#anyway here are the tags for engagement

[talkingsandvich]

lebron discovers the chimps experience

[krysmcscience]

Look, Aym, I know you wanna annoy your big bro sometimes, but y'all really gotta stop putting the death god into silly mode. He is Very Dangerous, you see. ŎuŎ;

this idea wouldn't go away until i drew it so here it is lmfao

[idanit]

solidarity

[tls12lessthan3]

thinking about orvs metatextual engagement with its genre and specifically how that interacts with its women again. kim dokja is a self insert for the reader - what he thinks is largely meant to represent what we think, especially in the beginning before sing shong really fleshes out his character. kim dokja sees the world through tropes, directly acknowledging the genre around him and the cliches we expect e.g. the overpowered mc, the scheming villain, the beautiful heroine.

but a major part of his arc is deconstructing this reductionist view of the world in a way that parallels the author's deconstruction of the genre, and that plays really well with the way orv writes women. yoo sangah is perhaps the best exanple - shes introduced as the heroine, a one-dimensional pretty girl who in any other novel would become kim dokja's love interest. but the authors allow her to be her own character, directly challenging the stereotype of the heroine and calling attention to the genre's typical lack of depth for such a character. i think this undercurrent plays in the background often but really comes to the forefront when yoo sangah reminds kim dokja of her putting pepper in their bosses' coffee, a memory kim dokja had supressed because it didn't fit with the pretty girl persona he made for her.

i interpret that moment as yoo sangah pushing her way out of the mold of heroine often found in these stories, demanding a depth be added to her character, asking kim dokja - and thus the reader - to see her in her entirety, to see the heroine archetype for what she could be. orv is at all times in conversation with its genre, and its simultaneous writing of female characters with agency and depth and acknowledgement of the tropes these women are expected to fulfill is undeniably a part of that. and its a part i enjoy. most of the time.

[sandwichsapphic]

“an exceedingly pleasant and amiable young gentleman but… mentally he is negligible - quite negligible” is the Jeeves and Wooster equivalent of “she is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me”

[ywpd-translations]

We need more engagement in this fandom!

So, as the title says, because I was thinking about this - I love this manga with all my heart as you very well know, and the main reason I started translating is because I wanted more engagement in the fandom, which was pretty much dead. Well, it still kind of is, which brings me here lol

I tried to keep this blog translations only to keep everything more in order and make it easy to find the various chapters and all, and I kept all my theories and ramblings either in the tags or on my main blog, except for the times I got asks.

But I would love for this fandom to be more active! I wanna talk about theories and headcanons and ships and all that! I want this fandom to start living again :')

So I was wondering - would you people like it if I started also posting about that kind of stuff? Reblogging fanarts, posts, fanfics or whatever I see around? Would you like to engage more in the fandom? I'm asking because: 1) maybe you'd prefer it if this blog stays translations only, kinda like an archive; 2) maybe there aren't many people who actually wants to engage in fandom activities anyway lmao

I'm asking honestly! I just really would love for this fandom to be active again :')

[statementlou]

https://www.tumblr.com/louisupdates/754934426217152513/goodbye-faith-in-the-future-world-tour-272024?source=share

did he or did he not lose fans then?

I will answer this because this anon actually brings a concrete question to the table rather than just "hurhur but you're a larrie??" (tell me you can't actually refute any of our points…). Anyway this post shows the decrease in Louis instagram followers between the screenshots taken directly after the release of Faith in the Future in Nov '22, when he changed his bio to promote that album and the tour tickets, and now, when he changed it again to mention the current release. But I'm putting that response under a cut because I'm tired of the actual POINT of all this nonsense getting lost in a sea of made up things people insist are important:

There is no rational argument you can make to say that Louis has less fans now than he did 2, 4, or 6 years ago. You don't need a spreadsheet of details you need to USE YOUR EYES! He has gone from filling theaters to filling arenas and stadiums. His second album made a higher chart position than his first album. His festival has doubled in size EVERY year of its existence. And for that matter: his insta post engagement numbers remain about the same (despite the fact that older posts should have way MORE likes due to having been there longer, even aside from follower counts.) SO WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT HIS INSTA FOLLOWER NUMBER???? Serious question: what does the word "fans" mean if these things aren't what matters? ALL of this quibbling about what he should do to make things better and people can't even see that THINGS AREN'T BAD.

Anyway to address the specific question- (con't......)

NO- HE DID NOT LOSE FANS. HE LOST SOME INSTA FOLLOWERS. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. As I said above, literally what does it mean to lose fans if that number change coincides with him having higher sales, more audience members, and higher engagement than ever before? Whatever he lost ISN'T FANS. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant factor was something like a bot purge, but also yes: I'm sure a lot of casuals followed him around the time of his big album release and later unfollowed him. That's extremely normal because that's how casual engagement works, and why the definition of fan really matters. Louis and his team understand this and have referenced it repeatedly, talking about how lucky he is to have *us* specifically, to have the kind of dedicated fanbase he has, to have the KIND of fans he does who will allow him to do what HE wants. @dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram named the issue of depth vs breadth with regard to fans a long time ago, and pointed out why having DEPTH is so much more important. It's like this- artists who are on top 40 radio have more numbers on things like insta follows, and for a time on sales and tickets. But those aren't FANS- they're people with a casual interest. And as soon as that person isn't being forced in their ears 10x a day, those people lose interest and stop supporting them, stop buying stuff and unfollow, and those artists end up doing the 'opener on the jingle ball' circuit rather than their own tours. One Direction as a whole, and Louis maybe most of all or near to at this point, have something MUCH MORE VALUABLE than that- DEPTH FANS. Louis has fans who will support him even if he takes years to release music, or stops parading around with a pretend girlfriend to stay in the headlines at least once a month, or completely changes his image and genre, and that is UNHEARD OF. It's ASTONISHING and worth SO MUCH MORE. And they get that! THAT is why he always bragging about us, why industry people he works with are always so agog about us, why he will do anything for US- not for randos. He is also growing his breadth- and it's OBVIOUSLY WORKING whatever his follower counts are, but that is always going to be secondary to doing things for THE FANDOM because that is his sustainable business model. That is what keeps him onstage and reaching number one. And not coincidentally, the things they do are also working to grow that- much more valuable- commodity. So the fact that that's exactly what these chuckleheads complain about- that he does things that are just fandom facing or serving rather than everything being aimed at recruiting casual fans- does nothing but betray how completely they, unlike Louis and his team, misunderstand the actual drivers of his (actual, existing, happening) success. Luckily for Louis, he and his team rely on their own data harvesting (they do a LOT of it) and growth metrics (they're off the charts) rather than the smug assumptions of random (mostly quite new to this) fans and the few bitter people leading the complaining about everything Louis does.

[flavia8]

You know. Something I really hate about a lot of popular fantasy books, and it's especially prevalent in Romantasy, is what passes for Feminism in them. It's a toothless fake, used as an aesthetic/seasoning. A sprinkle of *strong female character* and a dash of deceptively misogynistic everything else, and for the finishing touch a pinch of man who's slightly better than being openly sexist and Boom. Fantasy series led by a FMC.

Generally, the Female Main character either starts out or becomes incredibly powerful, but always, always, always her power is linked to the men around her. She supposedly has agency and makes her own choices but the choices she makes are between choices provided to her by men. Her male love interest is more powerful in SOME way, and ends up besting her in some way. Experience, training, power, there's always some way the man is better than her. Female characters are never allowed to just BE powerful. Or even just BE single. Often they give up their powers, or are forcibly stripped of them. They look down on other female characters for doing "feminine" work. And, they're stupid as hell to supposedly make them relatable or endearing. Often, the male mc is concerningly abusive but it's portrayed as dreamy, romantic and Ideal. (I genuinely get the love for villains, and enemies to not, and the love for morally grey characters, I genuinely do, but this isn't that, what happens in these books is just genuinely bad (if they actually were people) being portrayed through rose colored glasses) [And in some stories that could be genuinely interesting!] If there's a second Love Interest, he will just do the same awful shit to the MC but it's better now bc it's him.

If the female character isn't white, all of this + a staggering amount of racism. They're rarely MCs. They're fridged for the MCs, they serve the MCs, they're never as beautiful or powerful as the MC, they're stereotyped and portrayed as savage, vapid, comically evil, or just as a good guy with no character at all.

These books are presented as feminist and it pisses me off. Feminism is equality for all, and the fight for Women to be equal and have their own agency. To make their own decisions. Genuinely I believe writers should be able to write whatever they want. I have no issues with having "problematic" stuff in books. My issue is when people start to believe that this shit is feminist, and the author is so skilled and amazing, and it's a masterpiece! Fuck that.

[artfulacrostic]

jean moreau, and faith and religion and the absence of it.

the sunshine court, nora sakavic // the unabridged journals of sylvia plath, sylvia plath // "stay down" by boygenius ft. julien baker, lucy dacus, and phoebe bridgers // the denial of st. peter, caravaggio // salome with the head of st. john the baptist, simon vouet // henry iv pt. ii, william shakespeare // the rebirth of the arts, charles haslewood shannon // daredevil: "born again" (1986) by frank miller et al. // "ash-wednesday", t.s. eliot // map of hell, botticelli

[lukewarmbreadatamoderatepace]

I already forget where I heard this, but it's really sparkly to think about:

Which do you think is greater:

1. the combined number of jumps all humans throughout all of human existence have performed

or

2. the combined number of jumps all video game characters (specifically ones piloted directly by the player) have performed

?

--

(and

if you think it's the latter-- when did 2 overtake 1?)

[ofpd]

Rating: Explicit

Archive Warning: No Archive Warnings Apply

Fandoms: Les Misérables - Victor Hugo, Les Misérables - All Media Types

Relationships: Enjolras/Grantaire, Enjolras/Patria

Characters: Enjolras, Grantaire

Additional Tags: Canon Era, BDSM, Submissive Enjolras, Sexual Fantasy, Praise Kink, Discipline, Restraints, Orgasm Control, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Aftercare

Word Count: 8,543

Summary:

“I belong to my mistress in body and soul,” Enjolras said seriously, “but her nature is such that she is unable to directly communicate her desires to me.” Grantaire’s mind stuck on one baffling word in Enjolras’s sentence. “Your mistress?” “Patria,” Enjolras clarified, waving a dismissive hand, as if Grantaire ought to have understood implicitly. - Enjolras makes an unexpected request of Grantaire.

a gift for the wonderful @koheletgirl <3

[altschmerzes]

in my quest to find fic about platonic/generally nonromantic but emotionally intimate sex to read (partially bc when i write about something especially without having written about it much before i like to read a lot to see what other people are doing, get inspiration etc) im once again BEGGING people to only tag something ‘platonic x’ if they actually mean that. stop with this ‘#platonic x #…or is it’ ‘#platonic x #haha ‘platonic’ anyway’ etc bullshit. it’s not cute and it’s not funny.

[batsplat]

hello, i have a question. what is the difference betwwen a hard and a dangerous racer? is there some sort of characteristics like how succesful a racer is or is more of a "a dangerous racer races on the limit and that's dangerous. a hard racer races on the limit but. its just a hard racer". thank you for answering!

completely in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. it's a perpetual debate, and one where everyone draws the line differently... very much a case of one man's dangerous manoeuvre is another one's hard but fair overtake... that being said! I'll have a go at coming up with a general framework with which people assess this stuff

let's bring in two strawmen, which feels like the most direct way to illustrate the possible stances you can take on this debate. to be clear, nobody really fits neatly in either ideological category - but, well, these are pretty much the two most extreme positions anyone could have:

when people are describing something as 'hard racing' (as opposed to... idk, 'clean' racing), they are usually talking about a) contact between the two bikes, and/or b) an action that forces the other bike to take evasive action. what constitutes forcing evasive action? well, this is all very nebulous and hard to define - there's crossing another rider's racing line, making them pick up the bike mid-corner, forcing them wide/off-track, not yielding in situations where one of you will have to yield to avoid a crash... but this is always an assessment that will depend on the specific circumstances. not every block pass is considered hard racing, for instance, even though you are quite literally 'blocking' the other bike. contact is the more straightforward one... if you initiate a move that leads to contact, then most people would agree this is 'hard' racing

so say you are in the 'A' camp. according to this line of thinking, pretty much every contact is 'dangerous' riding and should not be allowed. here's what gibernau said about jerez 2005, included in the sete post:

let's not discuss the merits of the jerez 2005 move specifically here - this is an expression of a broader ideological position. "this is not a contact sport" "it's not about hitting another guy"... so, according to this stance, actions that knowingly result in contact should not be acceptable and as a result need to be penalised. taken to the logical extreme, any and all 'hard racing' is dangerous

let's go to the other extreme, 'B'. let's say you're very pro-hard racing, to the point where you think that contact is more than fine and that it is unreasonable to call it 'dangerous'. sure, of course it is dangerous, but inherently all motorcycle racing has a lot of risk attached. racing that involves contact is basically acceptable. even within this extreme, my lovely venn diagram allows for some actual 'dangerous' riding - either behaviour that is wholly irresponsible during races... or stuff that doesn't count as hard racing because it's not 'racing'. here are some examples:

stuff that happens during races but is like... egregious misbehaviour. cf romano fenati pulling a rival's brake lever during a race - obviously dangerous and no longer really exists within the confines of actual racing

in either races or non-race sessions - not following proper safety procedures like for instance ignoring yellow flags. again, should be pretty obvious why that's dangerous

poor behaviour in non-race sessions,the general tag for not exhibiting appropriate care, awareness for your environment, all that stuff... the extreme example is marc barrelling into the back of another rider after the chequered flag had been waved in friday practise at phillip island 2011 (more on that here). it's also things like faffing about on the racing line, see the pecco mugello dramatics

so, yes, everyone will agree that there's some stuff that counts as 'dangerous riding' that's distinct from 'hard racing' just because it's not actual racing. that's the most straightforward stuff... but yeah, anyway, those are basically the two extreme positions you can take. you can say that all contact is bad and dangerous, that any time you're forcing another rider to take evasive action and are making a pass that isn't 1000% clean, you are putting others at unnecessary risk. or, you can say, hey, everything goes, rubbing is racing on steroids - sure, there's a small category of things that aren't acceptable, mainly stuff that isn't actually racing, but otherwise you should be allowed to brute force yourself past riders whenever you please

obviously, they're strawmen for a reason. basically nobody holds either of these positions in their entirety - and in race situations, there's always going to be actions that are seen as hard racing by some and as dangerous by others. so, unfortunately, we're going to have to dig a little deeper here, and figure out by what metrics people draw the line between hard and dangerous. let's... hey, how about we bring in casey stoner, just this once. as a treat. here's what he said after laguna '08:

“I’ve been in hard racing all my life, some very aggressive racing, but today was a little bit too much. I nearly went in the gravel so many times and I don’t think it was necessary.”

hard racing? casey's done that before. some very aggressive racing? no issue. but what valentino did at laguna was "a little bit too much" and not "necessary". the specific thing casey cites is nearly going into the gravel - and indeed, forcing other riders wide/off-track is one of the types of racing behaviour that most finely straddles the line between 'hard' and 'dangerous'. for other examples, see suzuka 2001 in which biaggi forced valentino off-track and valentino flipped him off when he eventually got past (a few more details here), qatar 2012 where marc forced luthi off-track and got slapped after the race (here) and sepang 2015, where... uh. you know. or how about argentina 2018 where... look, I think you get the point - plenty of controversy comes from forcing your opponent's bike into places where it's simply not supposed to be

while we're at it, let's throw in a little excerpt from casey's autobiography about the race:

A lot of it was fair racing, he was out-braking me on the inside and riding better than me around a lot of the track. If it had all been like that I would cop it sweet. But a couple of moves off camera added to my frustration. I risked running off the track, and racing at the limits like that as we were I even became worried about my safety.

(does have to be said that the pair of them spend... relatively little time off-camera, never when the bikes seem to be particularly close - but of course the problem this statement creates is that by definition you can't judge any footage you don't have access to)

so, let's strip away the details and think about what casey is actually talking about here. it's a risk/reward calculation. this is what's at the heart of this riding standards debate: what level of risk is acceptable for what level of reward? there are situations in which there is inherently a higher level of risk in a way that isn't caused by either party - influenced by the circuit layout, what the weather is like, how hard you're both pushing aka how much on the 'limit' you are, and so on. but even if that risk isn't your 'fault', if you are riding at very high speeds on a dangerous track, you can still be considered a dangerous rider if you're not exercising appropriate levels of caution

so, let's break it down even further and try and come up with some basic criteria by which people judge whether a specific move is 'hard' or 'dangerous'. how about this: (1) does the action have a reasonable chance of coming off, (2) is the risk you're taking proportionate to the reward, and (3) is the move likely to cause serious harm to you or the other rider. let's take them one by one

listen, it needs to be plausible that you're going to be able to pull this move off. if you're firing the bike from fifty miles back into a gap that doesn't exist, then this is by definition an unnecessary risk. you are not going to do yourself any good and you are also not going to do the other rider any good. (sometimes it might be in your interest to crash the other rider out so you might as well, but unsurprisingly this is frowned upon. see the 1998 250cc title decider.) obviously, this is going to be affected by your skill level - if you're a mid rider, there will be fewer moves that are 'plausible' for you than for the best riders

this is basically the common sense metric. if you are riding in a pack, make sure to keep in mind that crashing in this situation could get ugly. if you are fighting for p5, maybe a different approach is fitting than fighting for p1. if you can make an overtake a lap later as long as you're patient, in a way that's a lot safer than doing it now, perhaps just do that instead. don't be silly in the wet! this comes down to stakes, whether it's worth it, how likely the move is to succeed... and also what the consequences would be if you got it wrong, for both yourself and other riders. you're making an overall judgement based on all of those factors... sometimes you need to take risk, but it's better to make sure that risk is reasonably sensible

however high the potential rewards are, there's a certain level of risk that is no longer acceptable, where the 'risk/reward calculation' stuff has to be thrown out of the window because the reward no longer matters. this is basically the catch-all for 'wholly irresponsible riding' - anything that's just going too far

so, uh. obviously everything described above is super subjective... but that's what people are judging in my opinion, this is the standards they are using in their head to determine where they draw the line. so, as an example, to bring back the stuff from this post about the inter-alien ideological differences:

and again, this is also what the debate after aragon 2013 was about:

if you think aragon 2013 is unacceptable to the point of being dangerous, then you probably take quite a hard line view and think pretty much any action that could lead to contact needs to be stamped down on. while that contact did have unpleasant consequences for the other party (dani wasn't able to walk for several days and his title bid was basically over), it is perhaps a little worse than could have been reasonably expected in that situation. in that sense, there's a bit of surface level similarity with jerez 2005... there, valentino made the pass for the win at the last corner, knowing he would probably bump into sete while doing so. neither rider is knocked off their bike (though sete has to leave the track) and it is at a slow corner, with relatively 'light' contact. unfortunately, as a result of where valentino's bike impacted sete's body and sete's preexisting shoulder issues, it ended up injuring sete (see here for valentino learning of this perhaps a little later than was ideal and only after he'd taken the piss out of sete for dramatically clutching his arm). at aragon 2013, marc was harrying dani and sticking very close to his rear tyre as he applied pressure to his teammate before he made a small misjudgement, getting his braking a little wrong and clipping the back of dani's bike. he happened to cut a crucial wire in the process, causing dani to highside a few moments later

these aren't equivalent situations and each have their own risk/reward profile. but the basic point is this: inviting contact with another rider will always generate more risk, and can always have unintended consequences... even when the action is relatively innocuous and the rider would not have expected this outcome. if you are in the 'all passes should be clean passes' school, this risk is fundamentally unacceptable. even trickier - what if contact is made as a result of a move you initiated but the other rider could have avoided? of course, you started it, but they could have yielded... and maybe they should have, maybe that would have been the wise, the sensible thing to do in that situation. it's always important to remember that at least two riders are involved in all these situations - and there are many cases where contact and/or crashing is not 100% the fault of any one party. so, for instance, there are several moments in laguna 2008 that are so risky in part because casey is also refusing to yield. that's not to necessarily imply any blame or fault! of course, it might not be ideal for the most aggressive riders being able to bully everyone else as they please because they know they can generally rely on everyone else being more sensible and yielding. but the differing outcomes resulting from the choices made by the 'other' rider will always help influence perception of any race situation - a move that is seen as 'hard but fair' might have been seen as considerably more dangerous if the other party hadn't yielded

and yes... yes, there is absolutely a question of your success rate. this links back to point (1) - is the move plausible? there are moves that aren't really considered examples of 'hard racing' and certainly not dangerous... because they worked. take valentino's last corner move at catalunya 2009, at a corner where you don't traditionally overtake (remember, before the race jorge was going around tempting fate by saying that if you're ahead by that point you're sorted). sure, he goes for a gap that exists, but it could easily have gone wrong - and if a lot of other riders had tried that, then it would have. how do you think yamaha would have felt if valentino had taken both yamaha riders out at the very end of the race to allow ducati to claim an unlikely victory and an increased championship lead? here's another one: misano 2017 and marc making a last lap move in treacherous conditions to snatch the win. no contact required to make that risky as shit - and if stuff like that goes wrong too often they call you an idiot at best and dangerous at worst. of course, both valentino and marc have had moments where they very much did not pull off moves they were intending, which is how we get ambition outweighing talent and 'I hope he can learn from this one and improve for the future', among other hits. but, relative to the amount of risk they're regularly taking in their racing, they get a lot of reward for their troubles... because they're very good at what they do. the risk/reward calculation is one that they... uh, can both be very adept at, but it's also one that's fundamentally easier when you're skilled enough to pull off a lot of moves that would be beyond the capabilities of other riders. it's when you don't know how to judge your moments, when you keep trying moves that you can't pull off - that's where other riders will start having a problem with you

which is where we get to reputation! how different incidents are judged will also depend on the existing reputations of the riders involved and whether they are seen as 'fair' racers or not (an even more nebulous term, if possible), versus hard racers, dangerous racers... often, this is a question of quantity too - with certain riders on the grid, you will notice they're involved in controversial incidents disproportionately often. how likely people are to pay you the benefit of the doubt... how likely they are to believe you as to what your intent was in a certain situation, perhaps the most nebulous concept of them all. 'hard' and 'dangerous' aren't assessments that are made in isolation, and how severely riders are judged will often depend on their pasts and how those pasts are perceived by others

where you get into really sticky territory is... okay, both valentino and marc have more often than not (arguably) been able to stay on the right side of 'the line', where their moves might be hard but aren't putting anyone else in active danger - but that's because they are at least theoretically capable of exhibiting a good sense of judgement and are also good at what they're doing, as covered above. here's a question: do they bear any responsibility for when younger and/or worse riders copy their moves and/or general approach to racing, with worse consequences? when they have been criticised, when they are called dangerous, at times it's not just what they're doing in the moment... it's what they're inspiring. so you've got stuff like this from sete:

even more drastically than that, after the death of a fifteen year old rider in supersport in 2021, one of his fellow rider said this about marc (which marc unsurprisingly strongly pushed back on):

(just worth remembering, this is a rider who did walk away from the sport as a result and was clearly deeply affected by what happened - the marc comments were part of a longer statement that got overshadowed by this part and the resulting controversy)

setting aside the merits or lack thereof of these specific assertions, what of the general questions they raise... can you be a dangerous rider in an indirect fashion like this, by the very nature of your legacy? are riders who helped bring about a more aggressive baseline standard of racing in any way responsible for anything that happens as a result of this standard? (even worse, there's a line of succession here - after all, who was marc's biggest inspiration?) or does individual responsibility reign supreme here? athletes are by design only interested in their own successes, aren't they - and 'legacy' is so abstract, how can anyone know how others will be influenced by what they do? how can we even begin to assess how big an influence individual riders really are? let's not forget that there will be other factors - riders in the past have discussed how particular characteristics of the moto2 class have bred more aggressive racing, or the influence of the size of motogp bikes, or how difficult it is these days to overtake in a completely 'clean' manner, or the rules themselves and to what extent they have actually been enforced etc etc... maybe there's also an element of people focusing on the easiest, most visible explanation in the form of star riders, without giving proper consideration to the underlying factors that will influence an era's style of riding. again, how you feel about all of this will vary from person to person - but part of the hard vs dangerous debate is inherently forward-looking. and it's hardly just legacy... your hard/dangerous moves may also be setting a precedent in the present. to what extent is it the duty of riders to worry about that?

so then, that's what I've got. how you draw the distinction between hard racing and dangerous riding will come down to your individual ideological position and what you think racing even entails. do you think all contact is objectionable? do you think only the most extreme of transgressions - most of which don't qualify as 'racing' per se - should be labelled dangerous? somewhere in between? everyone will draw the line in a different place, according to the situation and their individual biases and understanding of events. it comes down, generally speaking, to how you judge the risks and rewards of a certain move, whether you think what a rider attempted was 'worth' it. all of which depends on whether the rider could realistically have managed whatever action they were attempting, whether the potential rewards were proportionate to the risks, or whether the whole thing was just too flat out dangerous to ever be worth it... of course, none of these are objective standards by which you can assess the racing, but they should give you a rough indication of what people are even talking about when they're distinguishing between hard and dangerous racing. riders as individuals are also far from consistent in their stances (surely not!) so you do have to play it by ear a lot of the times... and while there are plenty incidents where the majority can agree whether it is 'hard' or 'dangerous', there are plenty more where you're going to get a lot of contradictory opinions. no definitive answers here - unfortunately a lot of the time you'll just have to make your own mind up

[laundrybiscuits]

Eden actually likes her name. When she thinks about the muslin-draped horrors she could’ve gotten stuck with, like poor Suzie, she feels guiltily glad she dodged that bullet. If she’d been the one who had to shoulder the impossible burden of being named Suzie, who knows how she might’ve turned out.

Eden is a word that could go a lot of ways. It’s almost as good as Lilith or Isis or something. It’s the kind of name that could be sexy, in the right hands. The kind of name you could say on stage: ladies and gentlemen, introducing the one and only Eden—

That’s where the picture stalls out, though. Eden Bingham is pretty awful, no matter how you spin it. She wants to pick a stage name like some glamorous Hollywood actress, but she hasn’t decided exactly what she wants yet. She thinks it would be real elegant to pick something French, like…like Verne. 

There’s a battered paperback tucked under her mattress at home, where sticky, prying little fingers can’t get at it. She’s not a fast reader, but she’s read it about a million times by now. Sometimes when she can’t sleep, she’ll take it out and just squint at it in the moonlight, tracing her fingertips over the faded elephant on the cover. It’s a story about some guy who was so bored he decided to travel all around the world, and nobody stopped him. He could just go. He didn’t have any kids or anything that he had to take care of or look after; in fact, there was some guy whose whole job was to look after him. 

For a little while, Eden thought about borrowing the main guy’s last name, but Eden Fogg sounds kind of old and stuffy. She could take the French valet’s name, but she’s not completely confident she knows how to pronounce Passepartout, and she’s terrified she’s going to say it wrong and nobody’s going to take her seriously ever again. 

The author’s French too, though, and his name seems a lot easier to handle. So, lately she’s been looking in the mirror and saying Eden Verne, hi my name is Eden Verne real quiet to herself, just testing it out. She’s not sure about it yet, but it’s definitely better than Eden Bingham. 

Eden Bingham is just a handful of years away from Edie Bingham, who spends her time looking after a house full of kids and wears shapeless floor-length dresses. But Eden Verne could be someone who travels and wears exciting makeup. Eden Verne drinks and swears and smokes, and she never has to deal with kids ever again. Beautiful, sophisticated men and women alike despair for love of her, but she never lets anyone stay more than a night. 

Anyway, she doesn’t have to figure out if she can carry off Verne yet, because the stupid boy she followed halfway across the country introduced her to his friends as Eden Bingham, so she never got the chance to decide if she was going to say something different. She probably wouldn’t have, but—maybe she would. Maybe. She’ll never know.

The thing with Argyle fizzled out pretty quick. He’s cute, and making out with him is fun, but he doesn’t ever seem to want anything real out of life. Eden can’t understand him at all, and worse yet, she’s pretty sure he doesn’t understand her. When they’re high, they communicate just fine giggling about the cosmos, but that’s not enough. She’s sure there’s supposed to be more, even if she’s not entirely sure what that means.

She broke up with him on an impulse, and sometimes she regrets it. He’s a good guy. He’s not like any other guy she’s ever known. He’s willing to drive clear across the country, which is what she liked about him to begin with. Maybe that’s as good as it gets for her.

But she can’t take it back now. It’s not even that she thinks he’d say no, necessarily; she just can’t handle the idea of trying to walk back something like that. She’d die of humiliation before the words made it out of her mouth. 

So Eden’s just here, in Hawkins, staying in her ex-fling’s best friend’s step-dad’s spare room because it’s still marginally better than having to hitch home to Utah. Argyle is planning to drive back to California in a few weeks, so she’s going to just ride with him then. In the meantime, she’s going to have a nice, quiet vacation in Indiana, doing whatever it is Midwesterners do in the summer, and then she’ll go home and nothing at all about the life of Eden Bingham will have changed.

[peachtalia]

I wrote a whole infodump on Herakles headcanons on a priv acc (yk for human version since I prefer to view the guys that way) so I’ll paste it all here cuz fun. It’s gonna be super disorganized and may not carry All of my ideas cuz it’s just me writing whatever came to mind in the moment but I’ll try to organize it the best I can from what I wrote. Also plz take into consideration that I’m not entirely following canon here and a load of it is headcanons with some of canon sprinkled in. Also this is a wip ig

I doubt anybody would read my word vomit cuz I didn’t bother to clean any of this up and my sentence structure is def abysmal as fuck but ig u could say I’m putting this here for my own sake but anyone else is free to read if u would like!!

cw talk of parental loss tho

Okay so I’m gonna ramble about names here cuz it interests me a lot. Obv I’m not Greek or in Greece I just have a deep interest in other cultures and like to research a lot and stalk forums and videos on experiences etc. My ideas may change over time as I learn more about the culture. He feels a bit more old-fashioned to me but anyways yeah nah if I happen to say anything innacurate plz lmk @ anyone who actually reads my word vomit haha

So anyways I def don’t see it as my place to bash on him being given the name "Herakles" cuz I Do know that in Greece they would seem to occasionally give Greek mythological names to ppl (ex: singer who's birth name is Artemios); but I noticed they most often use Christian names tho (also fun fact my irl name is the fem version of an old Greek saint and seems common there along with Hispanic countries that would often do the same lololol)

But at the same time I’d wanna assume that being named Herakles would kinda fuck u over since it would be a huge name to live up to. But that’s just me. Plus to me that adds to his overall life theme

Also I’ve mentioned this before but ppl for years would dunk on his surname claiming that it's "not a real Greek surname" when ... it actually IS, it's just super rare based on what I’ve collected. Admittedly ngly I’ve even been a part of this when I was a kid smh (See: Greek actress with the birth name Evgenia Karpouzi, the fandom would always use the spelling "Karpusi" but that's not language accurate to the more commonly taught Greek language romanization based on what I’ve learned.....

Anywho now onto headcanons and stories I like to apply to him lol

He seems the type whose mom is very huge in the historical arts and preservation field and might've been a Greek history professor and took a huge role in curating and preserving Ancient Greek ruins and artifacts...arranged heritage festivals and exhibitions etc.. Taught culture... Maybe pushed him to be very talented and knowledgeable as a kid and would actively pass down her own knowledge onto him and set pretty high standards for him while also spoiling tf out of him and also being caring yet not as present as a mother due to her career. He grew up very involved in the arts both creative-based and performance-wise but probably mostly the latter. He seems like the type who would be quiet and a bit of a loner at times but was also a lot more enthusiastic and expressive at times.

So anyways yeah not only does he suffer under the curse of living in the shadow of his mothers legacy and not meeting the public expectations in following in her footsteps but a lot of his life is basically formed around her and he wasn’t left with much room to actually form his own personal style due to how heavily influenced he was by her own interest and life path and her passing when he was idk 14 made it even harder for him to even try to let go of any of this cuz besides all of her leftover belongings and the collective community memory of her, it was all he had left of her from within himself so letting go of any of it to make more room for developing his own personal sense of style outside of her existence felt like betraying her or going against her wishes.

He feels deeply guilty for not taking on her legacy after her passing and following in her footsteps but he still does what he can to contribute here and there and still holds a load of pride in what he learns from her + what comes from his roots and besides hanging out with and feeding street cats he still has a lingering fascination and interest in philosophy and observing and maintaining historical sites not only cuz it’s great but also cuz it reminds him of her. It Would also make sense given how canonically he’s portrayed having a home that’s cluttered with his mom’s old things and artifacts that he never wants to get rid of since she passed while he was young.

As for his beef with Sadiq I see it as a ‘obnoxious goofy uncle and petty nephew’ sort of conflict lol. But I like to see it as like. Sadiq was a younger college student of his mom’s who would also do volunteer assistant work for her, so naturally he’d meet Herakles thru that. And with him being that type of guy would screw around with Herakles and poke fun at him yk like how those older guys would treat young kids sometimes and purposely provoke them in a joking yet annoying manner (I have lots of experience of this) and Sadiq himself never saw it as a big deal but yk Herakles Hated that shit and he’s the type to take that kind of stuff to heart. Also Herakles would envy the time he spends with his mom cuz here he is able to get involved with her work life and meanwhile Hera is being some kid at home who sometimes gets to go to his moms work sometimes.

And ooomfg when his mom passes u know damn well that envy turned into pure vitriol cuz Sadiq was able to spend more time around his mom before her sudden death. But Sadiq (still unaware of how deep this shit goes for Herakles) takes Herakles under his wing cuz he feels super bad to say the least.

Now Herakles has one of those large Greek families but he’s autistic* as shit so while he can be loud with them he’s also quiet and a bit of a loner at times so he’d be super reliant on his mother for initiating his interactions with others and she’d take a big part in involving him in family gatherings so u know damn well the second she was gone he didn’t know wtf to do anymore or how to connect with others on his own without her being an extra support lol yk like that one social person that helps interactions go smoother.

* yes I am aware that autism may present differently depending on culture but I’m autistic myself and am basing this on observations I’ve made thru autistic ppl I’ve known in different countries and who also have a similar familial dynamic culturally. Even tho I’m in the US I also have this experience myself with my Viet family members. No duh it’s not ‘just an autism thing’ but yk headcanons

Not to mention him being depressed as fuck over her passing and beginning to self isolate. And being so pitied by family members 24/7 SUCKED Ass so idk ig eventually (after many years and moments of Herakles mostly blowing people off) ppl began to avoid him and stopped inviting him to things like yk that sad thing that often happens whenever someone’s going thru a loss and ppl don’t know what to do about it. He’d ignore their invitations often for years. Of course they’d still try to call or send something or visit every now and then but only very occasionally. It’s like an ‘idk what to do’ sort of thing.

So yeah he’s an only child and was raised by a single mother with a busy and active life where he was always expected to become her shadow whether intended or not. Wow. But despite his family inching away from him, bro still has that younger Cypriot cousin who vibes with him and relates with his quietness and occasional loner behavior so he’d often hang around him cuz the rest of the family would overwhelm him sometimes, therefore even during this time he was the last to stick around for the most part and they’d often hang out in silence. He is a bit more chatty than Herakles tho at times. Idk his name yet. That one Cypriot cousin has a younger brother I think, who’d hang around Sadiq but Herakles’s a #hater and doesn’t really like him for that. He’s the type to threaten to cut ppl off from association and he gets petty and stubborn as hell and holds grudges like u cannot believe. Obviously despite his spite he does still care for Sadiq deep down. He says what he wants but he doesn’t actually wish the guy any real harm and would get super bothered and upset if anybody were to attempt to do so.

Oh yeah and I also mentioned before that I see him being narcoleptic lol *maybe* he occasionally dealt with cataplectic symptoms and it would make sense given how rarely he seems to express strong emotions but I still don’t know. I’m not as knowledgeable in cataplexy I admit. But he’s def on the narcolepsy spectrum and lacks a load of motivation and drive in his life overall. Some of it comes from his mildly nihilistic view on life and some of it is depressiveness and the inability to help himself more on his own accord. It probably took a lot for him to get on a stricter medication routine for it. He tries to take care of himself at the bare minimum but he still doesn’t quite cultivate the best or healthiest of habits. He’s often got others around him trying to help him out and check up on him. Think also of the comic strips of Ludwig trying to help him organize and clean his house and get his finances into check.

Idk how his mom died. Maybe it’s one of those things never spoken about but it was sudden and he was at home when it happened and just remembers it getting super late and dark and him wondering where tf she is each time he’d wake up and him attempting to call her work and go to voicemail each time.

Also back on the topic of his tendencies but Herakles can for sure be the sore loser and jealous type but only depending on whether or not the matter involves Sadiq. Otherwise he’s like eh whatever it’s fine I’ll get it next time) and as I said above he’s also got a somewhat nihilist mindset and wishes to just spend his time doing as he pleases lolll his philosophical info dumps would get mind breaking at times and he just drones onnnn and onnnn and on about it it’s like the kind of stuff that’d make u lie on ur back with ur hands behind ur head staring up at the sky like “yeah……..wow…😕” and would prob put u to sleep cuz he speaks in a slower and softer tone. And you’d prob experience a strange yet vivid dream in the moment. He’s got an ambient and nostalgic feel to his presence that’s hard to explain and melancholy yet oddly calming.

Oh also he still practices Orthodox Christianity besides being an atheist on the most part and not even following any religion or religious rules or moral code bc it’s what he was raised doing with his mom and he feels like it’s what she would’ve wanted lmfaooo I guess it’s for nostalgia’s sake and paying respects to her. Maybe he’s an atheist. Idk. Perhaps his philosophical ideals and stuff he’s learned influences his view on general spirituality and religion so in a way he feels like in the end all gods are all to reach a similar point and intention and are an outer extension/projection of our own subconscious beings and are vessels of hope and focal points for moral code and explanations for the world around us. Or maybe he just views them as beings created to give people’s lives purpose. Or he believes all things at once. Who knows what goes on in his mind.

As for his narcolepsy, his mom may have assumed at first that he was the type of child to nap a lot or that he was lazy, but over time she’d realize something is probably up and would recognize that he wouldn’t be able to help it most of the time and that he actually isn’t the lazy type and works hard when he can. She’d get called by teachers often yelling about his tendency of zoning out and sleeping in class and she’d just respond with “Oh yeah? Well maybe your class isn’t interesting enough if he’s always falling asleep in it!”

So yeah. A load of his life was built around her from the start, and he relied on her for a lot, I mean she’s his mom and all too and the only closer(?) family member in his life given that he’s an only child and has no father. The sudden change of her leaving completely threw his life off course so for years he’s been in some sort of endless state of limbo where he’s both apathetic both saddened yet he might not make it so obvious when around others. He just appears quiet, apathetic and carefree for the most part.

[starflungwaddledee]

it's awfully refreshing to see a rise in malevolent galas again, and i'm preeet-ty sure your popularity's playing into it. grrrrrrr yes! let that boy kill! let him scheme and conspire! let him wreak havoc like the true planet-destroying fiend he is!

waaahaaa i'm so delighted to hear it! i will be completely honest, i was extremely nervous to post that very first comic with him in (where he was undeniably malicious) because almost every other headcanon i'd seen of him at that point is that he is Just Misunderstood and Actually A Good Guy or, at the very least, perhaps currently acting out but still Redeemable With A Heart Of Gold

and those are amazing too! not a single piece of shade on those characterisations; they are genuinely cathartic tropes and i love to see them- for him or anyone else. but it made me quite scared to have to just be like... 'anyway he is extraordinarily and wilfully cruel in my headcanons and stories!!'

so it really means a lot to me that you enjoy this characterisation!! and that you think possibly it's having an impact on other folks' characterisations in a positive or refreshing way! that's such an honour! i was scared people would loathe my storytelling or characterisation of their favourite blorbo (i still fear it, ngl) or even think that i like... don't like him. but the thing is that i love him. i love him to bits and pieces and because of how much i love him i've done him the ultimate honour of assigning him Irredeemable All-powerful Villain and allowed him free reign to bite and kill