#and perhaps biased interpretation lol

[lloydfrontera]

a list of crimes bk moon has committed against me personally with the sequel in no particular order but you will Know which ones i feel more strongly about anyway:

javier smiling to himself and getting all nostalgic as he watches rakiel because he reminds him so very much of lloyd

like seriously this man cannot stop comparing the two of them and getting quietly happy because it brings back fond memories it is heartbreaking he literally has to remind himself to not get swept in sentimentality several times every time he talks with rakiel

and as if that wasn't enough damian and rakiel remind him so much of himself and lloyd that he ends up offering to help them without even thinking about it. like. he feels so identified with them, remembering how hard it had been for him and lloyd to go through that whole ordeal on their own that he just. tells them they have his support before he even realized what he's doing. he wasn't planning on doing that. good work on not getting sentimental babe.

when lloyd and javier are on a call planning how to defeat the demon king, despite the awful circumstances javier can't help but smile and then laugh at himself because no matter how terrible the situation is he still finds it enjoyable to prepare for something with lloyd like they used to do. "it was a feeling similar to a distant longing. or a joy that felt like going back to the past"

javier is pining so hard. like. it's insane.

AND HE JUST KEEPS SMILING SOFTLY WHENEVER HE GETS CONFIRMATION THAT LLOYD STILL HASN'T CHANGED HE'S STILL THE SAME PERSON JAVIER SPENT HIS LIFE WITH SOMEONE SEDATE ME

anyway

lloyd asking rakiel about javier. asking how he's doing. acting all nonchalant about it even kind of annoyed. and then once he's alone. sighing and then smiling faintly. "like the smile he used to smile at someone"

"'so you're doing well? i'm glad' a feeling that blooms for a moment. a memory that's suddenly missed."

i am. going to fucking explode.

and then. there's their actual face-to-face conversation. which. oh my god. i don't even know what to start with.

javier always saying "it's been a while lloyd-nim" no matter how long it has been since they last talked?? because any time at all is too long???

lloyd saying that if anyone hears him say that they'll think they're gyeonwoo and jiknyeo. y'know. the mythical forbidden lovers that live in different realms and can only meet when the stars align so to speak.

y'know. just casually comparing your protagonists to one of the most romantic and tragic couples in mythology. no biggie.

and again. javier smiling when he sees that lloyd is still just the way he was when they were together. hello. hi. can i help you.

lloyd knowing exactly how long it's been since they saw each other in person. down to the very day. "107 years, 7 months and 17 days".

javier getting really, really, really happy about it. about lloyd still being the same. and thinking that, maybe, lloyd feels the same way deep down.

lloyd being so very, very casual about saying "it's been a while so i'm glad to see you" very specifically calling back to the very thing javier says to him whenever they talk.

and then. and then javier. thinking as he sees lloyd leave. that it was really nice to meet him after so long. and that the sight of him leaving still felt the same as it did before. and wondering if those gyeonwoo and jiknyeo lloyd mentioned before felt like this too.

javier. comparing what he feels at seeing lloyd leave. to what the cowherd and the weaver girl felt at separating again.

bk moon i am crawling on your ceiling

anyway if this novel doesn't end with the barriers between hell and heaven falling apart so lloyd and javier can spend the rest of eternity together instead of helplessly pinning over the other and reminiscing over the lifetime they already spent together i will throw someone off a bridge <3

[meanbossart]

Lore Ask Compilation: "Every Other Question Is About The Drow's Dick" edition

Oh I LOVE Minthara, her dialogue is absolutely fascinating and in my opinion some of the best written In the game. Experiencing her in my Evil Durge playthrough without having been spoiled to her companion scenes prior was great - the amount of depth they managed to add to her, without it at all feeling forced or rushed, and considering how much less time she gets to develop at our side is really well done. While nearly everyone's quests had me immersed, she was one of the few characters who really made me pause and think about the things she had to say to me, what she truly meant by them, and what they meant for me as an avatar doing an evil run.

We have a lot of characters in this game that are meant to be full of wisdom and experience, who are meant to be the ones who say the right thing at the right time that inspires us to make the correct choices, but I don't think either Halsin or Jaheira (and I love Jaheira) made me feel like I knew so little about life quite as Minthara did.

And, of course, she's absolutely hysterical. 10/10 I wish she had a proper companion quest past being rescued but I understand why she doesn't.

[MORE ASKS UNDER THE CUT]

It doesn't connect to the urethra since the slit in on top, so he nuts and pisses normal.

Also you 100% are not sorry, stop lying to me.

Man, I thought a lot about this one because I play so fast and loose with the content the game gives us that I'm positive there must be SOMETHING I'm completely disregarding, but I couldn't think of anything! I've chosen to pick slightly less obvious interpretations to some lines and text but nothing that completely deviates from canon, I don't think. If anyone has noticed something I neglected to mention, feel free to let me know - not because I want to revise it, but just because I'm curious!

For the second part of the question, not really. Larian did a great job of giving us plenty of room to play around in the dark urge's background, I think I'm yet to see something that I find to truly "not fit" in the ample freedom they've given us. I have my preferences, of course - I'm shocked to find that most dark urge's are NOT big hulking beasts, for example - in fact that seems to be the minority by far, but I realize that I have my... Uh... Biases.

You can see a cute little divot through the fabric if you look closely LOL

And nah, I think his penis has seen enough sharp points for a lifetime.

Well.

Unless someone decided to add some bite-marks to it.

HMMM, I... Don't think so.

He didn't cry as a baby, he didn't cry as a child (and this isn't something I just decided on now - this is a major reason why his foster drow mother even kept him around) he didn't really cry growing up or at any point during the campaign. I think he is capable of it - sadness in him just tends to be far more confusing a feeling than anything else.

He will have emotional moments in ANE, whether or not that will culminate in crying is something you will have to wait to find out LOL

Astarion has noticed this and just took it as a character trait - the drow doesn't cry, he just gets confused, angry, frustrated or simply bottles it up. While he can be demanding of his emotional maturity, he isn't going to try and dictate how he should experience his own feelings. If it did happen it would definitely catch him majorly off-guard, perhaps even shift the perception he has of him to a certain extent.

Oh my god you just know they All managed to be utterly quiet about it for as long as humanly (and unhumanly) possible until like, I don't even know, halfway through the Shadow-cursed lands where one day Karlach finally turns back to the group around the campfire after a half-nude drow has strut past and she's like "SO

"DOES ANYONE KNOWS WHY HIS DICK HAS A SNATCH"

And Wyll is like :0... Karlach you can't just ask people that.

And then she pointedly turns to Astarion and starts trying to interrogate him on how it works while Gale covers his ears and Shadowheart is like:

This is gonna blow you guys backwards but he does not do those things in front of people and thinks its rude if you do.

HMMM Mostly physically but it's a little subtle. He really enjoys interacting with Astarion's (and previously Orin's) hands - kissing, holding, caressing. Touching hair and faces as well. He can engage in more overt physical affection but usually Astarion has to be the one to initiate.

A disarmingly earnest proclamation of love and adoration here and there as well - he isn't shy in the slightest to tell people how he feels about them, he just isn't constantly reminding them of it unless inspiration strikes.

Most of all I think he expects his loved-ones to see his care for them in his tendency to go out of his way to help them achieve their goals.

He went with them to the Shadow-cursed lands but I never helped him fix the curse, so he stayed behind when the gang went onwards to the city. DU Drow didn't really like him so it was good-riddance as far as he was concerned.

If he had come along and propositioned him during act 3 - uh, you know the really mean rejection line you have as a choice during that dialogue? Yeah, that one lmao.

Alas, DU drow is just monogamous. He could entertain group-sex with a partner for fun at the most, but not ever a third person in the relationship. And In my personal interpretation (but by all means - everyone else have fun with their poly arrangements!) of Astarion and his delivery of the "this is about Halsin" line, I also thought he was lying about being comfortable with it, so I write him as monogamous as well.

Nothing. Nada. Not a thing. Say what you'd like about Bhaal but he sure knows how sculpt them out of his murder-meat.

(Thank you!!!)

[mermaidsirennikita]

frustrating levels of discourse continue happening on twt ugh https://x.com/lara_e_brown/status/1839303817256645101

Lol yeah, I've honestly just given up on reading takes like that because once you've seen one, you've seen 'em all.

It's an extremely shallow reading, using things like "pale", which you can in fact be while having a darker complexion, with both examples relating less to a physical appearance and more to his aspect in the moment (his face is "white" because he's scared; he's "pale and effeminate" because he's in a wan and weakened state). And I say "both" because you tend to come up with faaaar fewer examples of the text relating Heathcliff as pale than... not.

I also find it funny that this user uses Heathcliff marrying Isabella as an example of why he MUST be white, when Heathcliff and Isabella literally run away together because nobody wants them to be together, PARTICULARLY her brother, and this rips the Linton family asunder. Almost as if.......... it was............... breaking a taboo......................

Like, yeah! 18th century Yorkshire wouldn't have accepted that marriage. And if there's one thing we know about Heathcliff—if it's not accepted, he's not gonna do it.

One of the entire points of his character is that he lives against law and taboo and societal norms (while at the same time being deeply aware of the fact that his existence doesn't gel with them). In that thread, that user references the Byronic hero, with the name drawing from Lord Byron and his own literary fascinations. Byron was obsessed with taboo, lived to break them (most famously the taboo of sleeping with people of the same sex, and probably the taboo of incest as well... COME TO MY TED TALK TO DISCUSS HOW THAT COULD RELATE TO HEATHCLIFF, ALSO). One of the reasons why more recent scholarship (and I don't even mean super recent) surrounding Wuthering Heights has come to terms with the interpretation of Heathcliff as a man of color is that he does embody the taboo even more.

And obviously... some taboos (the incest one) exist for a reason. But the book also seems interested in questioning how much we really gain by treating someone (someone like Heathcliff) as other and wrong simply for existing. Again, we go into the cycle of abuse.

I also find it rather belittling of people to refer to general 18th and 19th century values when discussing how people "would have" seen Heathcliff, or interpreted the text. Because, for one thing—yeah! A lot of contemporary readers did not in fact Get It. Perhaps in part because they did have the biases that people like that user seem to believe would have prevented the author from exploring Heathcliff as a man of color.

... But if Emily Bronte thought exactly as the detractors of her novel (who condemned it as wicked and aberrant) did, she never would have written the book, I think. Who's to say, though? It's difficult for EITHER side to make leaps about what Emily knew or thought, because she is someone who didn't live very long, has been portrayed as an eccentric (and perhaps even maligned by Elizabeth Gaskell's portrayal of her) and definitely had something of an offbeat upbringing. We just don't have much directly from HER. So it's a bit rich to me to make assumptions about the kind of limited worldview she may have had on topics like race, when we really do not have a lot of definitive information about her worldview, but DO know that the book she wrote, which some theorize to be about a man of color, REALLY upset some conventional readers.

Like... why would you contextualize that book within a purely conventional reading when the entire reason why Wuthering Heights matters is that it defies convention?

I do shy away from using the word "canonical" to describe Heathcliff's race, because while I know what people mean when they say it (and I'm sure I've said it at some point) it's just a word choice that people like that user will latch on to. Like I've said before, there is no way to prove with 100% certainty Heathcliff's race either way. Which isn't to say that you have to do so to state that he's a man of color. It's just the kind of pedantic strategy people will use in threads like these.

And I'll notice, too, that she omits Nelly's line wherein she speculates that Heathcliff's mother could be Chinese or Indian. I mean, what's her take on that specificity combined with the lascar speculation? No mention of Liverpool relating to people... not... from America or Spain...?

I do worry sometimes that people see someone's major concentration (say, if someone has a BA in English or something, which for the record I don't) and go "Damn, that's end-all, be-all" A) it's not, there's more to research than getting a degree B) you could also use literal wikipedia footnotes to kickstart your own deeper dive into this, there are tons of people who've made careers discussing books like WH debating the issue C) having a degree of any level never kicks your bias.

To go back to my own degree... I knew old art historians who saw nothing gay at all in Michelangelo's work. You can know a lot about a lot, and it doesn't mean you have an open mind.

I think anyone can read WH, do some research about the era and Emily, and drawn their own conclusions. And you are just going to have to make your conclusions based on your own assessment. There is no smoking gun here, and there never will be because the smoking gun would be a living Emily Bronte willingly telling you what she meant.

And I didn't read Heathcliff as a person of color from the jump, for the record. I was thirteen when I read that book for the first time; I'm white; I picked that book in the context of it being a Great English Classic, and as far as I knew, those were all about white people. Because... that's what you were taught about WH at the time, at least where I was.

But when I was first introduced to that interpretation some time later, it was a literal "OH!" moment. Because like... yeah. There isn't a smoking gun for Dorian Gray's sexuality (and yes, we know a lot more about Oscar Wilde than we do about Emily Bronte; but the absence of knowledge of Emily's interests and attitudes doesn't mean we can assume she DIDN'T have an interest in writing Heathcliff as a person of color) but The Picture of Dorian Gray makes way more sense when you interpret his queerness for what it is. Wuthering Heights makes way more sense when you interpret Heathcliff's race for what it is.

[queenelsa567]

I saw the wildest take on ACOTAR tumblr today.

That we shouldn’t be doing literary analysis on “faerie smut.” We shouldn’t be using our knowledge about literature (whether that’s from high school or an English degree) to analyze SJM’s books.

It was just so wild to me for several reasons which I will outline below:

1. Literary analysis is not simply reserved for "high-brow" literature. Literary analysis is something that can be performed on all types of writing, although typically reserved for fictional writing or poetry. News flash: despite SJM's quality of writing, her books are still able to be analyzed. Literary analysis can be defined as the process by which aspects of a piece of writing are analyzed to determine a meaning in the text. It is not a super intense process and most people do it automatically while reading. However, there are certain analysis techniques such as motifs, symbols, and foreshadowing that require a bit more mental investment.

When we reduce books, poems, and other writings to the phrase "it's not that deep," we undermine important aspects of the writing. Perhaps the author didn't mean for it to be that deep. As a writer myself, I know that sometimes that best writing happens by accident. But the point is, the author's personal opinions, biases, and attitudes influence their writing. It is that deep, because no author can be completely unbiased. I will discuss this more later.

2. Although SJM incorporates smut into her books, they are, primarily, romantasy. Romantasy is a genre that combines aspects of romance and fantasy, typically a romance novel that takes place in a fantasy world. SJM's books are not erotica. Erotica is a genre of literature intended to arouse sexual desire and typically contains lots of smut. As SJM's books are not completely smut, and fall into the genre of romantasy, they lend themselves to being analyzed as there are other aspects to them besides sex scenes.

You can analyze a romance book, even if it contains sex scenes. You can analyze fantasy books, even if they contain sex scenes. Why should you not be able to analyze a romantasy book that contains sex scenes? Even erotica can be analyzed (although I won't get into that here). This ties into my previous point. Literary analysis is not reserved for "high-brow" literature.

3. Any time you use "evidence" to support a theory you are making, you are performing literary analysis. This goes for shipping theories and other theories. Any time you say 'I think these two people are going to end up together for this reason,' you are performing literary analysis. (Hate to break it to you, lol.)

Example 1 - Light motifs being used for Elain. Elain is often described as being around and desiring light. You could interpret this as her being a foil for Azriel and that's why they should end up together. Or, you could interpret it as Elain will end up with the Heir to the Day Court, Lucien.

Example 2 - The theory that Amren could be related to the Asteri. Amren talks about how she came through a portal long ago and she has these mystical, angelic powers. Amren also was imprisoned for a while on an island that we learn in CC3 was a stronghold of Theia in a time when they were resisting the Asteri. This has led people to believe that Amren could be related to or created by the Asteri.

Neither of these things were/are outright stated in the text, but they can be inferred from textual evidence presented. This collection of evidence being collated and interpreted is a form of LITERARY ANALYSIS. (Shock. Horror.) There are many other examples, but I will not make you read that much. Therefore, SJM's works can be analyzed.

4. SJM's experiences inform her writing. SJM has outright stated that she modeled Nesta's experience after her journey with depression and mental health issues. SJM has also stated that she modeled aspects of Rhysand on her own husband. These are aspects that we know are informed by SJM's experiences, but it goes without saying that there are other aspects of her life that inform her writing that she hasn't publicly spoken about. That is, in fact, how idea generation and writing works. (Mind. Blown.)

I would also like to state that SJM's zionism informs her writing as well, especially in the ACOTAR and CC series'. I won't get into it here because there is a lot to be said and this post is already extremely long, but if you look for it, you will see it. In spades.

Donate to Palestine. Do good things for your community. Help others.

Importantly, analyze the books you're reading. Use critical thinking skills. Anyone who gets defensive about someone using their degree in English literature to analyze a book (regardless of what the book is) is simply offended that the analysis was well done and they couldn't have done it themselves because they don't have the rad skills to do so. Stay in English class kids. It's way more important than you think.

[toffeebrews]

Because i want to eat my cake and have it too I've been trying to figure out how the star sanses could work given dream and ink wouldn't be friends.

( dream from @/jokublog ink from @/comyet and swap by the community )

DISCLAIMER: of course this rant isn't canon and only contains views made up of my own interpretations! i have my own biases and may get things wrong!! i don't mind corrections, as long as its respectful.

Ink doesn't work with dream and blue all the time. Just when they need an extra pair of hands, theres emergency, or somehow ink hears of what they're doing and gets interested. If he find it worth it (maybe cause hes bored maybe some other reason) I can imagine ink just inviting himself to the party.

kinda like this ask ig:

ink doesn't have much concern for justice and dream is aware of that now. And may be more cautious about how much info to give him or what ink comes along with. er if that makes sense?

perhaps dream and ink are more like co-workers. they can joke around and work together but not very close anymore. i think it would pretty awkward between them if the two of them were left alone. not that they couldn't carry a conversation, just there's some.... palpable divide between them ig. not bitter, just awkward!

(additional yapping under the cut)

I don't know much about swap's characterization (there's not much left of the original blog so 😔) but i think he'd be sorta in the middle. his morality aligns more with dream but maybe he would still want to remain friends with ink. Hes the main one probably keeping the two updated on each other as he may talk with one or the other and mention them in their conversation. something like that ( I tried considering papyrus in this moment and thinking of the neutral endings. not sure if they're exactly comparable but meh ).

they still care for eachother and don't wish harm upon each other or anything lol.

so even if they aren't very close they still very much respect eachother!! and if in crisis blue/dream knows who to call :) or summon ig...

idk im kinda talking outta no where, these are just late night thoughts lol!!

[revclver-jesus]

How do you feel when people say that Takaya is just using Jin and Chidori?

{{ You mean like that one hot take that drove me up the wall? lmao I am going to give you the full blown dissertation here i go-- let's call this essay

The Most Commonly Misunderstood Thing About Takaya's Character: or Why Team Strega Is Not Literally A Cult lol

When people say that Takaya is just 'using" Jin and Chidori, what they're implying in most contexts is that Takaya is incapable of forming attachments and his motivations are fairly shallow-- essentially Takaya is not a complex villain and should be dismissed as purely selfishly motivated and malicious. He's a "simple" villain.

Now I realize....... that I might be biased as that girly that's written him on a dedicated blog for multiple years now, but purely objectively speaking, removing all my own headcanons, using only the information provided to use in canon? It's just thoroughly false, tbh!

First I'll go into why he isn't purely selfishly motivated and then I'll explain his relationship with Strega because I can prove the motivation with just Reload as an example, let alone the novel. Takaya, in Reload especially but even in the original game, I would argue has a full blown character arc off screen. At the start of the game he does appear to be more selfish, he has no real motivation and is just living out the last of his life doing underhanded assassin work-- nothing's really challenging him. But as the story progresses, Takaya begins to express a meaningful ideology-- he develops a greater concern for the world around him and expresses a full blown motivation. He says, in protest to the choices of the protagonist in one of his social events, and I quote: " Choosing to turn a blind eye towards your own power, to the grief of the fallen, to the unchosen and the unloved." Its clear he is not talking about himself here, as he mentions grief for the fallen. Takaya is expressing that he feels grief for something-- he is sorry about something that has happened to someone else, and it bothers him enough to nearly scream about it.

I think, often times, people dismiss what Takaya says as insincere almost automatically without any indication that he doesn't mean the words he's saying besides perhaps being vain and dishonest in other scenes, but these social event scenes are clearly meant to be interpreted as him being unusually earnest. By the end, Takaya is not just trying to keep his own power, but, as he says " this is not just my will but the will of all people. " which all culminates into Takaya's final character arc moment, where, in his final boss, he says the line " I will throw away my pride! " before using an evoker instead of trying to summon without help, implying that he is finally sacrificing his ego to better fight for what he believes in. If he was fighting for a positive cause, this would be a heroic moment, but it is still concrete evidence that his motivation is no longer meant to be seen as purely selfish. He is now fighting for " the will of all people ". He cares about the " the fallen, the unchosen and the unloved."

So what about Jin and Chidori? To put it simply, Takaya is not some puppet master that breaks them down emotionally and treats them like tools. They're his friends, and he happens to have a leader's personality, so they follow him, much like the protagonist he is designed to mirror. Its a lot easier to guess how he feels about them when you don't assume the worst and look at all his canon interactions with them. And even easier to tell if you can manage to read any english translated pages of their strega-focused novel ( which we can assume is fairly canon since Reload references it with the child turned into a large shadow ).

In the novel, as far as I've seen ( its only partially translated ), team Strega is extremely informal and lighthearted around each other. There is no sign that they fear Takaya, as they are willing to tease each other and disagree. The opening scenes of the book quickly establish a sort of family-like dynamic, with Takaya having an older brother-like role. He teases Chidori ( in a bit of heavy handed foreshadowing ) that she will understand why people fall in love when she's older-- of which Chidori sort of says gross and "as if" and rolls her eyes at him. Jin, being the narrator perspective, shows no sign of intimidation when around Takaya, something that would bleed through into their every interaction-- especially the establishing scene introducing the cast-- if that were the case. I feel, even if the novel is not canon, the writer would be instructed not to write Takaya so friendly if he was meant to be a heartless manipulator regardless.

In the game, the most manipulative thing he ever does to either is when Chidori is pulled back into Strega. Takaya tells her that there is nowhere else she can go and reminds her that death is not to be feared in a way that sounds like he's repeated this mantra often enough he knows she can guess it. This seems spooky, but the tension is immediately alleviated by the flippant and kind of sassy way that Chidori assures them she remembers Takaya's advice. This is not how you talk to your cult leader and this is not a cult, this is something closer to a gang or a club-- at worst, a coven of witches ( considering their team name is "witch" in italian.). They simply have an in-group and out-group sort of mentality, a shared since of identity, and a shared view of the world to go with it, which is to be expected when you've been openly shunned and mocked by the average person ( as seen at the start of the first scene with Shinji ) But this scene, when compared to all their mundane and lighthearted interactions, doesn't imply anything more severe than the leader of your misfit club reminding you why we don't hang out with the normies. You're "one of us" and a level of loyalty and commitment is expected when you otherwise always act as a group.

Yes, he is very cold and indifferent to the sight of his team members getting hurt-- or hurting themselves, for that matter, but the reason for this is obvious. In Reload, Takaya plainly expresses that he is feeling attachment ( for the protag at the moment ) but is avoiding his own capability for attachment intentionally. That scene was meant to establish that he can feel attachment, that he isn't as cold as he pretends to be, to encourage the viewer to see him with a little more nuance. What causes a man to force himself to be colder than he really is? What can cause an avoidance toward emotional attachment? Maybe...... watching 100 children die after being orphaned and stolen away to live underground for years? lmao

And so, when Takaya watches Chidori do self harm or literally sacrifice her life, for one-- he's not going to parent her, they don't have that kind of relationship, and he would be a hypocrite if he tried to encourage her not to do what she wants to to her dying body-- and two, of course he doesn't mind if Chidori dies, he's expecting that to happen anyways. His one greatest gift is his uncanny ability to accept death and the death of others. Mourning you openly is not how he expresses emotion. Especially when he sincerely believes death is a blessing. Its just the way she died that he's a little annoyed by. ( And why shouldn't he be honestly-- the girl threw her life away on the first nice guy she met at the mall just to make his work harder from his perspective, lmao ) BUT. In the comic version of that scene, Takaya does let himself be cut across the chest purely because he hesitated to shoot when he saw Chidori's spirit protecting Junpei. So... that might imply something.

However, if there is any greater evidence against any who claim that Takaya does not care about Jin especially... Takaya's final words, in multiple renditions of the story including the movies and Reload, are to say that he wishes Jin was with him as he died. If there is anyone that Takaya cared for, at least one single character in the entire game, it is above all Jin Shirato.

In the movies its very obvious, with the sad closeup shot of him looking beaten and washed up as he wishes Jin could be here to see it all end with him. I have the scene as an icon ! Look at how emotional the framing is !

So yeah, that's how I feel, it just drives me crazy when people remember Takaya as just Some Asshole lmao-- he IS an asshole! But he's no Chairman Ikutsuki, he has a lot of complexity to him beyond being the guy who killed Shinji, and not everything he does is black and white. There is highly plausible reason to believe Takaya cared for both of them in his own way, but the ever loyal, best friend, Jin Shirato, especially so. }}

[boyfridged]

Could I ask what makes you dislike zdarsky so much? Not disagreeing in the least lol, just curious for ur opinion

i was going to link my posts criticizing his work but tumblr is not cooperating, so let me just write up a couple of bullet points:

constant retcons of characters and their stories for much worse, including jason and talia. his retcon of jason's robin days in cheer is the most shameless and heartless interpretation of the character to date, and jason had already been a victim of plenty poor-taste flashbacks. his retcon of talia in the knight makes her a mindless seductress without her own will nor motivations. their respective relationships with bruce lose all depth, love and unique qualities. zdarsky managed to even retcon khoa within a year since he was first introduced as a character. and even when he does not rewrite the backstory per se, he just makes the characters act in ways that make no sense for what we already know of them (like with selina in gotham war) most of the time his ideas completely upset and discredit the already existing storylines and contradict what lies at their core. the audacity it's unbelievable.

classism & misogyny: this is a simple one. the previously mentioned retcons turned the characters into stereotypes of their background and gender, the most malicious ones even.

his personal biases and favouritism: here's a thing. zdarsky has perhaps three favourite characters: bruce, tim, and khoa. and you will know about it, because everyone else will be thrown under the bus to make them look good. bruce is a perfect man and all of his mistakes come only from his good intentions apparently. he is so perfect that he knows better about classism than jason. and tim is his favourite robin because (checks notes) jason hated being robin and dick just didn't care about cooperating enough apparently. this is a claim that literally appears in-text.

since i already mentioned classism twice: his politics are plainly atrocious. he sometimes loosely uses phrases and tropes that make some readers think that he is progressive, but somehow all of his storylines always get a "plot twist" that reverts them into something ugly and cynical. and somehow a lot of fans just don't notice. i think the fact that he loves a war on drugs moment should perhaps give people a hint but what do i know.

his writing is just bad? he can't write dialogue. his plotlines are all over the place. what even was failsafe. the concept of zur as the backup personality is so incredibly tacky and useless it doesn't belong even in the genre as camp as superhero comics. and on top of that, there is so much meaningless melodrama that doesn't say anything about the characters, their values nor their relationships at all- there's just a couple of panels that batfam fans will go crazy for because bruce hands kid a lollipop as batman or because tim calls bruce "dad." but neither of them convey anything of significance, especially not within their original context.

there are more reasons and i could talk of particular creative decisions that i just think are offensive to both the legacy and the intelligence of the readers, but it would take forever given zdarsky's prevalence in dc as of late.

[pinkacademic]

Studying Literature

I'm starting things off with what I actually know about!

Ok, Lit girlies, let’s get it started! How in the name of Jane Austen do you actually study literature? The answer isn’t just “lol read?” but actually find your passion for it, and find connections between you and the person one, two, five hundred years ago who is feeling and struggling and trying their best alongside this same text.

This is going to be a series of three parts- Finding the Connections, Themes and Context, and Actusl Studying- starting today with connecting to literature written 100+ years before you were born because personally, that’s where I think the passion for classics is found.

How it applies to Real Life in Modern Day

If you’re struggling to connect to characters from classic literature, you need to reframe how you think about them. Consider- Clueless is just Emma, right? Therefore Emma Woodhouse (handsome, clever, and rich) is just a pretty rich girl who likes playing matchmaker and is perhaps a little bit spoiled. Similarly, 10 Things I Hate About You is the Taming of the Shrew and even features plenty of references to Shakespeare in the naming of people and places.

Let’s look at a couple of other examples of how we can find connections.

Dracula: Of course, Dracula Daily has been bringing Dracula to the forefront again, and has been bringing about modernisations in the form of calling Jonathan Harker a poor little meow meow. But why? Because he’s just so meow, that’s why Because people are finding aspects of his character relatable and amusing. He’s essentially a recent graduate being given an insane opportunity for travel, and a great degree of responisbility- how exciting! And he’s learning about other cultures and trying new food! And experiencing the horrors! How novel!

Wuthering Heights: Catherine Earnshaw- a hopeless romantic in many senses of the word: she wants the romance of true love, and she wants the romance of the wilderness surrounding the Heights. She feels trapped in the world of what everyone else wants her to be after realising that what she thought she wanted wasn’t what she wanted. Heathcliff- a man wronged in his childhood who lets his emotions become all-consuming. Would you be the same in his circumstances? Can you be sure you wouldn’t be?

The Picture of Dorian Gray: I’ll admit that I didn’t enjoy this one. I loved the premise, but I just struggled. But still, I understand Dorian being swayed and tempted as if by the devil, I understand unrequited love, I understand obsession. And, weirdly enough, I have been part of two forbidden romances… like two nickels isn’t a lot, but it is weird that it happened twice.

Let’s have a look at some Shakespeare, then, while we’re at it

The Merchant of Venice: (Did I choose this because its my fave and I’m biased? Yes!) Forbidden love! Romance! A sympathetic villain! What’s not to love? The courtroom scene is right out of Legally Blonde- featuring girlboss lawyers in disguise to boot! And Shylock’s badass monologue calls morality into question. Here’s my fave line “If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”

Hamlet: Yes, by god, it is LONG! Listen, 15-minute Hamlet by Tom Stoppard will help you for this one. And so will the Lion King. Make it easier for yourselves, loves! BUT Hamlet is one for the Buzzfeed Unsolved/Watcher’s Ghost Files and Mystery Files girlies! There’s a ghost right from the start! There’s a whole slew of murders, and there’s a man losing grip of reality. Hamlet himself is a student who has lost his father and is questioning the morality of revenge. He’s such an old character that he’s been interpreted and reinterpreted a hundred thousand times, and if you go through the Royal Shakespeare Company among others, you can surely find one you can relate to.

My point here is that, though some of the characters in classics might seem distant, you can find timeless themes in these stories, and if you just push the boundaries of how you think about the characters, there is going to be something you find relatable.

Go forth and have fun with classics, while I work on the installment on Themes… no, we are not shying away from problematic literature here! Also, feel free to pop me an ask, a comment, or a dm, if you have anything you want to see!

[kindred-spirit-93]

Sup it's me Astron

The Leuce myth is quite niche and it frankly really annoys me. Its framed as quite tragic like every other sad doomed myth of a god who loses their lover i.e Apollo and Hyacinthus, Demeter and Iasion, Hermes and Crocus, Aphrodite and Adonis etc BUT IT DOESN'T WORK FOR HADES BECAUSE RHE DEAD ALL GO TO HIM BECAUSE HE IS THE GOD OF THE GOD DAMNED UNDERWORLD WHAT THE ACTUAL FU-

Which is why in my interpretation Leuce is a mortal nymph who chooses to drink from the river Lethe and rejoin the wild dance of life through reincarnation and in turn being lost to Hades who creates the white Poplar in her memory.

another underworld ask :D!! no im not biased *bonk* go away shush

less tragic star crossed lovers and more (emotionally) mature stories of romance and respect please and thank you. hades being my favourite I will spoil him. Ill also torture him but that don’t matter.

leuce being a mortal nymph is a wonderful concept and im running away with it hehe. perhaps he hears the lone voice of a prayer. not just any prayer, but one for him. he who is seldom mentioned much less worshipped. curious he follows till he reaches the lush gardens of the overworld. persephone foreshadowing if I may be so bold lol.

anyway yes soft romance and then a change of mind. And why not? mortals only live once and its within her every right to do as she pleases. it was only fair. he was no stranger to the stings of injustice.

its bittersweet. he hands her the chalice, a favourite of his, filled with the river lethe. he sees the memories and moments they shared leave her eyes. for a brief moment he considers partaking. he closes his eyes and tries to hold her image in his mind instead.

acceptance is hard. he knows it more than anyone, what with ruling over the dead, both mineral and corporeal. Its hard but it must be done. that is the cruelty of godhood. that they arent above the laws of life and love and loss. so he makes her memory immortal.

trees now line the banks of the river where she sipped her last. they stand tall and delicate where she stood.

and every so often his tears irrigate them.

a last reunion of lovers.

--

might draw this out so stay tuned :3

[johaerys-writes]

Hey! I see you sometimes talking about your Achilles being neurodivergent (and I think I saw you mention Patroclus being nd too) and I was wondering if you have any specific headcanon? And, for example, if the headcanons vary depending on the universe of each fic or if they are somewhat fixed.

Hi! My answer is going to be about Achilles, because he is the one I talk the most about being ND.

I personally find that Iliad Achilles has some character traits that are widely recognised now as being on the spectrum: he is very direct and often very blunt; he is quite set in his opinions and has a rigil moral code; he means exactly what he says, often without bothering with societal niceties, and hates when others don't do the same; in the iliad he feels his emotions to the max and has extreme outbursts of anger, frustation, grief etc. So I like to joke about Achilles being on the spectrum and thinking of all the different ways this affects his behaviour.

But the truth is that I don't take all this very seriously, at least when we're talking about canon Achilles, Achilles in general. I'm not a big fan of diagnosing fictional characters with real world conditions, especially when they weren't intended to be perceived this way. When we talk about Achilles, we're talking about an ancient folk hero who appears in a work that was written thousands of years ago, during a time that autism wasn't even a thing-- our very definition of autism that we have today, and being "neurodivergent" in general, is very recent, and until a few years ago someone being on the spectrum meant something completely different, for the most part, than it does now. Achilles is also a demigod and is intentionally written differently from every other character in the Iliad; in that case, perhaps it's his divine ancestry that makes him behave in such ways, like his extreme anger or his bluntness. We can’t really know for sure.

Some people might say "but ASD/ADHD has always existed, we just have a name for it now!" That is true, but the most important thing to keep in mind when saying "oh, x character in autistic/has adhd/some other disorder" is that this isn’t a real person, but the creation of a real person (or real people, in the case of folk heroes). So even if unconsciously, let's say, Homer wrote a character that has autistic traits because it's something he saw in the real world, that would be his own interpretation and his own biases when it comes to this specific group of people. This example is kind of silly because we don't really know who Homer is, if he was one person or many, or what sort of artistic liberties he took when he transplanted Achilles from greek mythos into the Iliad, but I feel like it's something to keep in mind in general when we perceive a certain character to be neurodivergent: that they are only some other person's interpretation of what e.g. autism is, and not what autism actually is.

When it comes to my own personal headcanons, I mostly talk about Achilles being ND in my own works, and specifically in my Disasters AU. His traits are intentionally more pronounced there than in canon or other AUs of mine, because this is how I imagined him and it's the sort of story I wanted to tell. I never spell it out in so many words in the fic itself, and it isn’t even in the tags anywhere, because it isn’t what the story is about. And Achilles' ND traits are mild for the most part I think, and we don't even see a lot of the struggles that he has off screen because, again, it isn’t the focus of the story and also he isn’t a real person lol. He is just someone I wrote and I think it would be kind of unfair and maybe misguided to equate his struggles to those of an actual person living with this disorder because, again, he is my interpretation of what ASD is and looks like and might not correspond to how others experience ASD, and in any case it should all be taken with a grain of salt. But at the same time, I'm glad when someone reads my work and finds a lot of what Achilles does relatable, I think that's one of the coolest things about stories and literature, that we see some of ourselves in there.

I hope this answered your question somewhat! I don’t know if this was what you had in mind when you asked me, but I just felt like I had to put it all out there lol.

[et-ceterra]

this poem but make it royai

I Am Not Yours I am not yours, not lost in you, Not lost, although I long to be Lost as a candle lit at noon, Lost as a snowflake in the sea. You love me, and I find you still A spirit beautiful and bright, Yet I am I, who long to be Lost as a light is lost in light. Oh plunge me deep in love—put out My senses, leave me deaf and blind, Swept by the tempest of your love, A taper in a rushing wind.

Sara Teasdale, "I Am Not Yours"

Obviously there are different interpretations of this text, I'm just going to point out what stuck out to me. Also for anyone curious here's linked below I Am Not Yours arr. Z. Randall Stroope as well as my biased overanalyzed Royai reading of this lol.

Today I was listening to the above choral arrangement with this text and since I happen to be rewatching Fullmetal Alchemist at the same time I couldn't help but draw parallels from this poem and, of course, Roy Mustang and Riza Hawkeye.

Side note, coincidence but the text was also first published in 1915 which is right after the climax of the FMA storyline. So I imagine this being from both Roy and Riza’s perspectives, after everything has happened and Ed and Al have their bodies back.

In this poem, the narrator longs to be loved so deeply and intimately. And yet this juxtaposition exists in which the narrator cannot allow themselves to be lost in the other person, or perhaps they are refusing to lose all self control. They want to, need to be their own person and their s/o is their own person as well. It paints this beautifully tragic picture of something that the narrator feels they can never achieve. The fact is that no matter how much they want to experience this love, they feel that they never can because of their circumstances.

Taking some of the imagery more literally, let’s talk about the “lost as a candle” line. As the Flame Alchemist, Roy is extremely powerful. On a smaller scale, a candle is powerful in that it cuts through darkness; a spark can start a flame. But a candle's range is limited. For all the light and warmth he can produce on his own, Riza is Roy's true light in his life; she is "noon" in this scenario. So much of what he does, he does for her. She in turn is the light that keeps him from going astray and giving into his burning desire for revenge against Envy. She keeps him from performing human transmutation (of his own free will).

If Roy is warm, burning, charismatic, driven, Riza is cold, calculated steady, and distant, at least on the outside. Her time in Ishval and in the military has left her hardened. She does not hesitate to take others' lives if it's to protect her loved ones. She also does not hesitate to point a gun at her very own colonel when she knows he is doing something he will regret. I find it interesting that the two similes in the first stanza are so opposite, and yet the meaning is the same. Roy and Riza are two different sides, but the same coin. Roy is the hot, passionate fire, and Riza is the cold winter snow, but they equally desire to be loved by each other.

Although both Roy and Riza may wish for something more between them, and they know that the other is a "spirit beautiful and bright," there are all these legal and emotional barriers that prevent them from being together. Roy has dreams of becoming Fuhrer, Riza has people to protect, the military has laws in place preventing any sort of romance between officers. Riza and Roy long to be loved, completely accepted in the face of the horrible burdens that they carry. But even if they acknowledge that they do love each other, there are so many obstacles that they face to doing anything about it.

The third stanza culminates in what the two deep down truly desire - to be completely enveloped in love and companionship and acceptance. And Roy is the only one who can do that for Riza and vice versa, because of this long, scarred history that the two share. This is something so raw and intimate, something that the two feel they cannot admit - have they even admitted it to themselves? But the reality is that they would give up everything for each other. Roy literally did go blind at one point in the story, after an act of immense love and trust for his lieutenant.

This is a final, silent plea to the other to not hold back, seen in the expression (pain? jealousy?) in Roy's eyes when he watches Ed and Winry get happily married. Seen in Hawkeye's stolen glances across the office to her colonel's desk. Yearning silently, yet desperately, for the day that they can unashamedly be swept up in the other's love and desire, but unsure if that day will ever come.

[danothan]

(Heads up, the post discusses the abusive nature of Martin and Hal’s relationship pre-2005, as you may be able to tell from the link, so here’s your content warning)

https://www.tumblr.com/ufonaut/725487371146133504/space-case-the-pre-2005-martin-jordan

Hi hello! I know you already hate Geoff but I was wondering if you knew about this aspect of Stuff He Did/Changed/Ruined. As a comic newbie I thought it was interesting and perhaps you have a take of your own :)

The differing continuities means it’s probably unintentional, but it does create an interesting implication for at least the first GL Knight Terrors,,, I haven’t read the second one yet so they might not follow up on it lol

thanks sm for sharing this with me! i appreciate being informed + considered in the conversation :D while i vaguely knew that hal’s dad was Not Great pre-geoff johns, i didn’t know how or to what extent, nor did i know that the changes in his family dynamic were kicked off earlier than johns’s run either!

gd no matter which version you go with, the common denominator is that hal was the black sheep of his family for being neurodivergent. kid can’t catch a break 🤕

from the explanation of the link alone, i think both versions explain his fear rly well with traumas that realistically play into every aspect of his life. there’s an influence that runs deep: his fear of having power and not knowing what to do with it bc he saw his father abuse that authority, his inability to grieve or acknowledge his trauma bc he was punished every time he tried—these are very different but very important traits in hal’s overall character. i was surprised to see how well aware pre-2005 hal was of the abuse he dealt at the hands of his father. post-2005 doesn’t even know that he was a victim of his family dysfunction, let alone recognize any of it as abuse

i like that in both versions, he has suicidal tendencies to paradoxically prove that he’s not suicidal (i think. i can only confidently speak on modern hal, but hal being reckless with his life is kinda just a persistent theme). the way the current narrative portrays it, hal idolizes his dad sm that when he died, he couldn’t bear to think that his last moments were in fear. it would force him to confront the fact that his dad wasn’t the great hero he worshipped, forcing himself to realize he’s just as vulnerable and that the rose-tinted nostalgia for his youth might be wrong. so he puts himself on the line with bravado bc if he dies, at least he could tell himself that he wasn’t scared. and from what i can tell of the older comics, hal was forced to be brave bc it was a survival tactic; if he could just go along with what his dad wanted, then maybe he could finally get his approval. and all that taught him was that the only thing worse than death is failure, so he’d put himself on the line to prove it. he can tell himself that he’s accomplished more than anyone’s ever believed in him, but his dad’s words still haunt him

the change in his backstory is a change in his character as well, and as someone that enjoys comics as a puzzle to figure out, i’d like to factor in all of these moving parts as much as i can make them fit. before, i thought martin’s death martyred him; now i think that interpretation could include both of these versions moving forward. if current hal is already putting his dad on a pedestal, then the follow up question would be “what does that hide abt him?”

interesting implications indeed…

but this is where i get to share my personal thoughts/ biases! bc i’m very preferential + love complicating things, simply stating that martin’s death put him on a pedestal doesn’t satisfy me. now between you and me, i personally prefer the current narrative (i mean obviously, that’s my only firsthand experience, so i’m taking my own thoughts with a grain of salt here)

a huge part of hal’s interest in planes comes from the fact that he and his dad bonded over them together, but it also bordered on obsession

i mentioned before that hal was treated unfairly by his family for being neurodivergent, and scenes like this one definitely have nd subtext to me. the older comics had his father berate him for “having his head in the clouds” (*cough* adhd), the newer comics have his mother keep his interests away from him bc “he’s consumed by it” (*cough* autism). but what’s difficult abt meshing these two is that martin being a source of ableist abuse becomes confusing if he’s nd too, specifically encouraging hal to indulge in his special interest (btw hal has audhd either way peace and love ✌️)

so i think i would take this the same way as jessica: did irreparable damage as a parent but there were enough good moments that hal wants to remember instead. his dad verbally abused him for having “weak” emotions, but hey, at least he let him skip school! and sure, he might’ve hit him, but would a bad dad introduce him to his special interest? (and so there’s no misunderstanding, i’m speaking facetiously here)

i think hal has had genuinely fond memories with both of his parents, most ppl wouldn’t be able to gauge that there was smth going on with the way he talks abt them, which is not uncommon for abusive relationships in general. it just doesn’t erase the trauma it left him with. jessica cherished and tried to protect hal but ultimately suffocated him, and martin nurtured hal’s passion and gave him “freedom” but harmed his well-being

i’m too under-read and biased to give both versions equal share in my interpretation, but i will say that i rly appreciate the older comics for their explicit portrayal of toxic masculinity in hal. like that shit is literally killing him but i don’t often see his dad playing a role in it when he obviously got it from him, nor is it shown as the root of those problems. if there’s one thing that makes modern comics hard to read, it’s the unironic machismo. again, LITERALLY killing him.

as for the differences in hal’s suicidality that i mentioned earlier, there’s actually a lot of similarities with the ways he treats his own life. in either case, hal tries to be brave to prove smth (to his dad in the old, to himself in the new). the main difference is fear vs worship, and honestly those are just two sides of the same coin. it goes back to that toxic masculinity his dad taught him abt failure, and it ties in with wanting to feel connected to his dad thru their shared interest. at the core of it is denial

i would have to get into more older comics to rly flesh this interpretation out, but i think this is laying out some interesting groundwork. thank you again for this ask, rly gave my brain a treat today!

[silver-wield]

Kotaku is an outlet banned by square enix right? That's what I've seen back in april at least. Im asking because there's a clerith on twitter defending aerith from her questionable attitude with barret. Then they post a clearly biased translation by kotaku of the scenes on which the video is explaining the "right" translation. Perhaps their translation is right but is the interpretation correct? I never heard aerith to be equated to having a high EQ, if she did she wouldn't be willfully making the people around her feel uncomfortable like with cloud and tifa in OG and/or in remake. She's an insult to people with high EQ, high EQ people are sensitive, careful, and wise. A side note as well, they really do love to hold onto cait sith for confirmation huh? Even if this sham directly says that cloud is madly in love with aerith, should that really hold any value at all? He doesn't even know what's up with anyone really, And for someone to be called as "to loose someone so precious" cloud went idgaf afterwards her death. He was honestly really chill, he even went snowboarding chill (lol). It even took him 2 years and a sickness to remember, "oh yeah I have survivor's guilt". So precious that he couldn't even visit her grave and decided to pop his cherry with his true love under the highwind. Whatever, the mistranslation isn't even a big to begin with, I still don't think it's good what she did and Tifa has the right to call what she did as harsh, does this girl ever know how to read people properly? She just likes to assume that she made the right choice with barret, just like how wrong she is when she thought she can save the world on her own. Aerith, people forget that she lacked so much social skills and human interaction, if she didn't, why doesn't she have any friends then? Either way these cleriths are hilarious for accusing clotis of jerking off to mistranslations, projection much?

Ps. Im so stupid to look at the comment section on that yt vid. But seeing someone say jp translation is super pro clerith just because kotaku says so is hardcore peek cope. What is it with cleriths and missing critical thinking. Cait sith, mcdo, lego, kotaku, other unofficial platforms or sources are their only confirmations? My man, that's PATHETIC af.

That's the weird clerith dude who screams "I LOVE HER!!!" every time Aerith appears right? He didn't even bother to translate the entire game, despite saying he would. He only went up to Aerith's death and acted like the rest of the game is an afterthought where nothing happens. He's also very insulting to Tifa.

His translation may be useful for those small sections where he isn't a rabid garbage bag trashing Tifa and Zack and lying about Cloud's feelings, but in general it's total shit.

And yeah, the Cait Sith thing is just lame. Who takes Reeve's robot as a valid source over Cloud literally telling Tifa she's his reason for everything? And let's not forget they fucked, live together and have kids.

SE doesn't endorse anything that kotaku idiot says. They have their own sources and those all support everything clotis say because we don't fuck up the plot. We don't need to 🤷

[slightlyhopefulromantic]

Oooh that's an interesting premise for requests! :] May I perhaps suggest then... Uh honestly kinda feeling Terry/Nicky for this one! Also ehshsjskkwjwke maybe Jodie/Ron??????

silly little fan kid prompts

in a wildly out of character moment for me, i COMPLETELY skimmed over the rodie part of this ask fdhjgbdhb so i will ! do that next and @ you in it! BUT hey. hey. shakes a terrick kid at you

this is cameron, my new baby girl sweet daughter cameron. i like to headcanon that samantha always did terry's hair when he was young, so it was cute to me to imagine that terry would do the same to her :] and of course, nicky has to introduce cameron to all the sick ass movies that glenn showed him, including the ever famous predator handshake.

both the stamplers and the close-foster-etc families have very specific like. through-lines in their families which make this combo interesting for a fan kid? im gonna put my further notes under a cut along with some etc rambling because this is just. exciting to me. i usually make fan kids with a story already in mind, but this exercise is kind of the opposite where i have to figure out the story as i go, and thats really fun to me :D

mild spoilers for the newer episodes of season 2, but i decided to uh. Pay Attention To Biology here since terry jr was revealed to be infertile, and i think thats interesting, so cameron is adopted!! this obviously left my options pretty open, but i decided to still stick with a mixed kid, Black/Chinese, since 1. feels kinda against the point of a fan kid if i just did a random design lol and 2. considering nicky's odd genealogy as well as his severe issues with wanting his dad(s) to be proud of him and the way hes so lopsidedly attached to his family, i figured he would be the type of guy to want his adopted kid to look like him. i dont think terry would care, but he would want nicky to be happy, so it all works out in that regard ! i went back and forth a bit on if i wanted her to have freckles, i thought it could be a cute tie back to jodie, but decided against it.

she does follow the Ron -> Terry -> Ron -> Terry naming scheme, originally i was gonna go for a terry name but i figured a ron one would make more sense lol so her name is cameron! i think she would take a lot of fashion inspiration from her parents, ive always seen them as both very. emo/alternative. terry less so as he grows older, but nicky definitely clings to it, and i think that would rub off on cameron. shes not as dark and edgy as they are - i think she would be a pretty bright and bubbly kid, actually - but i kinda like the idea of her being lowkey scene/scemo. yes im biased because thats one of my favorite sub-cultures, but its CUTE. i didnt really feel like doing full outfit sketches but just know that if i did. she would be scene. and like both of her dads as teens (and nicky still into adulthood), she does dye her hair pretty heavily hehe

the only real unfortunate thing about fan kids for a series thats like. already very heavy with canon kids. is that it kind of leaves everything in a weird place where its like... do cassandra and taylor exist in this? do veronica and scary? and uhhh i dunno ghbfjdgdfhjh up to interpretation, i suppose. its easy enough to just have cassandra and nicky be divorced, but the veronica/terry of it all is murkier ... food for thought, i guess. scary would fuckin hate cameron though i think they would argue LMAO

[forcebookish]

Maybe I'm biased because I stan ForceBook but I don't understand how people don't like TopMew as a couple or as individual characters. Idk, 3 episodes in and so far their characters are the most interesting to me, the other 2 couples bore me. (Also I hate Boston and can't stand seeing him lmao)

SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (although nickboston don't necessarily bore me, it's just hard to have fun with them when boston is so repugnant and i don't really enjoy their love scenes. but i do love that nick is a little freak and BUGS HIS CAR jfslkjgws)

i've talked about this before but i really do think it's a combination of

forcebook not being as popular and book being the lead (can't account for taste *flips hair*), therefore 'taking away' screentime from their faves

pre-hating top for "cheating" (i'm going to stop using that word btw i'm going to stick with "slept with someone else," it's more accurate and it's how they worded it on Friends lol) and continuing to hate him for being "smug" (again, can't account for taste. that's a feature, not a bug!)

pre-hating mew for... shit they made up about him lmao

they actively ignore what is actually happening before their eyes and extrapolate the most bizarre interpretations of a piece of media i've ever seen, all to confirm what they want to believe.

of course i, tumblr user forcebookish, am biased too, but i really do think that even if i didn't already love forcebook this would be my awakening because of their performances and how unique topmew are. (plus, they're fucking cute!) i've never seen a character have trouble sleeping alone because he survived a fire as a child. i've never seen a virgin character be so confident in his sexuality (even though i've known people like that in real life!).

you know what i have seen? rich alcoholic with an unrequited love and a dead mom. starving artist in a band with a side hustle. remorseless psycho who only wants sex. that doesn't necessarily make them bad characters! they're just not as compelling to me. perhaps as they develop and we get to learn more about them, they'll become more fleshed out and interesting, but right now? meh.

[eruverse]

(Especially true for hetalia because people have all kinds of OCs here)

Perhaps this is controversial, but as someone from the ‘global south’, ‘third world country’, or like, lol, ‘where the ‘poc’s are’ sth along the line I am not eager to see my country, wider region or my culture be represented in English speaking media in the name of inclusivity or something by outsiders (not just the whites but the non-Indonesians in general yanno).

I much more prefer that people write about my country and research about it because they genuinely are interested in it. It comes more from the heart after all.

But representation? What does that even mean? In my honest opinion, no outsider will ever be able to truly represent us anyway. Only the Indonesians could, by the end of it. And in my opinion also? Not all Indonesians could anyway, because we are mostly too biased (and that includes me).*

Do you see it?

I don’t like this ‘representation’ stuff because in it lies the ego and arrogance of the self, thinking they’re able to do something that’s not even supposedly in their place to do so. The more conscious people are of doing things in the name of inclusivity, the more they become too much of tryhards, and it’s to me a secondhand embarrassment.

It’s different for people who are genuinely interested. They just simply like doing it. They don’t beat themselves too much if they’re wrong about stuff because, duh, you’re an outsider, of course you’re bound to be wrong at times. They just want to experience and mingle. And I highly respect that.

I have OCs of different countries, so I’m also trying to keep myself in check of any arrogance. Now I only see mine for the most part as ‘random citizens who just happen to carry the souls of their nations’. I don’t really beat myself over the facts that at times they probably don’t really represent the stereotypes of their own people or sth, because I WILL never get any of these stereotypes anyway (things that might not even exist in the first place?), and thus I don’t try doing what’s already impossible in the first place. Now my focus is building my OCs as individuals.

*Yes, I can’t represent my own country, but my opinions as someone who’s lived here all my life and raised by native parents and family will always be more valid than an outsider’s who has prob only visited here for a few days and get their info from secondhand sources. After all, even a list of historical facts NEED contextual interpretations and only natives could understand them with least bias. Because these facts are OURS. Tho just because they’re valid doesn’t mean they’re objective.