#and i think a lot of that comes from their skewed sense of purpose and what is right and wrong or even a bad upbringing etc

[hamletkin]

so far i have only heard one argument to this and that is: "if hamlet is 30, why isn't he constantly being badgered to get married?" i think the obvious answer to this is that everyone in the play has bigger concerns. the play takes place over a day, a week, a few months, a year, ect. depending on staging. during this time king hamlet dies, claudius and gertrude are married, and hamlet completely loses his sense of self and his purpose in his grief. there is nearly a war with norway and while fortinbras' uncle seemingly smooths that over, there are other concerns when it comes to running the kingdom. not only that, but hamlet then puts on his "antic disposition." it goes from gertrude and claudius telling hamlet to move past his grief to them being concerned (in highly differing manners) over his disposition. i don't think the story necessarily called for another plot about hamlet needing to get married and i think that the characters within the story are preoccupied with bigger things. it also stands to reason that claudius is considered to be in the prime of his life as king hamlet was as well. the need for an heir isn't as pressing when there is an heir apparent. and then, if gertrude is to be believed, she already assumed that one day hamlet would marry ophelia. there was no need to press for a marriage that already seems forthcoming.

now, let's look at it from a historical standpoint. while there is deviation between the centuries if you look back through the lines of succession (in england and denmark, though it is my personal belief that shakespeare might not have gone back through the genealogy or history outside of saxo grammaticus and thomas kyd's works) you will see a long list of people who did not marry until their mid 20s, late 20s, or even into their 30s. this was not as unheard of as we may think and while there were instances where 12-14 year olds (depending on sex) did marry, they were not common. admittedly, this was different for nobles and royals who often married for political power rather than for love but in many accounts there are royals and nobles who did marry from the ages of 26-35. it was not uncommon! we have a very skewed view of this fact in history thanks to modern media latching on to depictions of young women being forced to marry older men (in most cases! though i have seen it done the opposite way a few times!)

finally, i don't personally believe it was shakespeare's intention but that doesn't entirely rule it out but in the gesta danorum it's gertrude (gerutha), not king hamlet (horvendill) who is of royal descent. while the older hamlet is a strong and cunning warrior, in this legend he possessed little in the way of power that wasn't militarily driven. which is a lot, really! but he acquired his true power through his marriage to gertrude. in both stories i don't believe gertrude and hamlet married for love. i think there was love there in the beginning and after the birth of hamlet and i have many thoughts on that matter but then i'd be going on yet another tangent. anyway! while gertrude does care about appearances i think she truly did want what was best for hamlet. i think it's not above belief that she didn't press him on that matter because she didn't want him to endure the same fate that she did. i think she truly hoped that it was only a matter of time before hamlet asked for the king's blessing in his marriage to ophelia.

the fact that most arguments for a teen-early twenties hamlet seem to be deeply rooted in ageism, classism and a deep misunderstanding of the human brain and mental health isn't surprising to me but it is disappointing...

let me preface this by saying i see NO issue with a younger hamlet. whenever i write him i personally write him as being in his early twenties. but i think that's just as valid as an older hamlet.

one of the biggest arguments i see for casting a younger person to play hamlet is that hamlet was in school at wittenberg prior to the events of the play. 30 year olds, people say, do not attend university. this is a ridiculous argument. not only do people of all ages attend university, but some people cannot afford to go to university at 18. of course hamlet had enough money to attend but the argument surrounding this has never included money to my knowledge. the point being: it's a disturbing argument to state that people don't go to university past their early twenties because this does not account for people's socio-economic background, their health, life events, means of travel, ect. i am very fortunate to have been able to go to university (when i was 19) with federal student aid. even then it was cut off before i could finish my degree. i have not been mentally or economically well enough to return to school which, in the eyes of many i've seen posting about this topic, makes me something of a loser.

but what about in the context of hamlet? obviously hamlet had the money, ability, and will to go to school! how does this apply to him? for that you have to look at the historical context of the play. in the time the play was written and before (saxo grammaticus was born in the 1100s, shortly after universities were really starting to take shape) it was not at all unheard of for boys as young as 14 or 30+ to attend. especially since hamlet is assumed to have been studying liberal arts, for him to achieve this degree he would have attended wittenberg for 6 years at least. it was then up to his discretion if he would pursue a higher degree or continue studies mainly for the hell of it. he had the money, time, and passion in order to do so predating the visitation of the ghost, after all! it's highly possible that hamlet started university in his early to mid 20s and has now arrived at 30+. now, let's apply this to modern times! there are still some disgusting prejudices surrounding people 30+ who attend university but for the most part people don't seem to care as much as they did 10 years ago. they certainly would not have cared in shakespeare's time! ask yourself: why do you find it weird for someone 30+ to seek out higher education for any reason? if you do find it weird, you need to take a deep look inside of yourself and think about your narrow world view.

people say that those in their 30s do not act like hamlet. i don't know that the people saying this have ever met someone in their thirties. there is a common misconception where people seem to think that if you're 30+ you have your life figured out. you're emotionally, mentally, economically stable. this may have been a portrait offered by people in the 1950s but we're well beyond that point so you would think that this line of thinking would be completely out of date as well but i see it's not. i've seen hamlet's behaviour described as "charming, yet annoying if he's a teenager and unhinged if he's 'middle aged'". 30 is not middle aged but that's hardly the point! hamlet is (i say this as a hamlet apologist) kind of a dick! and (this is not in conjunction with because poor mental health does not equate with being a dick) whether or not he is mad he is clearly not mentally well! whether it be from depression, anxiety, ocd, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, all of the above ect. he is clearly not being treated for it as well. he is not medicated, does not receive any sort of therapy, and his emotions are mocked and belittled constantly. i have seen other people (who i agree with) say that hamlet acts like a child because he is treated like one and he allows himself to be treated like one thus taking on the role. i would like to go one step further and say that he is either a.) not as mature as previously thought b.) has been reduced to this state due to his grief, his mother's hasty marriage to his uncle, and the poor treatment he has received.

"what do you mean he's not as mature as previously thought?" have you ever met someone in their 30s? i have! i live with them! i work with them! i interact with them online and irl! and you know what? their personalities are just as varied as any teenager or younger adult i've met! you don't just automatically mature the moment you turn 30! you have to grow into it. and this will depend on multiple factors that affect each person differently! i have seen 30 year olds start petty drama, react outlandishly, and start arguments out of boredom. i've seen 30 year olds with a maturity and emotional intelligence that i can only long for. i have seen people far older than 30 have full meltdowns because of a baby girl wearing blue. just the other week a 50 year old man cursed out my colleague because we didn't have the deli meat he apparently needed for his prolonged existence. you cannot equate maturity with age. it is a learned skill. i think, in the case for a 30 year old hamlet, it's more likely that hamlet could not contend with his entire world being turned upside down and he reacted to it in a way that made sense to him when nothing else did.

i do also want to briefly touch on grief and what it can do to a person. it is something that has coloured my life since i was very young. i watched someone i deeply loved fall apart due to it. i saw them become someone else to the point that to this day i no longer recognise them for what they were. they were about 36-40 years of age. i can't do math. they were once a very fun, loving, caring, creative person. the death of their own father shattered this. they sank into a depression that entirely engulfed them and still does to this day 20 years later. they stopped going out, stopped making art, they started to abuse various substances, they started to abuse the people they loved, they lost all sense of patience, all sense of human decency, and they eventually got swept up into a cult built on hate. this is the tragedy of grief. it destroys you, your ideals, your mind, your relationships... it doesn't matter how old or young you are. hamlet's behaviour can easily and wholly be explained by his grief if you want to go that route. for me, there are several factors, but the case can be made that his grief is what transported him to this state where he eventually got so wrapped up in the game he had created that he perhaps did really start to lose himself.

what i'm really trying to get at is that....all interpretations of hamlet are valid. unless you believe in blond hamlet. shakespeare's intentions are not known to us and they never will be. i think there's room for everyone's hamlets in this game and i'd love to see people being more open to different ages for hamlet without making arguments that can harm real people. we all love the guy. we all have a hamlet that exists in our head. why do we need to disparage others to make our point be heard?

[shaylogic]

Queer Experience Watching Barbie - AFAB Masculinity

I started to go into this in tags on another post but I wanted to type this up separately and try to develop my thoughts a little more. . .

Ryan!Ken’s arc in Barbie (2023) has been buzzing in my head for days.

I got fixated on it for a couple of major reasons:

1) We rarely have seen a feminist movie take time to address men with compassion in how patriarchy harms them too.

2) As a trans masc person, I think it hits a specific part of my identity that I don’t consciously let myself think about for too long. Something about being raised in a female world with sisterhood and community. Then being isolated in adult manhood without the tools to prepare you for that. Conscientious of respecting women and being unbothered by feminimity around you, but not knowing your place in the world.

How do I put it?

I know it’s not the direct intention of the film itself, but I’ve seen other trans folks (especially transmasc), reacting similarly to the feeling we get from it.

Ken’s arc feels pretty reminicent of the struggle afab lgbt folks go through when considering masculinity in their identity (butch lesbians, afab nbs, trans men, etc.)

How to make peace with masculine aspects of yourself without losing the women in your life? (One can argue Kate McKinnon’s Weird Barbie has aspects of this as well.)

Of course, then Ken goes off on the adopting patriarchy ride, which IS the point of the movie, and may skew a bit from the transmasc read on it--though I have known a trans guy here and there who avoids being misgendered so hard that they can become somewhat sexist. To which I say: “You don’t need to have a dick to be a man, and you don’t need to BE a dick to be a man.” But I digress.

Something about Ken being comfortable in a woman’s world but not understanding why he’s being shut out from socially bonding with them (in any sense! Romantic, Familial, Platonic Friendship. . .)

The overall theme of the movie for both Barbie and Ken--in an allegory of heavy gender roles harming all--leading them each to have to figure out who they are in themselves, regardless of others. . . 

Trans masc folx can relate to both Barbie and Ken’s arcs.

I don’t want to detract from Barbie’s arc being the main point of the movie.

I think the reason why we get hung up on Ryan!Ken’s character is because. . . we’ve related to the Barbie plot in other movies and shows before, thinking back to our “girlhoods” as children.

I have never seen the arc Ken has in this in any other story!!!!

There are some Man Movies that have attempted to discuss the struggle of Being a Man--but they often come off as too dismissive of feminine experiences, and are therefore as offputting to transmasc people as women.

Because of the nature of the two worlds exhibited in this movie, and Ken’s backround in his setting, personality, and purpose in relation to the Barbies, he’s a Man living with Female Socialization, in a Woman’s World; he’s a male character that inherently admires and respects women in his nature (until the real world influence distorts it).

This isn’t a perfect example of a transmasc experience either, but it’s a lot closer than most of us generally get to see! That’s why so many of us are getting caught up in this.

Please, other trans folx (transfems, too!), I really need us to have a discussion about this. What were your experiences and thoughts around this movie?

P.S. Yeah, we kinda get that nonbinary allegory from Allan (not a Ken, not a Barbie, siding with Feminism in the Gender War), but he wasn’t in significant focus of the plot the way Ryan!Ken was. If I try to read into Allan, I don’t have much to work with.

[cozymochi]

What is your secret/tips when it comes to analyzing the art style and anatomy of TWST? 👀

Studying the rest of Toboso’s work as it was presented over time and how it evolved, identifying it, noting the patterns, breaking down how she came to the visual conclusions she did on top of what process is probably being taken in regards to twst, and putting that into practice when going off the beaten path to do my own thing with it.

I don’t know if that makes any sense. It’s just master studies. I’ve done it with Takahashi, Toriyama and a myriad of other artists I’ve liked. It’s kind of why my junk can kinda shift around when I feel like it. I have some gripes with that links wording, but it’s basically just that and not some grand secret. I only really came to a better understanding of how twst is constructed extremely recently when I got my physical hands on the first artbook. Then I realized how much I was overthinking. [shitty scans are my own]

You can even see the ghost lines and more of the uncertainties on where elements should go, and how they were ultimately changed.

Something about seeing the original card art completely broken down with notes and without all the bells snd whistles (and definitively from Toboso herself) kind of put into perspective how twst isn’t as complicated it seems to be when it’s cleaned up. It might be just me, but looking at a solely finished work can potentially skew someone’s perspective, especially if the only thing being noted is coloring- a completely seperate step altogether. Which I see a lot of, tbh. I’m not exempt no matter how deep in the rabbit hole I get.

But—

But, I probably shouldn’t be the one talking since I have like… [redacted] years of having a trained eye for that sort of thing.

I’m not too concerned about coloring ( again, separate step, and not even done by her), it’s the drawing part. That’s the actual meat and potatoes.

So, someone could see competent twst coloring mastered but the drawings themselves aren’t really following the general processes at play (from what I determine them to be), and folk will still call it the “twst style.” So, whenever anyone says that, even here, I’m not sure what others mean by that. What is this alleged “twst style?” (Disclaimer: Rhetorical)

Yeah it’s a combination of every element at once (as every style is), but as far as my learning goes- I define the quote “twst style” is just Yana Toboso’s general artwork (notably from the 2020s, but the rest are helpful). Even if there are other artists in D-6th that are contributing to twsts art, they’re all essentially trying to accomplish a unified look and that unified look is based off of hers. And it’s not always entirely clear which one is hers unless something is written to be so outright.

So, I don’t find looking at just twisted wonderland itself all that beneficial, low key. I’ll look over Black Butler (as it’s her main showcase), her miscellaneous fanart, her disney fanart, whatever happens to cross my path that I think would be informative for my purposes. Again, I’m not looking at every possible thing ever, obviously, just what I think would be informative.

I’m not sure how often anyone thinks about that. Especially since her visual process just carries over nearly 1:1, even if her point of reference and intent on designing something has changed.

It’s like how Snake from Black Butler and Silver look pretty similar. No, it’s not from being “lazy” which- side note I hate those bad faith reads, total peeve.

Designing Snake and designing Silver came from two completely separate and unrelated intentions nearly a decade apart from each other. It just happens there are tropes that she clearly likes as an artist when designing characters. I’m more inclined to believe based on what I’ve read and practiced that it’s just a case of that, nothing more.

Which makes me reflect on a lot of my own repeated visual tropes. Such as how a lot of my female character designs always end up having some form of short curly hair, meanwhile the male characters keep having long hair 😩 God knows the wavy asymmetrical swoop bang rearing it’s head. It’s not intentional, but it keeps happening anyway.

That’s the kinda joint I’m talking about with master studies. Again, not just looking at something and only trying to mimic it, it does go into trying to break down the process even at the most fundamental level.

All this reminds me of this conversation I overheard in college while I was stuck doing printmaking work— some person said they, really wanted to draw like the guy who made Naruto since they liked his artstyle. Only for some other guy to cut in like “No, you shouldn’t do that! That’s not original :/ you should figure out your own original style first” or something to that end. I partially wish I butt in to that conversation. I didn’t much like how quick that guy shut that person down either.

Because… That’s… that’s not even remotely how that works? How can a person even find their own style/voice/whatever without studying the work of someone that came before them? If they wanna draw like that mangaka, then let them learn via that avenue. You can’t work backwards starting from nowhere. I even learned that in character design.

This person would have learned a lot more about how the process works and what works for them in their attempts to understand his style. They’d find their own organically after that. It’d also be more fun for them in the moment since they’re focusing on something they like. Then when it comes time to learn the boring (but important) stuff like fundamentals, they’d be able to articulate themselves more and identify what they’re doing. (Don’t knock art history and bring stuck breaking down meaning in seemingly “useless” stuff.)

But I’m starting to digress on the common “ugh im not original and unique enough if im not immediately doing my own thing from scratch” thing I saw/ overheard too much during my years at that campus. (It also led to me seeing zero progression from beginning to end from those peers)

As for the whole twst art thing, I can’t really tell you what conclusions to draw should any of this be put into practice. That’s not up to me to say.

I really can’t tell somebody how to draw anything. I don’t believe that one way exists. I’m just kinda… doing what my understanding of it is.

I’m of the mindset that if you can sufficiently understand at least one art style, you can pretty much do anything else you want.

Take that with what you will.

[maxwell-grant]

What do you think of Vega/Balrog/Claw and where do you think his story should go if they brought him back for SF6?

Vega is a perfect fighting game villain because he is as frustrating to challenge as he is satisfying to defeat, and I do think he's a lot more compelling as an antagonistic force towards the likes of Chun-Li or Ken or Cammy than he is as a character unto himself. There's some reasons why the fights with Vega, in the animated movie or in II V or in the Udon comic, tend to be seen as the high points of Street Fighter adaptations.

Largely because as an antagonist to them, he is uniquely vicious and horrifying and murderous to an extent no other SF character is, he escalates any situation into a fight for survival just by walking into the room, while still occasionally allowing strange moments of poignancy due to his skewed honor and priorities, at least when Cammy is involved, and also being by design extremely satisfying to beat and watch get beaten. He is not just a punchable goon and smug champion like Balrog, he is also a creep and a serial killer, and an extremely privileged one at that, which makes beating and humiliating him a moral imperative on top of everything else. That, along with the fact that he's blatantly cheating with that claw and protecting his face with a mask, not just because he is desperate to preserve his good looks but because he doesn't even want to touch you as he kills you, is part of what makes him arguably the most punchable character in the series, or at least, the best designed for that purpose. That is, of course, if the player can catch him, which his whole playstyle is designed to avoid. Vega can and will fly circles around you as he wears you down, and like any nobleman, he will attack you from distances and positions you can't strike him back from, and it will wear on your patience, making it all the more satisfying if you do catch and smash him, which is still a big If.

And as a character onto himself, he's someone who's pretty much got his life figured out and as a result only truly wants what he can't have. He is a nobleman who's been gifted with wealth, power, skill, charm, intellect, beauty, and everything he could possibly desire, including the ability to kill people with impunity on a regular basis. He is a guy who lives his perfect life, but who still takes it upon himself to put on a mask and go out at night and viciously murder people he deems ugly, not just because their existence makes his world less perfect for it, but because championing the superiority of beauty by subjugating the ugly is the only form of meaning Vega can find in life. He lives reveling in his own futility and only comes alive when faced with a challenge he can take pleasure in vanquishing, which is right around the time when he either loses and vanishes to preserve his pride, or gets his face smashed or even just touched and flies into a searing rage, because of course deep down he will not accept being bested on the only battlefield that matters to him. He is a disgusting and violent hypocrite who has little need for nuance, and so far being this has worked out pretty great for him.

But he isn't just a violent horrible sadist, there is a specificity to him that makes him scarier than if he was just that. He's an intelligent, cultured and traveled man who has an extremely strong sense of justice guided by his thinking in extremely binary good-evil terms, it's just that he's traded his moral core with his aesthetic judgement. He's replaced the concept of good and evil with beauty and ugliness, which is not even that far off from the way the upper class treats those to begin with. He throws parties for the wealthiest and most powerful of society, but he resents the attendants, because he finds worship of money and power to be ugly. He throws his lot with Shadaloo because they enable his tendencies and afford to let him keep living his lifestyle, but he resents everyone he works with inside of it because they are ugly and crude (and he's frequently paired with Balrog, a guy who embodies everything he hates). He fights to save the Dolls and saves Cammy's life, but he is disgusted by the existence of the Dolls not because of the, everything involving their creation, but because he thinks it's a waste of beauty and is offended at the idea of turning those he deems beautiful into puppets. It is in fact pretty funny that he's appalled at Bison for what almost consist moral grievances but really are just aesthetic ones, while Bison himself, a guy who is literally made of evil, has frequently expressed annoyance and even a little bit of disgust at Vega's obsession, in a "I kill people too, you don't see me being such a weirdo about it" way.

And something I find interesting about Vega, and part of why I do think they miss the mark sometimes in making him a tad too much of a sadist or pervert (like his win quotes in V about bathing in blood, when the whole reason for the claw and mask used to be that he dislikes blood and touching the opponent directly) is that he isn't a vile murderous bastard just because, or just because of the trauma regarding his mother's murder, but because he is a nobleman who was raised to see the world the way a nobleman does. They've gone back and forth over the years on whether his mom's murder was at the hands of his birth father or stepfather, but a detail that tends to be glossed over is the fact that Vega gets his entire moral outlook from her and his environment:

He gains his looks and personality from his mother, with the addition of corrupted feelings planted in the back of his mind during his upbringing. Vega lost sight to the meaning of life at a tender age and started to cling to his mother's beauty, which grew into strong extremism. Those who were not deemed beautiful were not of value, and only the beautiful were worthy of survival. This is why in order to prove his strength Vega enters the arena as a prerequisite of beauty. - SF2 profile

He was born the only child of a beautiful noblewoman from a fallen house, and an ugly but wealthy man. His twisted thoughts, obsessions and value system regarding beauty were all handed down to him by his mother. Her twisted thoughts went unrewarded, as she was murdered by her own husband. Vega was profoundly affected by this, and this trauma is said to be the reason Vega insists on maiming his opponents. - 30th Anniversary Collection

He is a guy driven by the same standards of self-improvement and excellence through combat that drive most of the other characters, except in his case, he believes that beauty is the truest form of strength, that it is the only thing that matters, that the order of the world dictates that beautiful people must never lose, and the worst thing that ever happened to him was a triumph of uglyness so world-shattering that every imperfect-looking person in the world must pay for it. Like a ninja, he is true to his code, offering second chances to fighters he deems beautiful (if only so he may savor the honor of beautifully killing them at the right time), and he is true to his high society upbringing, in that he lives to uphold and enforce a disgusting prejudiced worldview that just so conveniently puts himself at the top of everyone else, a worldview he lubricates with the blood of his opponents and a worldview that crumbles as soon as the mask comes off. He is profoundly disgusting in a way that does a lot to reinforce how evil Shadaloo is for not just enabling him but directing him, and he remains the absolute worst person inside of it no matter how much he may think of himself as above Shadaloo.

And as for him in SF6? I could honestly do without seeing any major Shadaloo players show up for 6, or even much of any of the old characters period. I wouldn't be upset if he returned, given the wonderful job they've done so far on all the returning characters and new ones, I'm sure there would be room for them to do something interesting involving him and the Neo Shadaloo goobers trying to get away from the evil past of Shadaloo that Vega embodied, but I kinda don't want to see him again unless it's to see Chun-Li throw a couch at him again or lightning kick his face through a wall and off of a building, which is not just a high point of the series, but the most beautiful thing that ever involved Vega.

[000marie198]

I think I figured out why post series Atla comics are so... Off

There are some things in the comics which are great! But most of the stories felt wrong somehow, the characters too. And they made me angry at so many points, they were exhausting to read with some arcs.

I couldn't understand why such a great show had followups which just, didn't make sense.

I think I understand now though. I watched Atla for the first time a couple of months ago I think, with my brother. I loved it. I learned through fics that the comics aren't worth the read and most of the fans don't like several aspects of them. Still curious I read them anyway, not saying I regret it because I loved a small few things in them but also hated some other things.

Anyways, the other day I talked with my brother about how Atla show handles topics and themes that most media tends to be extremely cautious with and often keeps away. Topics like genocide, colonialism, abuse, war, death etc. Entertainment industry doesn't tend to touch such topics, especially the first two and when it does, it is choke full of propaganda.

Atla show... Didn't have that propaganda. It showed the depth and realities of a world at war while keeping it from becoming too disturbing but it did manage to convey the messages. (Though yes there was one, and only one, part of the show that pissed me off, I guess some propaganda was sneaked in anyway and from what I've seen in several fics, it worked on a lot of people too, the Si Wong Desert arc, so much anti-arab racism is there, I despise the desert episode with a passion). But almost every other thing didn't include the type of propaganda that tends to be present in most media that tries to handle serious themes. It showed the consequences of war, the darkness hidden in those you agree with and goodness present in a people you hate, still not negating the wrongs of wrongdoers and affirming that doing something horrible on purpose to innocents is wrong even if you suffered too. Zuko's redemption was very careful with that. Whenever he did something wrong, he suffered consequences for it, hefty ones. He wasn't exempt from it and his redemption arc encompassed the entire series from the very first episode and didn't just happen in one season. But that aside, what I'm trying to say is, the series managed really well with serious themes and intense issues without having it affected by propaganda or encouraging the one sided, self centered agendas of those behind the creation.

And then, the show is completed. A follow up is made in the form of comics.

And suddenly, half the themes and stuff learned and seen throughout the series has been skewed, there is politics, 80 percent of the characters are weirdly ooc, as if what they're doing or saying is coming from a different person altogether who is forcing it to not be discovered, like imposters, the stories are strange and don't even get me started on the pro-colonialism propaganda.

Atla show was a story full of inspiration from the lives of actual people, addressing actual issues and displaying beautiful growth in its characters and revealing intense problems which are shoved under the rug. Trust me when I say that a lot and seriously a LOT of media has propaganda in it, I catch it easier because the propaganda is often encouraging agendas of where the media originates and I don't live there. Atla show, however, was unlike those other media, it stayed clear of agendas when showing such serious themes.

But the point still stands that there could've been some things in it, as is in most media. I believe that since there wasn't, it was forced upon the fans through the followup.

Suddenly, they tried to feed fans their agendas which wasn't done in the show. Suddenly, you gotta hide that these problems have been real for some people in the world, suddenly you hide the culprit or make it so these things don't change minds. Suddenly, you need to keep it under wraps that a great show made under your nose showed the exact same evils you have done. So now you're trying to very carefully steer the massive audience to an opinion that colonialism isn't evil, that holding on to a lost culture is frustrating, put it away leave it, that getting your land invaded and stripped of it's sources through business and veils of advancement is a good thing (hello?! East India Company inspired post series Northern Water Tribe, hello turning those against the idea into a villain). And for changing all these major major issues and themes that were sewn deep within the series' story and how it affected and built the characters, you now have to carefully create everything around it. You have to try to make your character of choice do things that are against the original messages of the show and then make an entire story around it and change the behaviors of everyone else so doing that thing doesn't make your selected characters look bad.

And now, everything is a mess because nobody is acting like themselves and everyone has forgotten half the things that occurred in the show.

I'm not saying that all the things in comics were pro agenda and propaganda, many things weren't but most were. Those which weren't written with a basis on all the changed messages they wanted to send were actually pretty great. But otherwise, you get the idea.

TLDR: ATLA comics feel off and makes so many characters OOC because they tried to convey a completely different and often opposite message to the show's themes and stories, they tried to uplift the agendas and propaganda that are usually present in most other media handling such serious issues but which Atla show hadn't done because it stayed true to the story and its characters. Comics tried to build the characters around those updated 'themes' and messages, and it made them all wrong and made most of the beloved characters badly OOC.

[troutfur]

New book binge complete! I'll spare you the thousands screenshots of Tigerclaw I took to share on the live-reading channel of my friend group Discord server and get straight to the review here:

I think the graphic novel was a fantastic adaptation. The graphic novel medium conveyed much better than Erin Hunter's prose all those little details of cat mannerisms and expressions that I think really aided in conveying the story so much better. It really helps that the artists are clearly incredibly well-versed in the visual language of comics and are masterful in packing as much information as possible in every panel.

It also helped a lot to give it all a sense of geography and environment which, admittedly, is more of a me problem because I have a lot of trouble parsing out environmental descriptions from text. I really liked that one panel showing a bird's-eye view of ThunderClan camp and the full page spread that served as a dual purpose ThunderClan territory map and as a way to montage through Firepaw's tour of the territory. They're my absolute favorite panels.

The book skews heavily towards Into the Wild over Fire and Ice. About 70% of the book is Into the Wild. I personally feel it's completely fine to truncate Fire and Ice like that because it's a forgettable book TBH. The Prophecies Begin doesn't get good until Forest of Secrets anyway. But the artists did say here on Tumblr that they have plans to add the cut content back in for the second graphic novel, so that's something to look out for.

There's also the little signs this adaptation may be being approached more as a reboot/alternate continuity. Most significantly is how Swiftpaw and Lynxkit seem to have been turned into Frostfur's kits in place of Brightheart and Thornclaw. Presumably this is a way to clean up the family tree and it leaves me intrigued as to what happens to those two in future.

Also there's a scene that's apparently an addition but I don't remember TPB well enough to really tell: Sandpaw apologizing to Fireheart for her bullying of him. I only know this is presumably an addition because of a friend who mentioned it being one of the changes they always want to see in fanworks in order to sell the FireSand relationship better. Once again, encouraging sign that if this moves forward this may result in more significant rewrites later on.

Also, although it's only a few panels, the early introduction of Princess alongside Smudge and the shuffling of her further appearances into the Into the Wild section are also very welcome changes. It really helps sell these two as having a close sibling bond and it will really help sell Cloudkit's hand-off once we get to that part. I think Princess's part in this whole plot is part of what was cut in Fire and Ice, but I think we will for sure revisit it considering Cloudkit is coming and with what we already got in the TPB section it makes up for it.

Overall, I really liked it! Glowing recommendation from me.

[sokkastyles]

I saw this post and some reblogs of it, and I wanted to know what you thought.

This is the post.

And these are the reblogs.

This reminds me of people who try to argue that enemies to lovers is abuse by ignoring the difference between opponents fighting on a battlefield in a fantasy setting and someone hitting on their spouse. The latter involves a power dynamic that is not present in the former. The difference between Zuko fighting Azula to end the war (and Aang fighting Ozai to end the war), and Ozai manipulating Zuko inro a fight he could not win for the purpose of terrorizing, publicly humiliating, and mutilating him should be obvious. Zuko's age is emphasized because Ozai is his father and because Ozai used that relationship and the power he had because of it against his son. He deliberately let his son believe he would be fighting someone else, and used Zuko's loyalty to him against him while his son was surrendering. It's not just Zuko's age that is important here, although his age informs the other things about it.

Azula was a child at fourteen during her agni kai with Zuko, but so was Zuko at sixteen, just two years older, and age has never given Zuko power over Azula anyway. Zuko also faces Azula openly in battle and even agrees to the terms she sets to even the playing field. She also is the antagonist in rhe situation

If there's a parallel to be made, it's that Azula becomes the same crying child on the ground after she is defeated, but only after she realizes she can't win, not out of love or loyalty to a family member. This was a fight she wanted and was eager for, and literally says was "meant to be."

Comparing that to Zuko's father deliberately harming a child under his power who has already surrendered shows a gross lack of understanding of the context. OP says they aren't belittling the awfulness of what Ozai did, but they absolutely %100 are and their argument is so ugly and tone deaf I don'/ even know what to say.

I've also talked about the ridiculousness of the argument that Iroh must have imagined Azula in the flashback because it just makes no sense as an argument, narratively. If Iroh were biased against Azula, that would have to be shown or revisited somehow. Otherwise there is no reason to question that it didn't happen exactly the way we are shown.

Also, the claims that Azula would not look like that at 11 seem shaky to me and also rest on claims about how adolescent girls look at that age that are just not true. Girls, especially, certainly can and do change a lot in the tween years, often moreso than boys, who tend to have their growthspurts a little later.

Which actually does fit with what we are shown of their character designs. Let's look at the sceeenshots.

Here is Azula at 8(ish), her child design remaining pretty consistently the same on the show:

And here she is at 11 in Iroh's flashback:

Btw I feel it necessary to mention that the picture with the child design is from Zuko's flashback, so if we're going by the argument that Iroh is imagining Azula looking more mature because he's biased, and we're also arguing that Zuko is biased against Azula, how come that bias doesn't seem to show in his flashback, huh? You would think that Zuko would picture Azula looking even more mature, since she was closer to his own age and more of a peer (whom the power dynamic was skewed in favor of). But, again, there's no reason to think that these flashbacks are biased. They are not framed as imperfect memories and the show never gives us a reason to question that they didn't happen exactly as they are shown. And trying to read them that way is actively misreading what we're shown.

If you're going to assume bias where none is shown, what is stopping you from questioning literally everything the narrative establishes? But if you do that, you're breaking the contract of the narrative. Fictional stories require that unspoken contract, that necessary buy in, otherwise there is no story. There has to be some baseline established, otherwise it's just the show presenting things and the audience going "nuh-uh!" A bias has to be established to give the audience a reason to question the narrative contract. That's why in stories with unreliable narrators or stories that play with or otherwise deconstruct the narrative contract, there are techniques used to establish that we're supposed to question things. None of those are present here.

There is an obvious difference between Azula's design in the second flashback compared to the first. She looks more like the Azula we see in the present timeline in the show.

But does she look the same?

Here's Azula at fourteen. Yes, if you compare it to the picture from Iroh's flashback, they look closer to each other than Azula's child design, but they do not, in fact, look the same. In Iroh's flashback she's wearing the makeup she is almost never seen without in the present timeline, and that's the biggest difference. But that's not unusual for a child entering their tween years to be experimenting with make up. Azula at 11 is wearing makeup, but her lipstick appears to be lighter, more girlish shade. She might be wearing eyeliner, which would explain why her eyes look narrower than her child design, but that also is just the natural progression of depicting a character's age in animation. Notice that Azula in the present timeline has even smaller eyes, darker lipstick, and a more defined face shape than in Zuiko's agni kai, where she still has a somewhat rounded baby face.

I've also argued before that it makes sense for the character for Azula to wear makeup. 11-14 is young to wear makeup but not uncommon, and for Azula, it makes sense that a character obsessed with appearance of perfection would wear it. It also makes sense for Zuko's agni kai to be the time when this transition happens in Azula, after her mother leaves and her father gains complete control over his children's lives, and Azula realizes even more that she needs to maintain that mask of perfection. I've also talked before about how Azula at fourteen seems very familiar with war meeting whereas Zuko at thirteen had to argue his way into one. This is unusual, it is a sign that something is not right, but we already know this. We know how Ozai is treating his kids. We know how he puts pressure on Azula to be his golden child, we know that he actively sabotages Zuko so he can fulfill his role as the scapegoat. Something is absolutely rotten in Denmark, but it's not narrative bias. Pay attention to the story actually being told.

I also want to compare Azula's character designs in the show to Zuko's as a child and an older teen. Let's look at Zuko's design from "Zuko Alone," where he is roughly 10ish when Azula is 8ish.

One of the reblogs made the argument that Zuko looks the same when he's ten vs when he's thirteen. Let's take a look.

Pretty similar, although I would argue there are differences. He's a little taller, his face is less round and babyish in the second picture. (He's also got a cute little forelock, hi!)

But yeah, he still has his "child" design for the most part. He hasn't yet bridged the gap to his present timeline appearance.

However, in season three we get a flashback to Zuko at the same age, thirteen, but shortly after his banishment, and he looks like this:

Here, his character design is similar to his familiar character design from the beginning of book one. It's a pretty stark change, but just like with Azula at the agni kai, this character design is meant to tell us something about the character and the changes he has gone through. Azula may go through those changes earlier because girls do tend to have their growth spurts earlier than boys, but if you actually look at the timeline, both Zuko and Azula changed at roughly the same time, surrounding the singular event of Zuko's banishment. But like with Azula, we could also go back even before that. An interesting detail is that Zuko after Ursa's banishment (as seen in "The Storm,") is wearing the more militaristic uniform that is part of his book one design, the high collar and armored shoulder pads as opposed to the looser clothing he wears in childhood (which is actually similar to what redeemed Zuko wears). This, like Azula's makeup, is reflective of the loss of vulnerability, of innocence, the need for armor, for protection. It makes them look more mature but also highlights how they're not, and are traumatized children desperately trying to protect themselves.

Btw, anyone who thinks makeup can't change your appearance that much clearly doesn't know very much about makeup.

Also, stop calling child heroes in fantasy shows child soldiers, I am begging you. It's not just the age difference between Ozai and Zuko that makes what he did abuse, there's also a purposeful abuse of a power dynamic that is absent from your standard child-hero of an adventure series fighting the evil adults. Even taking into account Aang's trauma over being the chosen one or Jet and his group of orphans, it's not the same thing as real children being forced to be child soldiers, and will never be. These children, as action heroes in a fantasy series meant for children, have more power and agency than even most adults in the real world will ever have, and even as interested as ATLA is in exploring trauma, it will never be able to address the real trauma and horror of child soldiers, and wasn't meant to.

[birb--birb]

The Chariot and Death

OOOHH Death was a hard one, since Savrin puts on this air of confidence a lot of the time. It really made me think what is the thing weighing Savrin down? Answering these asks made me understand why I made certain character choices for him in game:)

Death: What part of Rook do they need to kill to become the best version of themselves?

Theres a big lack of self worth in Savrin when it comes to interpersonal relationships. He knows he doesn't have to prove himself to people but by god will he go out of his way (sometimes to dangerous lengths) to show that he's useful to you. He doesn't think people should spend time on him, doesn't think hes worth much more than a passing glance or a quick fling. He knows hes good at making plans and contingencies, good at completing intricate tasks, but theres always a little sense of "am I really the right person to lead this?" He knows his ideas are good, but why should people listen to him? It was really hard the first few days of leading the Veilguard, but he knew Varric wasn't in any shape to do it so he convinced himself that if he fakes it hard enough, it'll eventually become easier. And it did, some of it was him gaining confidence in himself, but it was also easier knowing he isn't doing this alone once he allowed himself to lean on his companions for help. I think he was able to face some of these struggles throughout the game, Varric's encouragement defs helped ease the anxieties. The revelation in the Fade Prision hurt.... a LOT... but it also gave Savrin the final push of confidence that he is worth it, worth listening to, worth connecting with, worth trusting, worth loving.

The Chariot: How does Rook fight? What are their preferred abilities and damage type?

Savrin is a classic spellblade, orb and dagger are just so snappy and fun to play! He tends towards lightning for most enemies, knows some fire spells for darkspawn, and has a few ice spells for crowd control purposes (thanks Neve💕). His fave focus is the Mage's Gambit, which is perfect for him since it alternates fire/lightning on final attacks (and mechanically I focused on arcane bomb proccs and the ability that lets you throw your dagger twice at the end of your string of 4 attacks so I can swap types right at the end of my combo). He also enjoys it bc when his hand and wrist are in pain from an old injury, the warmth of the fire orb helps soothe the flair up.

Being trained with knives as a Crow, Savrin likes being right up close and personal to his target, so lots of dash attacks and dodges. The Void Blade spell is a gorgeous combo of gap closer and magic-infused critically striking knife attack, Chain Lightning is a classic, and Frost Nova is the perfect "oh fuck I'm surrounded PANIK" ability. He doesn't have a preference for ultimate, I usually keep the firebeam one just bc lots of enemies are weak to fire and his kit skews heavily towards lightning dmg.

[6-2-aestheticsofhate]

Do you ever think about how V1 is one of the machines with the least amount of personality shown in game to the point that people will say it canonically doesn't feel any emotion or that it doesn't care for people. While I think part of it is people seeing what little bits of personality we get from them (calling a random skeleton they found Hank and coming up with a made up family connection between them and the skeleton on Ferryman's ship) as non-canonical because it doesn't fit their views of V1 I also honestly think another part of it is that MOST machines don't show a lot of personality outside their terminal data entries (which V1 doesn't have) or their boss fight intros (which V1 also doesn't have). You can see V2 being polite and bowing before fight V1 and you can read about its purpose and how it differs from V1 in its terminal entry, but V1 gets none of that because V1 is the player character.

They're also constantly fighting other machines and husks and demons all in an effort to not die from lack of fuel or simply being killed by others. That doesn't leave a lot of time for a personality to develop, especially when you consider V1 was only activated right as the game started. It had no time to be around humans, it had no time to exist and be itself and develop a personality like V2 or the others did. It was immediately thrust into Hell and told to kill.

Just like how some people have a skewed version of Gabriel in their head that is solely a whiny pathetic mess when the only reason he acts like that in canon is because he was defeated for the first time ever (by someone who is so beneath him power wise that Hakita compared it to being beaten by an ant) which resulted in him essentially being sentenced to death by the council. That is not Gabriel's default state, its him after having suffered immense pain and suffering and burdened with the knowledge he is going to die if he doesn't kill V1. We've also never seen V1 in a normal, stable environment. We've only seen V1 struggling for resources and a ticking clock counting down to their demise.

A lot of people see also V1 as not caring about either Gabriel or any of the people around them, but I think considering the circumstances it cares a surprising amount. While it does decide some the text in books is irrelevant and tosses them aside it still picks them up and reads them, all while its slowly getting closer to death every moment its not out fighting. They allow their enemies (Gabriel, Minos, Sisyphus) to talk and explain things before fighting them. It may not speak or react to many things but like Swordsmachines terminal data says most machines got rid of their ability to vocalize to better conserve resources. I think the fact they're wasting precious time and resources on hearing people out or reading about their stories does show an innate sense of curiosity for the place they found themselves in.

[kinosternon]

I agree with this argument overall but I think it might be leaving out any discussion of reasons alongside misogyny that fic-lovers might prefer focusing on men. For me, one big one is the (overall lack of) emotional availability of men IRL in our modern society.

I'm certainly biased in that, while I do read and enjoy female characters, both in original and fanfiction (when I can get it), I tend to gravitate towards (queer) men in fanfiction. Surface-level explanations for this include:

I'm biased. (Very fair! We live in a misogynistic society. I'm definitely not immune to it.)

I'm a trans man. I want to read about guys because I am one. (Also true and fair! Though I'm equally happy reading about a woman's perspective on a guy. I do on occasion read romance novels and m/f fic for this reason.)

So far so good, and it's possible that the rest of this post is projection.

But I think some of my reasons for preferring male-focused fic might be true of fic readers and writers more broadly, and well beyond the "most women are straight so they write about men" thing. (Which I find dubious to begin with. For one thing, aren't fic-reading demographics skewing queerer and queerer as the years go on? That's just an impression I get, not backed by hard data, but while I still believe that "fic as a community doesn't have very many cis men in it" is a straightforwardly believable assertion, I'd be hesitant to say that it has a majority of "straight" anything. But anyway.)

Whatever your (broad "you," not OP specifically) gender or sexuality, I'm interested in your answers to these questions, both for yourself and for what answers you would imagine as "typical" for your fan community:

Do you have many close friends and loved ones?

How many of those people are (for the purpose of this argument, cis) men?

For how many of the folks in #1 can you say that you have established a sense of trust and/or vulnerability that allows you to discuss their inner emotional lives?

Assuming both groups are extant, how do your relationships with men (number of people and depth) compare to relationships with folks who aren't?

(My answers, by the way, are: Yes, a few, thankfully many, and…well, it doesn't even compare. Collectively, it's an ocean versus a puddle, or perhaps a thimble.)

One of the main reasons I read fic is to access a sense of emotional closeness to men that I can't get enough of in my daily life, because I have trouble forming bonds with men in the first place—and even when I do, they're usually not intimate enough to allow for much insight into their inner thoughts, feelings, or lives. A lot of societal pressure (including, sadly, some aspects of feminism as well) encouraged me to fear a similar closeness with real men, even as it's discouraged men from opening up to anyone at all.

Meanwhile, I'm fortunate enough to have a lot of women and non-binary friends. If I want to have access to the thoughts and feelings (or, let's be real, sometimes there's a desire to hear about drama too) from a woman/nb person, I have actual people I can go talk to! No, that's not a replacement for fiction, but for me as an individual it's usually a preferable alternative. Many humans are wired to value in-person (and also, in this case, real) relationships over online ones. Moreover, I may have the chance to do actual good for a real, live person, if I choose to talk to them: advice, comfort, a listening ear, my time, space, money, whatever. It's wins all around...except, unfortunately, when it comes to representation.

Also, if we start from the assumption that a similar imbalance in emotional intimacy exists for a lot of the fic-loving community, I want to point out that there are possible knock-on effects in terms of standards:

Is it any wonder that we read female characters as flat, boring, or just off somehow, when we know so many more IRL women in greater depth than we do men? Especially since those women's inner lives are generally so much more complex and nuanced (not to mention cooler) than what many writers come up with?

Is it any wonder that we look at the male characters who are given any inner life whatsoever, and want to take them and run with them? (Or in the cases where we aren't given anything, is it so surprising that we might enjoy the license to go wild imagining our own?)

Like I said above, I don't disagree that most of these discrepancies are ultimately rooted in misogyny. If I'm right about these reasons, they're closer to compounding factors. We're primed to care less about female characters; writers are too, and spend less screen time and effort on them; and then even for those of us who want to read/write more women, it's easier for many of us to see where in-depth deptictions of fictional women fall short than fictional men. There's also not enough widely-known and lauded examples for original fiction writers to emulate or fic-writers to be inspired to build on. Simultaneously, patriarchy doesn't just mean that we're primed to value depictions of men over women; it also causes the limitations in our own lives and relationships that leave us hungry for portrayals of men that have a full emotional range and demonstrate (at least narrated) vulnerability!

I think that it can often be helpful to go looking for what else might be going on alongside (or above, or below, or mixed with) straightforward misogyny. That's no reason to hold on to factually incorrect excuses, or to excuse misogyny in general, but I do think it's a reason to keep looking for potentially legitimate additional factors, because:

Compared to the "people just hate women" answer, some causes are significantly easier to problem-solve about.

Thinking that it all stems from hatred alone can be more discouraging than helpful, and sometimes downright polarizing.

Do many people tend to avoid/ignore female characters because cultural misogyny leads to weird double-standards about women's characterization? Almost certainly, yeah. But might it also be because the literary tradition of writing women is widely underdeveloped? Because people can more easily develop emotional intimacy with IRL women than IRL men, and are seeking to fulfill their desires for the latter? Because many people have greater familiarity with women's inner lives, which would naturally lead to higher standards?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a slightly different mix of these and other reasons for everyone, and I think that offering a menu of reasons could be helpful in some discussions, especially those with folks who might otherwise feel defensive about this topic.

every year the ao3 stats come out and every year people insist that the lack of women isn’t misogyny but because ‘most fic writers are female and therefore enjoy writing about men more’ and every year they don’t seem to understand that they themselves have just described a version of misogyny

[fostersffff]

My Favorite Games I Played In 2024

I wanted to put out a list of the games I played this past year (that didn't necessarily come out last year year) that I felt I positive on, and as a recommendation guide for anyone who thinks their tastes may line up with mine. I was originally intending to post this back in like... January, but you know how things are sometimes.

The Legend of Heroes: Trails from/to/of/into/through Zero/Azure/Cold Steel III & IV/Reverie/Daybreak

The first half of this year was dedicated to catching up on all of the Trails games I hadn't yet played- which was most of them- and I think it should be considered a testament to how much I like the Trails series that I was able to play six ~50+ JRPGs without getting burnt out (and frankly, developing a hankering for more). I also did not realize well after I had done so that 2024 is also the 20th anniversary of the series, so in hindsight it was a perfect year to do this.

To outside observers, I imagine the Trails series can be intimidating, which is fair, since people who are into it love talking about the fact that this is a franchise with a story that has been developing linearly since 2004. Thankfully, it's not actually that impenetrable: to date, the series can be broken up into four distinct story arcs, taking place in their own countries and separate casts of characters. As a result, the actual stories of the previous arcs are usually just broadly referred as Things That Happened. Similarly, when characters from previous arcs show up, they're usually presented with some fanfare, but not to the point of "you're going to be totally lost if you didn't play the previous games". Of course, if you have played the games, you get the benefit of getting extremely hyped when the characters you watched grow over the course of the games show up The Strongest Guys, and knowing that the Thing That Happened is a part of the backstory you got to see first hand.

Of course, if it was just a sense of continuity, the games would be better served as basically any other medium. Instead, Falcom has been constantly elaborating upon and experimenting with the battle system first introduced in Trails in the Sky, which was itself pretty solid. Combined with the fact that Falcom is maybe the most consistent company in the world about turning in Good Soundtracks

If you've never played a Trails game before and it sounds like something you'd like to check out, I would recommend picking the start of an arc (Trails in the Sky, Trails from Zero, Trails of Cold Steel, or Trails through Daybreak) and going in release order from there; the games are pretty good about keeping you informed of anything you may have missed in previous installments.

Arzette: The Jewel of Faramore

I was intrigued by this game when it was first revealed, because I wasn't sure if it would be able to sustain itself solely on The Bit of being an homage to the CD-I Zelda games. I was very pleased to find out it was, by knowing exactly how long The Bit could sustain itself and how much players would be willing to deal with for the sake of The Bit. This is accomplished by having gameplay that looks a lot like those games, but actually play competently, with the overall difficulty skewing really easy. However, considering everything about this is purpose build for The Bit (including the developer's name being "Seedy Eye" Software), that was definitely the right choice. It also has a surprisingly catchy soundtrack that's evocative 90's MIDIs, and I've found myself revisiting the Boss Theme pretty often. Oh, and of course, the Weirdly Animated Cutscenes, which were (save for a few where they were clearly rotoscoped, which in my opinion kinda defeats the whole purpose) pretty charming.

I came away from this kind of hoping that the sequel they teased is more of a real game, and they keep on The Bit just with those Weirdly Animated Cutscenes.

Slave Zero X

Slave Zero X was my first encounter with a game this year that just should not have been released on the Switch (my burden), so it speaks to how much I was enjoying it that I opted to buy it again on PS5 so I could actually play it.

This is- bizarrely- a beat 'em up with fighting game controls that is a prequel to a third-person shooter from 1999. You play as a vengeful gay shinobi who fuses with the Carnage symbiote, and go forth to juggle riot cops until they explode in a shower of bones and viscera like Mortal Kombat 2 characters. I got so into this that I went back to get the ludicrously frustrating achievement to beat the boss you're supposed to get effortlessly rinsed by.

I don't know if I can quite make a general recommendation for this, because it is a pretty challenging game that plays most like a 2D fighting game, but if any of the above description sounds like you're thing, absolutely give it a shot.

Pepper Grinder

I can't think of much to say about Pepper Grinder because I think I 100%'d it in really short order because I was having such a good time with it. It reminded me a bit of what I liked about Donkey Kong Country 3, which is that every stage had some weird new gimmick that wasn't reused in any other stage, and that it had the grace to wrap itself up once it realized it had done everything it could with its core mechanics. The core mechanic being "you have a drill to plow your way through environments at speed", so all of the gimmicks coming off that is real goddamn tight.

Crow Country

I have no real affinity for PS1-era Survival Horror games; despite my family owning a large number of the classics, including every Resident Evil game released until 4, I never played any of them because I was genuinely too scared. I have since gotten over my fears and really enjoyed the remakes of Resident Evil 1-3, but I had zero nostalgia for Fifth Gen Tank Control Survival Horror games. With that said: Crow Country is a damn good video game that doesn't seek to scare as much as impart a constant low-level sense of dread with a couple spikes here and there. I feel like it's also the harbinger of "indie devs now have the tools to make convincing PS1/N64 looking games", which isn't to say games with that aesthetic didn't exist before, just that it's easier (and trendy!) to do so.

Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess

I feel really inclined to call Kunitsu-Gami my personal game of 2024, because it earned the high honor of making me think "man, this is a PS2 game out of time". I imagine by this point the game has already been largely forgotten, what with a new Onimusha on the way, but I had such a good time with it that I'm almost certainly going to pick it up on the Switch 2. It's a very strange mixture of action and tower defense that, similar to Pepper Grinder, rotates through gimmicks to avoid ever feeling stagnant, and what it lacks in sheer variety it makes up for with good timing.

I sincerely hope Capcom makes more games like Kunitsu-Gami going forward, if not mechanically, than in the same spirit of "let's just fuck around and do some weird stuff". The industry doesn't have enough of that on the higher end of the development scale these days.

Astro Bot

Astro Bot has already received its flowers, winning Game of the Year at the Geoffies, but I do think it bears repeating that Astro Bot is a really wonderful game. Even if you strip away the pandering it does by stripping out all the references to classic PlayStation-affiliated games, it's a delightful 3D platformer that just feels great and taps into what visual fidelity in the Current Year should be: lots of little fuckin' things exploding all over the place at all times. It's not my absolute favorite type of platformer, in that there's no momentum or really any kind of advanced movement tech, but it is just solidly good and joyful throughout.

(Sonic X) Shadow Generations

Iterating off of the good feeling gameplay of Sonic Frontiers, Shadow Generations is the first time I've felt absolutely, completely enthralled by a Sonic the Hedgehog game since the release of Sonic Adventure 2: Battle for the GameCube. It's genuinely hard to wrangle with how good this is, because it's so obvious: you have a hub world that is set up very much like the islands in Sonic Frontiers to send you to levels from past Sonic games, and each level has a strictly 2D stage, and a strictly 3D stage. I guess the surprise is more than Sonic Team actually landed on it, which is a backhanded compliment to be sure, but if the next game outta them is firing at this quality again, but maybe a bit longer, it'll almost certainly be their best game ever.

Balatro

Balatro offers a terrifying insight into the minds of soulless corporate executives by letting you experience the dizzying highs of watching a number go up. What if you try this weird fucked up thing to make the number go up better even though you're already getting good, solid big numbers, but they're not big enough? Oops, that fucked up your ability to get big numbers, but it's ok, you can try again to make that number go the fuck up, there’s no punishment for failure. I managed to finally curb my time with it after completing a gold stake run, but it really gets its hooks into you if you're enchanted by numbers going up.

Rivals of Aether II

I've become a big proponent of the Aether series in the last few years after I gave the first game a fair shake after they introduced Elliana, the snake piloting a Tron Bonne-mech. Following their platform fighter, they've released a not-Triple Triad knock off, a turn-based roguelite, and in 2024, the sequel to their original platform fighter, now in 3D and with a bunch of new mechanics.

While it sucks that I don't (and likely won't) have access to Elliana for some time, new character Loxodont is exactly my shit (for the Smash minded, imagine Ike + King Dedede), which has kept me engaged for a few months now. Plus, I think Aether Studio deserves props for their roadmap: buy the game, and you get all substantial content updates, i.e. characters and stages, for free, and if you're so inclined you can spend money on cosmetics, many of which can be obtained in-game for free.

[literaturereviewhelp]

Looking back at the concepts learnt, I think skewness has had a great impact on me at a personal level. This concept challenges the notion I have previously as regards analysis of data in social research. In essence what I learnt here was that while analyzing data, we should be ready to look out for other issues that may be affecting the data we are studying, even though those issues may not be part of the study. Ensuring therefore that the data presents the expected distribution, in this case, normal distribution plays a key role in analyzing the same data. If not, then the methods of analysis chosen also come into sharp focus. Taking anything for granted will lead to wrong results with devastating consequences given that these results are relied upon for decision making.Thus, skewness as a concept is a very important part of analysis which both guides and complements other methods of social science research. In my view, this concept guides us on how we interpret results as it shows us that there is need exercise caution with our proclamations. Question 2For this data, the modes are House, Trailer and Apartment. This is because these three have the highest frequencies in the data set. The frequencies are 280, 34 and 21 respectively. As a result, when plotted on a graph, the data may produce a multi-modal shape. From these results, it can be said that the data is NOT normally distributed because of a skewness of 2.000. The mean (1.41) is greater than median (1) showing that the data is positively skewed. Question 3For the variable ARREST, the modes are 0, 1 and 2 with frequencies of 243, 23 and 10 respectively. Given that the total frequency is 343, it is clear from this observation that the data is not normally distributed. Hence, when plotted on a graph, a positive skewness will be evident. It is interesting to note that a huge chunk of data (frequency of 61) is missing and this also contributes to the level of skewness. Looking at the difference between Mean and Median (0.31), one gets the sense that the data is almost normally distributed. This does not augur well with the skewness of 12.692. Hence, the missing data can be said to be hiding quite a lot of information. Question 4We are concerned about distribution of data because there are certain statistical procedures that that do not work well with skewed data. Hence, for such procedures, the data needs to be transformed first so as to bring certain aspect of the data within acceptable tolerance levels. If transformations on the data do not achieve acceptable skewness and kurtosis, then the researcher may be forced to settle of procedures that are not susceptible to existing levels of non-normal curves.Question 5If the data is not normally distributed then there are issues that may come up. Of course the first one comes from the interpretation of the results. As noted earlier, any statistical procedures applied with an aim of interpreting the results will have to be thought through carefully, otherwise, we may end up with misleading results. It should not be lost on us that the purpose of such results is decision making. Besides, such data also calls on the researcher to further investigate the data and find out underlying factors that led to this problem. Ordinarily, it is expected that data out of a research process will present a normal distribution.   Read the full article

[deathblossomed]

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐎𝐎𝐊 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄 & 𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐇 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐒

@askrossiel : "I'll stay as long as you need. No rush."

FOR THE MOST PART, Botan enjoys her job. It's an important part of the cycle of life and she takes pride in it. Knowing that those who die won't have to go through the hardest transition they'll encounter alone gives her a sense of purpose. Death is natural, inevitable, but it can be scary. But it doesn't have to and that's her role.

That doesn't mean it's easy. There are times, especially now, where she feels shaken by the things she sees. Her objectivity is, admittedly, a little skewed now. Before, her only interactions were with other spirits, most of which were ferry girls just like her. But now she has plenty of mortal friends. She's even had to escort one of them, twice. So it makes it harder.

When she is having a rough time, Botan hates to be alone. The comfort of another beside her warms the cooling flow of her energy. And when it comes to comfort and stability, Rossiel is always a soothing balm.

She's kind enough to sit with Botan now, a soft presence, one Botan appreciates endlessly. She smiles at her, soft, eyes a little sad but she's warming.

"Thank you. Really, it means a lot. I'm sorry if I'm keeping you from something," she says, a little sheepish. "I think I feel a bit better just having someone to sit with."

[thisliminalspacedaydreams]

Hits are not the people who read.

This is very important.

What is a hit?Hits are a counter of how many times a work has been accessed. A hit is registered every time a visitor navigates to a work's page, with the following exceptions:

If two visits in a row come from the same IP address, only the first one is registered.

Moving between chapters in a work will only register one hit in total, not one hit per chapter.

If you're logged in, hits are not counted when you visit your own works.

I've been seeing a lot of people being disheartened by the lack of ratio hit/comments but a hit isn't someone who read. It's someone who opened the page of your fic. Maybe they saw the blurb and thought, nah. Maybe they opened 53919381 works and then narrowed down. It's entirely possible that out of the "hits" you get, only a small, small, baby portion actually reads your fic.

Which isn't like, "good news" for you but it DOES mean that your perception is skewed.

I strongly recommend, for your own peace of mind, if that kind of data matters to you, that you focus on the people who are kudoing.

A kudo is most likely someone who DID read your fic.

And you can be sad that your work got 186 kudos and only 3 people left comments, but it's a lot less crazy in terms of stats than 1800 people reading your fic and 3 people leaving comments.

If I make sense.

Your feeling is 100% valid but you can't focus on the hits as a reference number my dear, it's going to crush you.

And I'm going to go further than this but this is all my own personal opinion and I realise not everyone thinks the way I do, so take it with a grain of salt.

Rare are the hobbies that get you interaction at all.

I never get kudos for finishing a puzzle. For bookbinding a project. For doing anything that I consider a hobby.

But I do get kudos for writing a thing and posting it on the internet, which is kind of wild. And by my estimate, the reward I get from writing it is enough. And finding people who write things that I like. And sometimes making friends with them.

AO3 isn't a website meant for validation. It's great when it happens but that's not its first purpose. It's *becoming* that because people are now deciding that AO3 is a social media website, which it isn't.

I'm actually so saddened that people are comparing hits and kudos and comments to others and I realise that it's the human condition (and when I'm weak, I do it too, I'm not better than anyone) but it's such a harsh thing to impose on yourself.

Writing is one of these mediums where you CANNOT COMPARE. Here's why.

Writing is a common hobby.

As a hobby, it has to remain a pleasure, a challenge, something exciting. And that can't be measured by how much people love your work. It has to be measured by how much YOU LOVE YOUR OWN WORK.

The trap of comparison is real, especially in creative fields like writing. But every writer's journey is unique, and no metric can quantify their value.

The moment creativity becomes a competition (even with yourself), the whole thing implodes.

The moment we start weighing our worth by the number of hits, kudos, or comments, we lose sight of why we started writing in the first place.

Feedback is fantastic, but it shouldn't be the sole reason you write.

Not everyone who appreciates your work will leave a kudo or a comment. Some might not know what to say, and some will simply move on, touched by your work but quiet about it. Their silence doesn't diminish the impact your writing might have had.

So, write because you love to write. Appreciate the kudos & the comments but don't let the lack thereof discourage you.

Your worth as a writer isn't determined by public validation. It's determined by the amount of joy you get from it.

not to be That Person but when people are like “why isn’t there a big fandom culture anymore?” umm…

maybe this is why???? That an author can spend hours (if not days or weeks or months) on something, have 1,800 people read it, and only have THREE people willing to take a few extra seconds out of their day to comment. Not even something as simple as “thanks for sharing” or “second kudos” or “❤️”

I’m not the internet police. You decide what you do with your time. Just don’t be surprised if the result is that creators leave your fandoms. I’m not writing to scream into the void. If that’s what I wanted, I wouldn’t bother posting. Fandom is a community. It’s an exchange of enthusiasm over this thing we all love. And who’s gonna keep showing up at your house with a goodie basket if all you do is take the basket, slam the door, and leave them outside to watch through the window while you eat?

[kelly-danger]

Also I now realize I falsely assumed you were a female person considering detrans, it’s just the usual demographics of this site skew that way + even moreso we consider the group more likely to start realizing radical feminism has a point or two. But you are definitely not alone in living identified as a trans woman, being seen as “feminine”, being attracted to men, feeling surrounded by the sexist pressure for men to be het and “masculine” in whatever way their culture thinks about that, and questioning what path is best for just managing to live and also for having a good impact on society.

Sorry ahead of time if this is unwelcome please delete it. I have a lot of thoughts about this from being a long time gender abolitionist, woman who passes as a man often whether I care or not about it, and friend of someone in what I now think could be a similar or at least comparable situation to yours.

From that experience with my friend who has some of this situation, I want to say the hatred for men by women is a class struggle and a personal one and doesn’t prove you would turn “evil” or “have to be/turn masculine” and sexist and shitty if you accepted you were a man or “lived as a man”. Hell you don’t even have to pass. As i said i for one don’t usually pass as a woman. It’s not how I am comfortable looking, so I dont. And people are so ruled by expectations so my look makes them assume “man”. I just still am a woman anyway because it’s a neutral trait, at the end of the day. Not a sentence to be feminine or have to pass or feel comfortable with how I am seen if seen as a woman.

But really my friend has a deeper issue than just that with it all, he has a problem with a sort of internalized shame about being gay, and an internalized shame and fear of being a man. It is definitely related to him being assaulted by a man but also related to…. Idk how to describe it. Just everything we grow up seeing plus the mindset cultivated by religious ocd where fundamental evil exists and everything points toward it being in you in this infinitely threatening way. That kind of thinking really seems to cook the brain if not changed. Makes life unbearable. At the end of the day he still lives with the het trans woman identity sometimes, gay man identity other times. Partly because it’s unavoidable, having transitioned socially at 9, moved to a different school to pass totally, physically got transition surgeries at 18… and at this point even if it’s not true he’s a woman and even if it connects to this larger issue that is tearing a lot of shit apart for women and gay people… on the whole that all isn’t solved by his personal life just passing on purpose or not. Whatever he’s identifying as or living as, even if it’s a false notion that to pass as a woman is to be a woman. For him there is no way to not be a trans woman in the sense of he can’t physically get away from that status or that past even if he were to socially and psychologically move on from it, which he has been doing (part of why I am calling him, him, also because it is ok unless it’s a rare-r bad ptsd day)

anyway… to me… It does go back to, ok he supports the material on the ground work of women’s liberation and gay liberation. He does his best to speak the truth clearly when it comes right down to it and allow others to speak the truth and act on it. It doesn’t have to be a huge conflict to even just still want to pass as a woman and live that way most days or all days but still want to engage in supporting women’s liberation from a radfem approach and gay liberation from a real (not conservative 2-true-gender-role-believing) gender abolition approach. Lots of people won’t see it that way and they will have some good points sometimes but in the end I think what I am saying here is the closest to true.

Once again good luck with thinking about it, I hope the grip of sexism and homophobia against all of us, all LGB people and all other gnc people, including people identifying as trans, stops being so violent… gets better and eventually finally is abolished.

I dont really feel like my worry is being evil or that all men are bad or anything like that. I think gender is and should be a nutral trait, but I think moving in a society where gender isnt nutral is hard and weird. But true liberation must come from abolition of gender.like you said its just everything we grow up seeing. Especially for me heterosexuality is a concept that ive always found distasteful, not in a male+female way. But sociopolitically. Heterosexuality is where gender roles are most intrenched and where the expectation for me to be a man or masculine has always felt strongest, even now as a trans mtf it still feels i am expected to play the male role. There feels like no escape, and thats scary so rn I'm actually celebate. I was definitely raised religious and youre right about that mindset. Passing as a woman is wild though. Passing as a woman definately shows you what its like to be a woman in some regards, but definately dosnt show what its like to be female. I think thats my struggle at the end of the day is that I would like to look like a woman or maybe pass as one, but in trying to pass you have to subscribe to all these messed up patriarchal expectations. Women who done buy into patriarchy arent rewarded or respected by it, trans women included. And I dont want to be respected by patriarchy anyways. I have never tried to front as not male, and so im continually regarded as male, even if I am regarded as a woman (speaking in considderation of sex gender seperation which in maybe on the fence about). So with that in mind my opression is male, its because im male but perform femininity. I find that way more meaningful then the Judith butler fan gender ideology type rhetoric, or god forbid the heinrich von ulrich esque stuff. Basically dont get me started

[independentartistbuzz]

Cole Savoy Releases Album of Catchy, Poppy Americana-Folk Songs Inspired by the Nature of the Texas Hill Country, Co-Produced by Matt Hubbard

Cole Savoy’s self-titled album, out September 23, is technically his official “debut” as a recording artist – but that doesn’t mean that the native Texan is only just now beginning his journey as a singer-songwriter. Not by a long shot.

Savoy has been performing since the age of 13, continuing to write and perform through his twenties and early thirties. Savoy has already played Austin’s Utopia Music Festival, and during the pandemic launched (with the Texas hip-hop duo Thee Unemployed) the outrageously outside-the-box Make a Splash Concert Series, booking more than a dozen different bands to perform at free mini-festivals at such locations as Austin’s Lady Bird Lake, the Barton Creek Greenbelt’s Seismic Wall, and Montopolis Bridge. 

Cole Savoy is definitely not Cole Savoy’s first rodeo — not in music, and certainly not in life. Savoy had originally planned on debuting with an EP, but the songs just kept coming until his friend and co-producer Matt Hubbard talked him into thinking bigger. In the end, that EP was supplanted by a whole album’s worth of brand new songs. 

Cole Savoy, the album — much like the man himself, an avowed practitioner of extreme endurance sports, impassioned conservationism, and studying paths to spiritual enlightenment — is a testament to focused discipline and sense of purpose. “All the songs have a very precise message, and all the messages are relayed in the form of some sort of parallel in nature,” explains Savoy, adding with a laugh, “None of it’s fluff. I don’t have any love songs.”

Although he grew up in a suburb of Katy (outside of Houston), where he performed in church bands all through his formative years and teens, it was at Texas State University for his undergraduate studies where most of his true higher learning was gleaned off campus, honing his fingerpicked guitar style and burgeoning songwriting chops at open mic nights around town — most notably at Kent Finlay’s legendary Cheatham Street Warehouse. “I wrote my first real songs on a 25-day road trip I took by myself around my second year of school,” he says. “After that, songwriting became my obsession.” 

Finlay’s beloved “They Call It the Hill Country” made a powerful lasting impression on him. A bittersweet lament about the leveling and paving over of Texas’ most beautiful terrain in the name of so-called progress, the song aligned perfectly with Cole’s own concerns as a young student just beginning his life’s journey as an environmentalist crusader. “I just love everything about that song,” he enthuses, noting that including it as the one cover at the end of his debut album was a no-brainer. “I mean, how could I not put it on there?” 

Indeed, Finlay’s “Hill Country” fits right in with the ten Cole Savoy originals that precede it on the record — especially the similarly themed “River Living” and “Water’s Worth.” The former is a sly admonishment of people with the gall to wreck the heaven-on-earth handiwork of Mother Nature by building concrete decks along the river banks, and the latter is a mournful response to the devastating effects of the Permian pipeline. Other songs, like the first single “Dust,” “Flying in the Wind,” and the mood-setting “Fall,” are steeped in nature-centric metaphors but skew more philosophical and spiritual, with an emphasis on the cyclical theme of life, death, rebirth, and — crucially — re-death.

“I wrote a lot of these songs when I was studying Buddhism,” explains Savoy, who says that he grew up Christian but went on to explore — and learn much from — a lot of different philosophies. “One of the things that really struck me about Buddhism is that a lot of religions talk about rebirth, but they don’t say much about ‘re-death’ and the celebration of things and yourself dying. But Buddhism really goes into that, how when things are dying, it’s actually the same as when things are being reborn. And that altered the way I perceive the world. Humans have this constant desire to get to this ‘moment of arrival,’ this point or place where we’re just going to be happier or more content. But I realized that there really is no moment of arrival, because we are all on this endless cycle that’s going around and around and around. And as long as I’m ok with just being wherever I am on that cycle, that’s a great place to be.” 

“Debut” albums usually signify a beginning for a young artist’s career journey, but that doesn’t seem quite right in this case, given that the artist in question has already been performing for over two decades and has the life experience to show for it. In his spare time, Savoy pushes his body to the limit, averaging hundreds of miles a month running and biking trails and paddling Texas rivers.

So, where exactly is Cole Savoy today, on the eve of releasing his eponymous debut record? 

Exactly where he’s meant to be, needs to be, and wants to be. “I have a lot of material I worked on over the course of the last few years, probably enough for two more full-length albums,” he says excitedly. “Right now, music is my primary focus.”