#and there are others but like too lazy to tag them all

[littlefankingdom]

I love Batman being a part of the Justice League Dark. It's so funny imo.

His whole vibe and gothic asthetic fit so well with occultism, he has nothing to do here. He has an aura of misery and tragedy so strong any entities coined to death is pulled to him, he has no understanding of magic.

He doesn't understand magic, he tried but his brain is just not making sense of it, so he cannot do any of it. Which also means he doesn't see half of the bs happening around, or cannot interact with it. He is useless 90% of the time.

Why is he here? It's not to be the brain, because the guys are pretty smart (especially his bestie Zatanna). It's not to be Zatanna's scary dog, because she is powerful enough on her own to scare people (and they are just impressed to see Batman). It's not for moral support, he's Batman after all. He is just standing there with the team, doing nothing, but helping with the aesthetic.

He can do so little that the bad guy will forget he's there, until they get taken out by a karate chop in the neck. They were using all their energy defending themself against the team, they forgot to defend their back.

I'm starting to think him going on a mission with the Justice League Dark is a vacation for him. He cannot do real vacations, he would stress too much about all the work he could be doing, so this is the best he can have. He is still going to work, but he is not doing shit, and the world will not end. Or, it's Zatanna deciding he needs to go out or something.

[tomatoart]

doodle page who cheered

[secrescaryat]

// pentiment spoilers (implied ig but still there)

more of these because i was inspired

[somegrumpynerd]

I felt like drawing the boys just hanging out, because what is the point of living in your boss's huge castle with your new teammates if it's not a slumber party every day

Also I might colour in that last one cause I like how it turned out c:

[note-boom]

See here. BSD is a story about how all of our characters were once children. How the scars and wounds and secrets of their past will always haunt them to the present. We see it with Chuuya, Yosano, Ranpo, even Odasaku briefly, Atsushi, Tachihara, Akutagawa, Kyouka and Kenji right now, even Kouyou just a little bit. They've all overcome it or they've allowed it to consume them. And yet that brief glimpse into a past where they were young and scarred shows us once again just how human they are...every criminal, ever person, was once a child wounded by or protected from the world and doesn't that count for something even if it doesn't excuse the atrocities they commit today?

[necrotic-nephilim]

If you want to be bothered. Maybe this for dick and Bruce???

i ALWAYS want to be bothered these are always the highlight of my day tbh you're a delight for letting me just yap <3

Dick. For the canon isn't real square I am Specifically talking about the Tom Taylor Nightwing run. Usually I ignore bad runs but given this one is ongoing (though about to end THANK GOD and get replaced by Dan Watters who i have high hopes for since i adored his Sword of Azrael (2022) run but i digress) so I counted it. Especially since it's so debated if that run is bad or not, for some reason. I'm a 90s Nightwing truther. I love Dick so dearly and tbh recently I've been more enamored with him the more I read his Discowing era, I didn't used to be as big of a Dick stan as I am these days.

Bruce. Honestly where do you even start with Bruce. I want to fist fight him and also patch him up. He got me into comics and superheroes as a whole but I roll my eyes whenever he shows up in a story. He's a bastard and usually not a good father but also complex and should be dissected under a magnifying glass. I love him dearly. He's also just the worst. I think that's why I love him. I'm always a fan of unabashedly Complicated Asshole Bruce who's generally not always the best person, particularly not to the Batfamily and that being the driving force of his relationships with them, especially in shipping.

And for bonus points, Tim. Because know above all else, I'm a Tim Drake kinnie /deg. He's been my number one for a decade and I've yet to uproot him from my brain. He's literally the Worst half the time and I love him for it. And the canon isn't real refers to Tim Drake: Robin because... that sure was a comic. And that's about all I can say about it. Pre-Flashpoint Tim I miss you so dearly. I think it's fun that I want to put him in a blender and drink the juice but also want Nothing Ever to happen to him.

[scoliosisgoblin]

yo, @bennydunbar, check this out

[mrmeepsmadmind]

he drew the abs on with sharpie, don't fall for the gremlin's tricks

[ilynpilled]

I think what bugs me the most about the type of analysis that is common in this fandom is that sometimes people are obsessed with not actually looking at choices being made by characters and instead try to project extra-textual symbolism/parallels they pulled out of thin air or use essentialist arguments to predict a certain character’s trajectory. There is already a weird tendency to blame bloodlines instead of institutions, oppressive/destructive social constructs/systems, and abusive cycles. This series repeatedly deconstructs bio essentialist ideas in a multitude of ways. Characters being viewed as monsters for the way they are born is a concept that is repeatedly torn down. There is a combination of nature & nurture at play with these characters, I admit, but it is nuanced. Your environment and your nature are in constant conversation with each other. Certain environmental factors will worsen certain attributes, while repress others etc. Your blood is not evil, nor is it pure, it just is, and your nature will be affected by your rearing, tragedies you face, and the environment you live in. Monsters are created and developed, not born. This whole concept is apparent with all the siblings in the series. Dany & Viserys are drastically different people, and make different choices despite having similar experiences and the same blood. Same can be said for Joff, Myrcella, and Tommen. Another very good example are the Lannister siblings. The twins’ idea of “one soul in two bodies” is deconstructed, and they are faced with how dissimilar they actually are. All three siblings have differences in nature, as revealed by their behavior as young children & their current values and motivations, and they are all shaped very differently by their environment. Cersei is affected by the oppressive system of the patriarchy, Jaime by the trauma due to the violent construct of knighthood, and Tyrion by the rampant ableism of the world around him. Tywin also shapes them by giving each of them their own flavor of parental abuse based on the role he wants them to play in his legacy. It is so apparent just how these characters became what they are, and how they navigate their world as a result of a nuanced combination of nature and nurturer. But in the end, it comes down to choices that they keep making. Characters on the right path can also falter sometimes, weigh their values wrong, and make bad decisions at certain points. Not to mention how thoughts and words do not speak as much as actions and actual choices that are made do. You all take bio essentialist arguments that some characters in the text make at face value, even when it is obviously bullshit. Any analysis that hinges entirely on “this character is the son/daughter of this character”, or “this thing on the surface parallels this other thing from something I read/watched”, “this character is a dragon. Dragons plant no trees”, “this character is a monster”, “this character is from this house”, “this character is related to this character” etc instead of actually looking at what said characters do or try to do is gonna lead to unconvincing arguments that are antithetical to one of the main ideas that this series is built on. To me it feels like these books are communicating that in spite of your birth, your origin, your trauma, your prophecies, etc it is primarily your choices that lead you to where you are and the legacy that you create. Cersei’s prophecy will come true as a result of the choices she makes. Dany’s many prophecies are also as a result of choices she makes, she was not just gifted with everything that she has achieved, she is an active agent who makes choices that push her a certain direction. This is also why it is weird when everybody wants to make characters have a predetermined trajectory solely based on “what” they are, or who they are related to.

Not only does George say this in interviews, it is an explicit thesis statement in the text itself:

This is the concluding statement of Jaime’s ASoS arc. Like “The things I do for love”, “So many vows...”, and “The heroes […] the best and the worst, and those who were a bit of both”, as extremely relevant it is to him in specific, it is a major thesis statement for the series as whole, and overlaps with many characters, just like how other characters also have a bunch of these overlapping arc theses. So can we please primarily look at the choices characters make and what ultimately motivated them to make these choices rather than thinking their ending and what they “are” as characters is set in stone because of the reasons mentioned. I feel like how you all engage with some of these characters contradicts the deconstruction of this kind of essentialism that is so apparent in these books.

[arttsuka]

post oc lore king/queen !!

😭 I don't really have lore tbh, mostly vibes. Everything is too underdeveloped for lore

I have vague ideas of what I want my ocs to be.

For example, I want to put these guys in a 'time travel' kinda situation, where a murder takes place (that phone guy, who was the only one who knew how to help them get back in their time).

The only thing worse than their designs are the names

[abyssruler]

i am once again begging y’alls input on which wip to finish

[defyingthefates]

With the revelation that Orym had a feeling Laudna killing Bor'dor would give Delilah a foot in the door again, and let it happen even as Laudna turned to him as a lifeline to stop herself. And with the Expanse and its characters on the brain. I'm just thinking about how sometimes, even in the absence of evil necromantic soul parasites, the important question isn't "is mercy the morally correct choice?" it's "is revenge the right choice for us?" It's about self-preservation. About staying the person you want to be. The person you need to be to keep putting one foot in front of the other every day. The person you can look at in mirror every morning. It's about knowing your friend will be disproportionately burdened by that choice and chosing to intervene. Not even necessarily to stop the killing altogether, just to stop your friend from hurting themself in the process. ("You're not that guy" but "I am that guy." "It's not about [them]. It's about us." "It wasn't mercy. It was vanity. I didn't want to think of myself as someone who wanted vengeance.")

In that moment Laudna needed someone to step in for her. To take the weight off her shoulders. I don't think Laudna wants to be the kind of person who kills to satisfy feelings of revenge (even without the threat of an evil necromancer hiding in her soul). Imogen pulled her back from the brink before. But this time she wasn't there. And Orym, in her stead, let her fall. When he could have chosen to intervene. Ashton too, to an extent, although in the moment it was Orym that Laudna looked to for restraint. Either of them could have made the kill instead. That this also put Delilah back in the picture... well that just makes this situation all that much worse. How does it feel to know that your friends let you free-fall into the dark? How does it feel knowing you let your friend free-fall into the dark? Worse, how does it feel to know you gave them that final shove over the precipice?

[maulfucker]

Some sketcheys of this AU because I needed to get some of it out of my system

[gavindna]

In the spirit of documenting the effect undead unluck has had on me, I thought I should mention that I talk about it online SO MUCH that when I was trying to look up something Undertale related earlier, I accidentally typed undeadtale not once, but fucking TWICE. I have gotten to the point where I talk about it so much that my fingers have gotten the muscle memory of following the letters und with ead.

[o-uncle-newt]

I read Possession by AS Byatt after people told me "if you liked Gaudy Night you'll like this" and WELL.

Warning- spoilers for both books abound below!

So it sounded great- as a lapsed academic (though not in the field of literature by any means) there's a part of me that loves reading about academia because it's full of such obsessive people, and this book seemed to be exactly that and so I was excited.

Then I read it, and on the one hand, my first thought was "all these people are dull as heck, the only sane modern-day one is Val, and at the end of the day the historical stuff is just two people having an affair, who cares." My second thought was "there's just enough stuff here that makes me think that maybe the author knows that all of this is stupid, like the fact that Val is obviously one of the few sane ones here." But the ending made me doubt even that. Essentially, and I say this even as that lapsed academic, the author could not convince me to care about the important things at stake here, and as a result couldn't get me to care about the people who only seemed to care about those things.

I didn't care about Ash and LaMotte- they came across as two people high on their own supply who had a tawdry affair. (And each of them is the less interesting person, as a person, than their official partner!) As a result of not caring about them, I couldn't POSSIBLY care about Roland, Maud, and the rest of their crew, because their only functions were to be possessed by, and weirdly possessive of, these two entirely unworthy individuals, whose in-universe historical and literary significance Byatt couldn't convince me of, and to use that possession as a mirror for their own very lame romance. Beyond that they're utterly uninteresting, and there isn't even meant to BE much beyond that so it's not that surprising.

Anyway, I didn't like this book much, but it still made me think a lot. And there's a way in which a certain kind of person might say "well if it made you think then that's surely a sign of some positive quality" and... maybe? I don't know. I didn't hate all of it, and some parts were interesting, and I do have a whole separate list of things about the book that bug me including a breakdown of some of the book's (perceived by me) themes that I particularly disliked lol. Perhaps I'll post it another time. So I guess you can say it spurred me to thought, but loads of things that I don't like do that, and the only positive thing that that draws from me is that they're not downright dull.

The thing is, after finishing the book I was immediately struck by that "if you like Gaudy Night..." element, because it has a situation that felt weirdly similar (if for totally different reasons)- a young scholar stealing a letter from a library/archive. The circumstances are different- in Gaudy Night, the scholar does it to hide its existence so as not to contradict his thesis, and in Possession, the scholar does it so as to explore the document further, though still secretly- but there are still some interesting parallels vis a vis class. Possession goes into the class thing more than Gaudy Night does, but neither book goes much into it- the scholar is lower-class and someone who has scraped their way to their position, and is encumbered by a female partner of lower social and academic standing, and in the end they are juxtaposed against scholars who come from an elevated class and who have more money and opportunity. In Gaudy Night, Arthur Robinson is judged by the likes of Lord Peter Wimsey and a college full of women who don't have to do anything but think, teach, write, and grade papers; in Possession, Roland has to convince a bunch of academics of standing and resources to take a chance on him (and while this is more about money than class, he's the main one who's like "maybe it's good if Lady Bailey gets her wheelchair"). Byatt elides over this at the end by having him magically become in demand and on his way to achieving his academic goals, but I think in both books, the class element really could have taken on more significance in the text.

(I'd add as well that Byatt pits the upper-class and moneyed Maud, who of course is doing things for "the right reasons," vs the evil American businessman who clearly... doesn't care about Ash enough? Despite how much he clearly and obviously cares about Ash? The book was way more interesting when he seemed like a valid rival to the British team, who only thought that they deserved the letters more because of their obsession, rather than how it turned out at the end where the American dude is an actual cartoon villain. What made him genuinely less worthy besides having money without class, and of course having the bad taste to be American? What makes one scholar's possession more justified? Sayers was never this unsubtle.)

So that made me think more about Possession vs Gaudy Night, and the thing is, there are actual living people in Gaudy Night! Say what you will about the unworldliness of the academics at Shrewsbury, but you get a very keen view of their personalities by the end, even as they are (by necessity given the rules of their world) subsumed by academia, or subsume themselves in it. And the people who do fall in love are REALLY in love, and you understand why...

And somehow a book from 1935 feels far more interrogative of the possession (or lack thereof) found in love and romance, and just about the place of women in academia and relationships overall, than one from the late 80s. In Gaudy Night, Harriet accepts Peter once she has determined that despite their power differential (brought on by class, money, history, and to a degree gender) he will not threaten her personhood, because he has proven himself to her. In Possession, Maud accepts Roland because she has the power (money, class, position, even height) and so Roland actually cannot threaten her- and yet still that final scene is about her being taken by him, basically to prove some kind of a point. In contrast, in Busman's Honeymoon, the euphemistic sex scenes are about Peter trying to please Harriet.

When I say it's to prove a point, I'm paraphrasing Byatt, incidentally- who said: "And in the case of Maud I had made it very inhibiting. She was a woman inhibited both by beauty (which actually isn't very good for very beautiful women because they feel it isn't really them people love) and she was also inhibited by Feminism, because she had all sorts of theories that perhaps she would be a more noble kind of woman if she was a lesbian. And so she was a bit stuck. And Roland was timid because I am naturally good at timid men. It's the kind of men I happen to like. He's a timid thinking man, so of course it took him the whole book." I mean... yikes, but also that explains a lot. Maud can only bring herself to be with a man who is weak/effeminate (?) enough to justify whatever weird psyche Byatt has imagined up for her, but still she needs to get over her inhibitions and under him because... reasons. I don't know.

(Height is also interesting here as a point of contrast- Byatt makes Maud taller than Roland to make a point about how on the one hand she retains the power but on the other hand there is now even more of her that has to surrender. Peter and Harriet are the same medium height and wear the same size gown.)

I think the thing that most stuns me is how regressive Possession feels when it comes to gender politics on relationships than Gaudy Night does. I'd need a whole other post to talk about this, but the theme of Possession seems to me to be "relationships that produce things (whether art or children) are worth more than ones that don't." Roland is better with Maud than with Val because Val is a second rate scholar who drags him down (while supporting him financially) and Ash is better with LaMotte than with Ellen because LaMotte didn't only inspire his writing (Ellen's contributions are described only in the negative "didn't impede"), she gave him the child that Ellen refused to. Incidentally, in both cases it's the man pursuing a relationship that will give HIM something... But, to paraphrase Peter in Busman's Honeymoon, one wouldn't want to regard relationships in that agricultural light. Gaudy Night is about how two people can produce great things without each other but choose to be with each other for their own, and each other's, happiness. They aren't each less apart, and as I noted in a prior post, they don't need to solve cases together or conjoin their work in order for their relationship to be worth something. It is worth it for them to be together because it encourages some kind of inner balance within them and between them, as people. They enjoy collaborating but that is by no means the basis of their love (and, incidentally, I think that a lot of, if not most, detective series romances fail this basic test of "would they have fallen in love if they were accountants who met on a dating app." Peter and Harriet definitely would have- would, say, Albert Campion and Amanda Fitton have? I do NOT think so).

And here's the thing- another reason why Byatt's quote above is so off-putting is that it makes it clear that not only in the text but on a meta level, the purpose of the relationships is to prove a Point. I found Roland and Maud to have zero chemistry, and honestly I was expecting them to get together 3/4 of the way through and split up at the end when it turned out they had nothing in common- it seemed like that kind of book. I was kind of stunned when they only got together at the end in an "it's meant to be" way because nothing about it seemed meant to be. They were stuck together by that one thing and they each apparently needed the relationship for some kind of self-actualization or historical rhyming or other. (Whatever I say about Ash and LaMotte... at least they seemed to like each other!)

Peter and Harriet... they get together because they love each other. Do they change over the course of Gaudy Night, and over the course of the other books they share together? Of course they do. But if it makes sense, I'll put it this way- Harriet doesn't accept Peter's proposal as proof that she got over her hangups, Harriet gets over her hangups so that she can accept Peter's proposal. Her hangups only matter because they were keeping her from this particular kind of happiness- she was a fully actualized person even with them. She is a person who does things for human reasons so that she can build a mutually happy life with the person she loves, not a little plot mannequin being moved around in order to tell the author's desired Message. People can say what they want about Gaudy Night and its flaws, but despite the intricacies of its construction, nobody can call the characters' actions and motivations anything but brutally human.

Whether within their universes or on a meta level, the books have SUCH different things to say about the value and nature of love, the place of and purpose of sex, the place of art and intellectual accomplishment in relationships, all of the above in the context of femininity… and I can't help but feel that each time, Gaudy Night wins the contest. It's possible I'm missing something major about Possession, and maybe sometime I'll post the rest of my notes about the things I disliked and people can tell me what I'm wrong about- but if nothing else it made me appreciate Gaudy Night even more, so for that I'm grateful.

[critterchitters-closedcaptions]

trying to decipher if the overwhelming dread & Thoughts are cause of the state of the world or cause i need a shower.

vent post in the tags. idk. do whatever 👍