual hookup isn't this big end-all be-all relationship that shatter charles and edwin's friendship and draws charles' attention away from edwin; it's just a THING that happens. they're just two people that care about each other and happen to also be attracted to each other, and a hook-up happens, then they decide that neither of them are in the right place for it and it's nothing awful. crystal kisses charles, but it isn't some big spectacle of her declaring her love for him; it's just her saying goodbye and that she cares about him, like her hugs with niko and jenny and her handshake with edwin.
edwin realizes he loves charles romantically and tells him, and charles says he doesn't really love edwin romantically BACK, but it's okay, because they still love each other so much in so many other ways that this one tiny difference could never change them—and it doesn't!! they're still just as close, still care for each other just as much, still SHOW that care for each other just as much. their relationship didn't completely end because edwin loved charles in a way charles couldn't reciprocate, but at the same time it isn't "solved" by edwin getting over it, because there's nothing TO solve. it's just another type of love, added to everything that already exists between them. and they have LITERALLY FOREVER to figure out what it means.
the relationships between edwin & niko, crystal & niko, and crystal & edwin aren't given any less weight for being solely platonic, just as charles & crystal's relationship and edwin's feelings for charles aren't given (that much) MORE weight for being romantic. crystal and charles' conflict in the closet is about EDWIN, about how they're BOTH his friend and BOTH want to get him back; it has very little to do with the feelings between THEM, romantic or otherwise. similarly, the weight of charles' and edwin's relationship isn't diminished in the LEAST by charles not reciprocating the romantic side of his feelings (or SAYING he doesn't reciprocate, at least—we can all argue about the legitimacy of that in the notes).
i'm sure there are more examples than this, as well as probably some examples that CONTRADICT this, but like... by and large, it feels like dead boy detectives is a show where all the relationships are given equal weight regardless of platonic, sexual, romantic, or familial status, and as someone on both the asexual and aromantic spectrums who has struggled time and time again with shows casting out the importance of all other relationships in favor of prioritizing romance, that is INCREDIBLY refreshing to see.
#this might be a lot of run-on sentences and me repeating itself because its 2 am rn (sidenote how the HELL did it get that late last i chec#-ed it was like 11???) but i hope u enjoy anyway 👍#magpie thoughts#dead boy detectives#ik before watching the show i saw a lot of people were annoyed by charles and crystal's relationship and thought it felt forced and like#-they had no romantic chemistry#but honestly. having watched the show. i don't see that at all?#like maybe it's just me being aspec and not getting what ''romantic chemistry'' even IS but like. they were people. they were two fucked up#-people that happened to be attracted to each other and they hooked up when both of them were in low places and agreed to not go any furthe#-after. but beyond all of that they are FRIENDS and they STAY friends and like. they just felt like PEOPLE#the way they were written and the way the actors ACTED IT felt like ten times better to me than the dozens of pinacle romances i've seen in#-other tv shows#(and also i gotta say i love the other CASUALNESS with which sex was mentioned in the early episodes. it wasnt made out to be this big thin#-that only happens when tied to romance; it was just a THING. theyre both hot and in different circumstances they totally would have had se#-about it (and eventually they did but thats besides the point). that's it)#they're people. this is a show full of ghosts and demons and witches and crows-turned-into-boys but they are all fundamentally just PEOPLE#beautiful and fucked up human beings that feel attraction and hurt and fear and love in a million different ways.#AUGH i love this show so much#paineland#payneland#crystal palace#charles rowland#edwin payne#niko sasaki#dead boy detective netflix#dbda
95 notes
·
View notes
Text
WAIT SHUROS DAD SAID HE WANTED HIM TO BRING SOMETHING BACK INTERESTING.... AND WHO IS MORE INTERESTING THAN LAIOS....
#he also cited lack of flexibility in thinking. so surely the solution is shuro realising u can like men..........#wait... wait imagine. this wasnt the point of the post but everyone imagine with me#fake dating au but not on purpose shuro Does bring back the fucking king of the risen golden kingdom#but his dad takes it as him bringing his significant other back and says he wins#and laios goes But thats not-#and shuro claps his hand over his mouth like Wait a minute.#and when he gets back everyone agrees its the dumbest thing he could have done#im torn between chilchuck laughing or screaming at him. and kabru straight up murdering him#i dont know if itll be a recreation of the laios proximity disgust meter#or he comes back to a party popper exploding in his face with the banner Congrats on your marriage!#maybe both#god it is so difficult to come up with a ship name for them#but i need to. even if im just populating the tag with my screaming#laishuro????? maybe????#they dont have a lot of overlapping letters...#ok laishuro is free and also this is the only post that comes up if u search it here. weve done it lads#laishuro#dungeon meshi#will that even show up in the tags anymore. im a fool
330 notes
·
View notes
Text
yes i am the biggest advocate of surrogate father haymitch & adopted daughter katniss but like. they're so Awful. they've not got a mother/daughter relationship, they've got that father/daughter relationship where the dad is both reaching for a connection and rejecting the thing that he made because she's too much like him, too close to what he is and far away from it because of her potential and the daughter rejects because she doesn't understand him. understanding him is understanding herself. caring for him is caring for herself. and then she's awful to him because she doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand. and he's rejectful of her because she's got so many traits that are for the worse and not for the better. their similarities don't hurt nearly as much as what their differencee impale them with. it will always be what katniss could be (haymitch), and what haymitch prevented/could've been (katniss.)
#“haymitch treats katniss a certain way because he sees himself in her”#which is true!#haymitch objectively is tough on her in ways he would've been with himself#and he cares for her because he sees what wounds she has and knows that support and care will slowly patch them#he's dismissive of her often and doubtful and a little cruel tongued when it comes to her#but it always circles back to a fondness and love#katniss constantly rips the patches off. she isn't trying to understand his care or wants it inherently#she treats him surface level. he goes under the iceberg and they both find things they don't like#she's prejudiced to him because of his outside traits. she waits until she's forcefully sucked into his real face to be sympathetic#haymitch knows her real face. which looks an awful lot like his and *feels* like his to the point where he projects onto her#but she's different. and it's again the empathy/lacking empathy conversation and such#i could bring up every moment of their agrees/disagrees and the times where they tear each other down#but the thing is that it's not JUST because they're the same. it's because they're so different and still HAVE similarities#haymitch abernathy#katniss everdeen#the hunger games#thg#catching fire#mockingjay#the hunger games trilogy#thg analysis
65 notes
·
View notes
Text
"Someone said it, I forget who said it but, like, 'you dream your entire life on being on a team that freakin' good.' Right? It was meant to be—it was destiny. That save Bob made not even fucking looking? Like I bought the t-shirt! 'The Bobbery!' It's—" "Fuck, yeah!" "Bob—What's he like?" "That's the kind-of shit that you realise is just destiny...in my opinion..." "Does he talk?" "Does he smile?" "Bob? Yeah! Bob's awesome! Yeah, yeah—again, one of those perfect people."
The Cam & Strick Podcast | 7.30.24 (x)
even ekky isnt immune to good merch hats off to breakingt thats ekkys most prised possession now XD
#aaron ekblad#sergei bobrovsky#florida panthers#ekky just waltzing into the team store to buy the bobbery shirt is so funny to me#never get in between the relationship between a dman and their goalie#i think a lot about how proud he looked when he admitted to buying a bobby tshirt#CRYING SCREAMING WONDER LORE DROP THANK YOU EKKY#ekky offhandledly going yeah hes one of those perfect people :]#at this point we have to admit “perfect” is codeword for man i want to fuck#like we can all unanimously agree on this?#the list expands to 4: forsy sasha oel and bobby#which tracks yeah#love thy goalie. buy his merch.#immortalize his rise to godhood on a cotton little tshirt you wear around the house as you make your coffee#“thats when you realise its destiny”#wheres that tweet that compares that bobby save to the one adin hill made on us in the scf#and was like when bobby made that save i knew we'd win the cup#because thats exactly what we were all thinking#and im glad ekky mentions the destiny of it all#not me making fun of the “destiny” narrative the rangers had all playoffs but immediately going DESTINY on the bobby save#its only funny when me and my team do it#DESTINY DESTINY DESTINY
57 notes
·
View notes
Text
The thing about the commands from the gods is that actually, neither makes what I'd consider a threat of retaliation:
The Changebringer: "Do not turn from this road, for only shadow and solitude awaits behind."
The Dawnfather: "Forsake these gifts, ignore our charge, and be abandoned."
(CritRoleStats' livetweets have the full text for each, for those without Twitch to verify)
To me, this doesn't sound like "do what I want or I'll leave you"; it's "fight this existential threat or I will literally no longer be able to grant you powers or answer your questions, if indeed there's enough of a world left for you to have survived to realize this."
#critical role spoilers#critical role#honestly somehow both Imogen and Ashton - absolutely not religious at all - would agree with this! HAVE agreed even.#imogen's just being cranky for the reasons of jealousy described earlier#i have a lot of theories why the anti-god sentiment has been so fucking dumb and loud this campaign but like#besides the point
590 notes
·
View notes
Text
[ID: Two panels from Dungeon Meshi. The first scows Senshi clutching his face as tears start to spill out of his eyes, saying, "I've always... always wanted to have this soup one more time." He's not wearing his helmet in this panel, so his face is unusually visible, detailed and vulnerable. The second panel shows himself as a youngster, surrounded by his old mining team, all smiling at each other, one of them rubbing Senshi's head. Modern-day Senshi continues, "Thank you. All of you. Thank you." End ID.]
Holy shit. I anticipated some tragic backstory from the "I must feed the young ones" panels, but what I'd guessed was that Senshi might have become so devoted to cooking and eating literally whatever because he'd previously survived a famine and had seen children starve to death. I did not expect him to have been the child who was the sole survivor of a doomed travel party, one of whom was determined to feed Senshi first because he was the youngest, and that Senshi has lived with the fear of having inadvertently committed cannibalism by eating stew that he'd never quite known the contents of. I'm happy for him that Laios deduced and confirmed for him that it was griffin meat, that he was able to taste the meal that saved his life once more and remember the friends he lost. Seriously, I'm crying, and also earnestly relieved that while his backstory is pretty dark, it's not the type of fucked up I'd been preparing myself mentally for.
#Dungeon Meshi#Delicious in Dungeon#Dunmeshi#though it IS really worth exploring the ethics of cannibalism in survival situations#The podcast You're Wrong About has a really interesting pairing of episodes#in the Donner Party and Flight 571 Crash episodes#Both about disasters in which people wound up eating their dead to survive#and an interesting connection they drew was that it wasn't the cannibalism itself#that destroyed the lives of the Donner survivors#it was the horror and disgust and societal rejection they got for having eaten human flesh#even the children who had no idea what they were eating were treated with revulsion#and this is clearly the response Senshi feared facing if anybody knew what he'd eaten#But Flight 571 like a century later#the survivors were faced with a lot of understanding when rescued#relatively little condemnation and revulsion#by and large commentators acknowledged that they did what they had to do#and sympathized with how difficult and painful it must have been#which is what Senshi gets from his party#Laios wants to figure out the truth because he knows it's hurting Senshi not to know#But at one point Marcille straight up says that none of them would think less of Senshi if he did eat dwarf stew#Okay so this is Marcille 'ardent student of blood magic' Donato#but Chilchuck agrees#anyway I think that would be a particularly interesting conversation to have in a cooking manga#how do you safely eat a dead friend when that's all you have to survive on?#what are the nutritional benefits other than 'better than starving'?#what are the risks? There's prion diseases and all sorts you can get#they write it off as eating the dragon part but they DO spend seven days eating Falin at the end#ARE there any in/famous cannibalism cases in this world?#Do peopel argue about whether or not it's cannibalism if a dwarf eats a tallman?#enquiring minds (mine) want to know
139 notes
·
View notes