#but that is such a huge part to erase from his character

[cosmic-walkers]

stephen, wolsey and thomas being in proximity to one another is always interesting because they all essentially started from nothing and made something of themselves. like i just realized they were all co-workers and were dealt bad hands in life, but still, they all essentially ran the country at a point.

[lycanr0t]

i feel very frustrated about the trend of giving chil body hair bc if it was any other anime twink i would be thrilled its just that it seems to only be because people are SO afraid of him looking young they have to make him hairy to justify liking him in ships.

meanwhile it does directly go against canon (he literally is supposed to look like a child. this is integral to both his character and his race's lore as a whole and it makes no damn sense that he would be mistaken for a child if he has body hair i mean. cmon.)

and it's like. some men are hairless. some men look young. when youre a trans man in your 20s-30s its especially common to be mistaken for a teenager, even more so if you're not on t. and short. these traits do not make you less of a man or an adult. :/

[light-lanterne]

it always makes me sad when i read an exquisite analysis of the show (tropes, characters, symbolism,,, anything really) and then bam, they get mike's motivations or personality all wrong, or over-simplify his arc / trauma, or straight up omit things / make stuff up about him in order to vilify him or make him less important to the overarching plot or whatever :(

it happens to every character from time to time, but mike mischaracterisation tends to be rather frequent amidst bylers (the clique i interact more often with), whereas other characters don't get as misrepresented as mike does within these circles and it just makes me sad :\

[drjohndisco]

Alt!Sam: You don't even see her that way, do you?

[laughs in basiljack]

[caramelc0rgi]

Can we please stop erasing and/or infantalizing Charles’ disability in fanfics (and in general tbh). Charles’ disability is a huge part of what makes him such a powerful and inspiring character in the X-Men universe. Being in a wheelchair doesn’t limit who he is; it actually adds depth to his story and makes his message even stronger. He’s a leader not because he can punch the hardest or run the fastest, but because of his mind, his heart, and his vision for a better world.

One of the coolest things about Charles’ disability is how it flips the usual superhero idea on its head. Most heroes rely on their physical strength, but Charles shows that true power comes from within. His telepathy and intelligence are his tools, proving that you don’t need to stand tall to make a huge impact. He’s a reminder that being a hero isn’t about what you can do with your body—it’s about what you stand for and how you help others.

His disability also ties into the X-Men’s larger message about discrimination and acceptance. The X-Men have always been about representing people who feel different or outcast, whether because of their powers, their identity, or their background. Charles’ paralysis fits right into that—it’s another way he understands what it means to face challenges that others don’t. That experience makes him an empathetic and compassionate leader. He doesn’t just tell mutants they belong; he shows them through his own life that struggles don’t define them.

What’s also great about Charles is how he refuses to let his disability stop him. He’s still this incredible visionary who leads a school, fights for mutant rights, and goes toe-to-toe with some of the most dangerous villains out there. His wheelchair isn’t a symbol of weakness; it’s a reminder of his strength and resilience. It’s proof that even if life knocks you down, you can still change the world.

[theeroins]

If I say that I'm not used to people misinterpreting my favorite characters, I'd be lying. But the way they get so many things wrong about Inho's character is kinda pissing me off because you KNOW that most of them do it to cancel out the possibility of InHun being *something* more than what's shown so far. You don't ship them, that's fair, frankly I don't care. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion UNTIL your opinion is wrong.

Let's talk about a couple of things I've seen being talked about on tiktok (🙄)

“Inho joined the games because ilnam said that it'd basically be more fun to play than to watch so he followed his example." loud incorrect buzzer ! Inho has joined the games before, and not only that, he's also a previous winner, so therefore he's very much aware of what it's like to be a part of it, he's experienced them first hand, just like he's experienced the atrocities of it. they've changed him for the worst and possibly caused him a huge trauma —they're the reason he's lost faith in humanity after all— so, why would he crave to relive it just for the thrill of it? i, personally doubt he even enjoys watching the game.

“Inho didn't look at Gihun with love, he likes to watch him suffer” Short answer is no. He doesn't like to watch him suffer, neither he looked at him with love, not the pure kind of love at least. Two things can be true at once. Inho spent half the season staring at Gihun because everything about the man intrigued him; His determination, his stubbornness, his kindness, his hope, his heart that's full of love despite the pain he suffered, even the pain in his eyes every time someone got eliminated in front of him as if it was the first time it had happened, as if the cruelty of it all surprised him every damn time. How can someone, who's been through the same things Inho has been through, be the polar opposite of him?

now, the reason(s) that I think Inho actually joined the games for..

(yes I am an Inhun shipper, does that make my opinion a little biased? maybe. do i still believe I'm right? absofuckinglutely.)

Let me clarify this: Inho is NOT a good man, no matter the redemption arc he might get in s3, he'll continue to be a terrible person because nothing will ever erase the blood he's spilled and the evil men he's worked for. BUT at the same time, he's not ALL bad, not like the VIPS and ilnam. See, Inhun are the average "yin-yang" trope in fictional romance, (which I eat up every time and I find it very interesting when it's done the right way, don't get me wrong) Inho is bad but there's some goodness somewhere deep inside him. And the only person who's brought it to the surface is Gihun. Sure, he does think Gihun is naive, but he's also the only person who's actually challenged him, who's "forced" him to get his stupid head out of the dirt and look around him, even for a short while and Inho definitely liked what he saw. Honestly, it wasn't even that hard for Gihun to do so because the goodness in Inho wanted and waited for someone to pull him out of the dirt, he wished for someone, something to give him hope for humanity or.. anything. Anything that'll help him escape from his misery.

You can definitely argue that he joined the games to befriend Gihun, to gain his trust and stop his plans when the time comes, which is half true. But keep in mind that he needed to justify his choice to join the games. He's not a VIP nor the mastermind to simply get to do that without consequences. He's the frontman, the one who controls and manages everything. He's needed for the games to work and go by smoothly and successfully without unnecessary losses and problems. Gihun would only cause problems, Inho knew that very well and yet he chose to put him in it once again. He recklessly made that choice, risking pretty much everything because of his inner conflict. A part of him wanted Gihun to prove himself to him, that there's indeed good that'll save the world and the rest of him wanted to prove to Gihun that everything he so strongly believes in is merely a fantasy.

Joining the games and befriending Gihun was the only way for Inho to see the real him, without the heroic mask he puts on every time he faces the frontman. I think he believed that someone as extraordinary as Gihun will either break in front of him and he will end up disappointed by the human kind once again, or Gihun will change everything about the way he thinks for the better. But the problem is that Inho hopes for both of those things at the same time.

And that was Inho's arc in season 2. His inner conflict and how it will affect him, the game and Gihun later on.

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[choochooboss]

Sketch dump! Vol. 5

September 2022 (Part 1/2)

The first piece on top summarised my cosplay rush for Tracon 2022! The second is an old idea for a charm.

"SURPRISE!!"

Back in 2022 I hosted an art raffle for reaching 777 followers on Twitter! The winner would get their submas themed idea realised (which was their friends throwing a surprise party for the twins!). I wanted to make a little comic and have the bosses walk in their office where depot agents, Elesa, Drayden, Skyla, Clay etc. would be waiting with decorations and treats and games.

Emmet is all smiles of course while Ingo gets so emotional he could only whisper a "super bravo".

Not really headcanons anymore but still funny ideas.

1. Emmet gets clumsy when off-rhythm! He starts walking in curves if there is nobody else around to match his rhythm with.

2. Emmet spaces out/forgets to say things aloud when someone speaks too long or when things go off-script! His thinking gets interrupted easily.

3. Ingo sometimes bumps into doors because he is too used to automatic doors!

4. When things go off-script Ingo speaks too much and rushes in straight lines"

Also my little inexpensive sketchbook & my trusty tools! Mechanical pencil and eraser pen are life when scribbling my skrimblos smaller than a postage stamp!

More Ingo~ I utilise a wide range of sources for references, including CSP's poseable 3D models, they can come really handy with perspectives and proportions!

The second piece is my very first attempt at cosplay in Tracon 2022: Blingo! I walked in with a sequin hat, leather jacket, leather pants and high heel patent leather boots.

The hardest part of cosplaying Ingo is remembering NOT to smile ahaha!

Some hairstyle tests

I drew these for a huge submas art collaboration over Twitter hosted by @/mimizukeii!! It was technically my first art collab before I started arranging them myself with Aggie/Magma.

While looking for train related songs I found this cute nursery rhyme to go with the marching:

"Over the mountains,

Over the plains,

Over the rivers,

Here come the trains.

Carrying passengers,

Carrying mail,

Bringing their precious loads In without fail"

I wanted to compare these silly twins, planning to do something more silly with them later. Also a sketch of @/fukurow's butler designs I never finished.. The capes compliment them so well, I love them!!

Prequel to this piece! Emmet is so confident in himself he thinks Pierce wants to learn from him but is invited for a duet on the stage instead!!

Emmet has really great voice actors in Pokemas! I especially love how his english VA gives him that bri'ish/posh/sophisticated vibe while also soft and melodic! I know for SURE this VA/Emmet can sing, I can show you later!

One of my favourite sketches!! I wanted to add a bunch of characters in the BG reacting to this sonic blast of emotion over a performance!

Heyyy it's the smile buddies comic!! I really hope Ingo gets to interact with Marnie in Pokemas one day!!

I feel Ingo's eyes in the mirror panel is a little off in the final comic, I meant to keep it softer like in the sketch!

It's Nimbasa trio!! Idea inspired by submas EX uniform colors. Might continue this later!

Some BG tests for this piece! Compositing is hard but absolutely worth the effort, it can make a huge difference in the appeal of your piece!!

Practise piece drawing over a photo I thought was cool! I want to get more experimental with lighting and perspective!

'How's it hanging bro?' Who hung him up there anyway??

Sketch for this arguing scene! Something REALLY BAD needs to happen for them to end up that tense! Even if I want to present them close to the canon material I still want to put them in really challenging situations to see how far I can push their emotions!

Thank you so much for coming all the way down here!! This set was pretty loaded, I hope you enjoyed scrolling through all this ahah!

Previous posts:

Sketch dump Vol. 1: April-June 2022

Sketch dump Vol. 2: July 2022

Sketch dump Vol. 3: August 2022

Sketch dump Vol. 4: July 2022 Part 2

[gongyoosgf]

SOME INFORMATION FROM THE INTERVIEW:

Choi Seung-hyun, formerly known as rapper T.O.P from K-pop juggernaut Big Bang, marked his return to the screen after an 11-year hiatus in season two of "Squid Game."

Previously embroiled in a scandal following a conviction for marijuana use that led to a 10-month suspended jail sentence in 2017, Choi's journey back to the limelight may be a tale of self-reflection.

In the newest season of "Squid Game," Choi portrays Thanos, a failed rapper addicted to drugs who enters the deadly games to escape crippling debt. A character at once selfish and absurd, Thanos delivers a kaleidoscope of exaggerated emotions and awkward bravado, a performance that has sparked both intrigue and polarized reactions.

During a group interview Wednesday, Choi opened up with emotional gravity befitting his first public conversation in over a decade.

“Since it’s my first interview in 11 years, a lot has happened, and I came here with careful consideration, thinking it was the right time. I feel a mix of emotions, including a sense of apology, but today, I sincerely want to share many honest thoughts in this space,” he said.

Reflecting on the turbulent years since his departure from the public eye, Choi spoke about his personal struggles.

“In my 20s, I made huge mistakes, and the dark times I faced then led me down a path I had never been on before. What followed was a truly hellish period of darkness, during which I became emotionally devastated,” he said. "I experienced profound psychological deterioration and intense self-loathing."

It was during these times of desolation that the opportunity to audition for "Squid Game" emerged.

“Then I received an offer to audition for the role of Thanos. Like any other actor, I recorded a video and sent it in. After meeting with the director and going through several rounds of cross-checks, I was cast,” he recounted.

“If it hadn’t been Thanos, I wouldn’t have taken on the role. It was an extremely difficult decision for me, given my past mistakes. But Thanos was a character I had to confront head on -- not a righteous figure, but a stereotypically failed, pathetic hip-hop loser. That aspect gave me the courage to step forward.”

Stepping into the shoes of a character like Thanos proved a formidable psychological challenge, he said.

“The film set had hundreds of actors and crew members present. When we shot the scene where Thanos takes drugs, I found myself in a very embarrassing situation, which was quite psychologically challenging for me," said Choi.

"However, I believed it was my responsibility to overcome this as part of my role, and that determination was what kept me going,” he explained.

Critics have been divided on Choi’s portrayal of Thanos, with some viewers describing the performance as overtly exaggerated and unnatural -- a critique that Choi readily embraced. “Acting and characters are things that can draw mixed reactions and can be highly subjective, and they are elements that audiences may criticize, and I believe enduring such criticism is something I must accept," he said.

The concept behind Thanos, as Choi elaborated, was the essence of failure personified.

“He’s portrayed as a failed member of the 'MZ' generation, full of cringeworthy behavior and over-the-top bravado, like a teenager stuck in a phase of childish delusions of grandeur," he said.

"He’s a character whose body has grown, but his mental age is almost like that of Shin-chan,” he said, referring to the 5-year-old main character of Japanese manga series "Crayon Shin-chan."

Going forward, as for any speculation about a return to Big Bang, Choi quashed the idea.

“Regarding moving forward on my own, I felt that if I faced criticism and backlash, it was something I could endure alone. However, as long as I remained part of Big Bang, the guilt could not be erased, and I believed I could no longer let the team suffer because of me," he said.

"The reason I cannot return is, honestly, because I feel too ashamed to face the other members.”

Nevertheless, Choi hinted at a possible return to music as a solo artist.

“For the past 10 years, I’ve only been going back and forth between my home and my music studio. The reason I stayed in the studio was that creating music was the only time I felt like I could escape the darkness,” he shared.

“I made a lot of songs. There’s no exact release plan yet, but I do have something in mind for the near future," he added.

———————————————————————

i just wanted to say that he is so brave for coming out and finally talking about what happened so many years ago, and he is truly inspiring. i don’t make sappy posts like this often but it makes me so happy to see him not continue to hide in the shadows and instead come out and finally be able to stand in front of interviewers and talk like he used to ♡

[heilos]

Living Harmony AU relevant character sheets/info: Harmony aka the "Tree of Harmony" Stygian Somnambula Starswirl the Bearded Shadow Lock is actually an official canon character from the IDW comics No. 51-53 and I really enjoyed his mini arc introduction enough to include him as a more significant part of my "Living Harmony" MLP AU animation project. When I found out he's a direct descendant of Stygian, one of the Pillars of Equestria, I had to find a way to work him in and give him a bit of an updated design to fit more into my story setting I have planned. My good friend Ori helped vector my finalized concept redesign in the very top image. Listed below is some character and story context for these sketches provided by my myself and Ori who's been a huge help in fleshing out the world building with this cast of characters I'm using in this AU so far. Shadow Lock's main abilities and canon backstory are expanded upon and/or flavored a bit differently here as well.

Stygian’s distant descendant, the last living branch in his family tree

Lives alone in his family’s castle after they retired to the town of Somnambula

Temporary antagonist to the mane 6 that stems from a fear of the Pony of Shadows returning to plague Equestria

Believed he was descended from a monster and desperately tried to erase any mention of the Pony of Shadows from written history

Was talked down from his history erasing spree by Twilight and ends up traveling around Equestria to find more info on the Pony of Shadows, without trying to erase the knowledge this time, and prevent it from returning

The symbol on the front of Shadow Lock’s cloak is his family crest that dates back to Stygian's time period.

There’s a glamor woven into Shadow Lock’s cloak that enshrouds its wearer’s face.

Shadow Lock’s special talent is the concealment and binding of dark magic. He can effectively bind malevolent “spirits” into vessels where they’re unable to cause harm. This can also be reversed as an unbinding spell. ("spirits" in this context are more like a culmination of lingering, concentrated dark magic that takes on a will of its own)

His family castle used to be quite “haunted”. It’s quieter nowadays, but he does have a large collection of miscellaneous items that most ponies would consider “cursed…”

Always carries a healthy stack of books on his person to read and use as a weapon. His spells can pull fictional characters and monsters from stories to fight for him

Created a spell that can trap a creature into experiencing a historical event on loop by using a small amount of written text. The spell can be broken by doing something significant enough that did not occur during the looped event in history.

Shadow Lock and Stygian are extremely hesitant to meet each other at first in present time. The mane 6 and Harmony step in as mediator eventually to help them work out their issues so they can reconnect as family

Much later in the story, Shadow Lock invites Stygian to live in his castle once their family relationship is repaired, the two becoming inseparable

His original design from the comics:

[asmalltooth]

Sandworms this, Bene Gesserit that, something I really love about the Dune books is they look you dead in the eye and tell you how fucked up parents and children are.

A huge part of the Dune novel is about subtle workings of violence and resentment in the family. The way Jessica views Paul as her creature and posession and recoils in horror from the parts of him she can't control. The way Paul sees her as a source of both his strength and his deepest fears: She bore me; she trained me. She is my enemy. And in all this they still love each other. It's not the lack of love. It's the idea that birth and nurturing are inherently violent for both sides.

Just like with Duke Leto and his father. Just like with Jessica and Alia. And we see the same thing mirrored in the Harkonnens. The Baron abusing Feyd-Rautha while raising him and preparing him as his successor?? Fully aware the boy's rise to power will be his own death. The Baron himself as the book's main villain is a giant grotesque baby. Parenthood as existential horror.

The theme continues with Messiah where the birth of Leto II and Ghanima erases their parents. In Children of Dune Paul offers himself as sacrifice to the son he tried to kill and Chani nearly returns from the dead by possessing her daughter. Leto II and Ghanima are eldritch horrors trapped in child bodies. But even they come off as less cruel than Jessica in her final abandonment of both Paul and Alia. Leto II returns in God Emperor to claim humanity as his children, becoming both a god and a tyrant. Meanwhile his whole dead family lives inside his head and has to be kept from overpowering him at all times.

There is so much weird horror surrounding parents and children in the Dune books.

And I love that a lot of that found its way into Villeneuve's Jessica. That's who she is, that's why Rebecca Ferguson's performance is a horror performance even though it might not always serve the character. It captures that part of the books beautifully.

[duskdog]

I've never been a huge fan of the retcon of Stephanie Brown's death.

Don't get me wrong -- she never should have been killed the way she was, and I'm overjoyed that she's alive. But... the retcon itself is just so, so boring and stupid and uninspired. "Whoops, she faked her death! LOL!"

On the bright side: It not only brought Steph back, but it gave her the chance to earn respect and redemption in a way that would have been impossible had she stayed dead (obviously). It gave her the chance to become something more than "that dumb kid who started a gang war".

Also on the bright side: It salvaged Leslie Thompkins, whose character had been absolutely butchered -- even worse than Steph -- by War Games. Her motivation for letting a child fucking die on her table was absolute bullshit that made no sense for Leslie whatsoever, and spoke of a profound lack of understanding of her as a character and her relationship with Bruce in particular. The retcon washes her hands of Steph's blood at least, even if "faking a teenager's death" isn't the greatest thing for a resume.

On the not-so-bright side: It further demonized Steph by instead making her "that dumb kid who not only started a gang war, but also selfishly put her friends and mother through absolute hell by making them think she was dead".

Also on the not-so-bright side: It erased her very real trauma in the eyes of both fandom and the characters themselves. Oh, she didn't die and stay dead? Guess that means she didn't actually suffer. Guess that means being tortured to the point of death didn't mean anything. Guess that means power drills and broken glass and being hung in a stress position for hours/days doesn't hurt or leave scars or anything. Guess that means being suddenly stolen away from her entire life, with no one that she loves or even knows (we have no reason to believe she was close to Leslie when War Games happened, contrary to popular belief), wasn't incredibly difficult. Guess that means that recovering from massive physical and psychological trauma in a foreign country you've never been to and don't speak the language of, fully dependent on somebody she barely knows, and without the love and emotional support of her mother was probably find, right? Guess that means she didn't learn anything from her mistakes, huh? Because you have to actually die and be dead and stay dead for a while in order to be sympathetic, I guess.

Also on the not-so-bright side: It absolved Bruce (and the writers) of the callousness of his treatment of Steph, and of not memorializing her in the Batcave or giving any other indication that he ever considered her a real Robin to anyone other than Steph herself, whom he believed was dying and wouldn't be around to tell it anyways. (You may consider this a "bright side" thing. I don't, because a large part of my issue with Batman as a character is that he's always Right even when he's Wrong, and the narrative often ends up supporting his blatant assholery. I dislike his bad behavior being vindicated by virtue of secret knowledge or deus ex machina.)

More importantly, however, I've always questioned exactly how much agency Steph had in the whole "faking her death" thing.

Originally, Bruce found that Steph had been "stable" and shouldn't have died, unless Leslie allowed her to. Being "stable" at one point in time absolutely doesn't mean you're not in any danger whatsoever. It's good, but it's no guarantee -- especially if she was in bad enough shape that simple lack of intervention on Leslie's behalf would have been enough to kill her (and within a relatively short amount of time, too).

So we know she was badly injured. Enough so that Batman thought she was dying, and wasn't surprised by that fact initially. (He's not exactly someone who doesn't have experience with estimating someone's condition in the field, too, remember.) Steph herself even seemed to believe that she was dying.

Additionally, Steph can't exactly demand that Leslie -- whom she barely knows, remember -- fold up her practice and run away to Africa to get her away from Gotham. Or plan everything that would be necessary to fake her death, right down to a substitute corpse and autopsy. Those were things that took some real intent and planning on Leslie's part, as well as some Big Ass Decisions for the good doctor.

So it seems almost certain that the idea itself was Leslie's. She made these decisions very quickly, but she had to have been the one to make them. Was Steph privy to this? Well, was she even conscious? And if she was conscious, was she heavily drugged, for pain if nothing else? Seems she would have been. Even if not drugged, was she mentally and emotionally capable of making such a decision, considering she had just suffered actual literal torture?

It seems very unlikely to me that Steph had any, or much, input into this decision whatsoever.

And once they were in Africa, how long and difficult was her recovery? Was she given access to ways to contact anyone? Or change her mind? I'm not suggesting that Leslie was holding her hostage; I'm questioning whether Steph was even physically capable of advocating for herself for a while, let alone mentally. Her only connection to her former life is the doctor who whisked her away here -- and that connection is also the person who's in charge of her care. If you're exhausted, in lots of pain, probably heavily medicated, in emotional distress, and have limited mobility, you're probably a lot more likely to take your doc's suggestion that you "just relax and don't worry about that right now".

Additionally, what kind of mental/emotional state was Steph even in? She knew she fucked up. She knew people had suffered and died because of what she did. You can call Steph a lot of things, but "uncaring" and "unempathetic" are not among them. It's easy to say she was selfishly hiding from the consequences of her actions, and maybe that's true to an extent, but consider what we know about Steph's self-esteem up to this point. I don't think it's a stretch to say that she probably thought that Gotham was better off without her. She probably thought that nobody wanted to see her. She may have even though they were glad she was "dead". (Even her mother, whom she loves dearly. I believe her relationship with her mom is actually quite complicated, thanks to Crystal's neglect during her substance abuse days, their differing feelings on Arthur surrounding his death, and Steph's occasional parentification. Steph believed she had to protect her mother, but probably didn't feel like she was very good at it, so is it really surprising that an emotionally-compromised, injured Stephanie Brown might think that her mother might actually be better off with her "dead"?)

And what about when she reached the point where she was both physically and mentally capable of facing what she had done, and the fact that she was letting her loved ones believe she was dead, and that it might be hurtful of her to do that?

Well, at that point, the damage was already done, wasn't it? Telling them after 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, or however long the bulk of her recovery took wouldn't matter that much, would it? The lie had already been told. They had already buried her. They had already grieved. Maybe, by that point, it even felt like it would be more cruel to suddenly tell the truth. And by that point, she had begun to heal, begun to gain perspective, begun to re-evaluate somethings about herself. She probably really did need the time away to get her shit together. She probably did, for a little while, think it might be best if she never set foot in Gotham again.

I'm not saying that makes it all okay. Her mother, in particular, deserved better than all that. Cass was devastated and clearly struggled with Steph's death, perhaps even moreso than Tim. It was a shitty thing to put people through.

But I'm suggesting that 1. it's not fair to place so much of the blame on Stephanie herself, because it's not logical to suggest that she's the one who planned any of this, and 2. it's at least somewhat understandable.

[hikaaa-bi]

i think people pick sides too much rather than realizing that all of the characters in Gravity Falls were equally flawed. i've noticed it with Mabel and Dipper, and more recently, i've noticed it with Stan and Ford.

it's okay if you sympathize with Stan but some people act like he never did anything wrong and Ford was just being an asshole to him for no reason.

Stan broke Ford's science exhibit. he didn't mean to do it, but he did. and he didn't attempt to fix it nor did he come clean about it until Ford already lost his chance with uni and confronted Stan about it. then Stan spouted some "silver lining, now you can travel the world with me" BS.

i'm sorry to say it but this was a shitty thing to do. it's completely understandable why Ford was upset with Stan, and i'm tired of people acting like it isn't. of course, Stan didn't deserve to get kicked out of his home for this, but he deserved to face some consequences.

Ford had no obligation to forgive Stan and i honestly don't blame him for keeping a grudge. he lost a HUGE opportunity because of Stan. and furthermore, he also gets sucked into the portal because of Stan. again, yes, an accident. but an accident that left him stranded in a dangerous terrain for YEARS.

and don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that Stan is some irredeemable monster or anything. he worked hard to undo his wrongs and bring back Ford, and he deserves to be commended for that. but this only works if you acknowledge that he was a flawed character in the first place.

the whole point of Stan's and Ford's conflict was that BOTH of them were in the wrong. especially during the finale.

it's fine for Stan to want Ford to be grateful for what he did. BUT. he did NOT have to start bitching about it right when they were about to defeat Bill. it could have waited until after everyone was safe.

and Ford certainly did not have to start the whole "grammar Stanley" thing and act like he was above saying a simple thank you.

also, you have to understand that while it's sweet that Stan wanted to sail the world with Ford, it was also an example of their relationship being codependent. Stan was made to believe that he wasn't as worthy as Ford and he saw himself as useless and dumb, so he clings onto Ford for a sense of identity.

in Stan's mind, he was just part of a whole, and this was an extremely unhealthy mindset to have. of course it was because of their father's emotional abuse, but it was something Stan needed to change.

Ford had his own dreams, and Stan's dependence on him started to feel suffocating. i would say they both needed time away from each other, especially Stan.

at the end of the day, this conflict was mutual and y'all are erasing its complexity by acting like Stan was completely innocent and played no part in their falling out, and like Ford was some terrible monster who deserved everything that happened to him.

[sorcave]

After spending some time thinking about Peter Pettigrew, I’ve realized there’s a huge disconnect between how he’s portrayed in canon and how the fandom—especially within Marauders fanon—handles him. Let me preface this by saying, I get it. The Marauders era is filled with beloved, tragic characters like Sirius, Remus, and James, who are all charismatic in their own ways. It’s easy to frame Peter as the villain, the weak link in the group, because, well, he is the one who betrays them. But I can’t help feeling like fanon’s interpretation of him has become deeply flawed and even unfair in its simplification of his character.

Peter Pettigrew, as written in the books, is actually a much more complex figure than the rat-betrayer caricature that fanon often makes him out to be. He’s not some mustache-twirling villain, nor is he just a pathetic hanger-on who was lucky to be in the Marauders’ circle. If you really pay attention to the way his character is written, he’s someone who’s constantly underestimated by the people around him, including the very friends he ends up betraying. He’s not powerful in the traditional sense, but his cunning is what allows him to survive the chaos of two wizarding wars. He’s not a mastermind, sure, but he’s resourceful in a way that deserves more recognition than he gets. Canonically, it’s clear that he isn’t just bumbling around until he stumbles into Voldemort’s arms—he’s making calculated choices, and we need to give those choices the weight they deserve.

This brings me to why I think fanon’s insistence on reducing Peter to a one-dimensional villain is so misguided. There's this huge trend in Marauders fandom where Peter is either villainized beyond recognition or, worse, completely written out of the story. He’s often replaced in fanon with a random “better” Marauder, or he’s ignored entirely, as if his betrayal somehow disqualifies him from being part of the story. And here’s the thing: canon compliance isn’t a crime! In fact, canon gives us a far more interesting story. The tragedy of Peter’s betrayal is that he was their friend—he shared their dorm, their secrets, and their history. His actions were not driven by some inherent evil but by fear, survival instincts, and yes, cowardice. It’s a much richer narrative than reducing him to a monster.

In the fandom, there’s often this hyperfocus on moral purity when it comes to the Marauders, especially when it comes to ships and rewriting dynamics. Peter, however, disrupts that neat narrative, so fanon tries to erase him to preserve the integrity of the fan-created relationships. But that oversimplifies everything. Why should we villainize people for sticking to canon when canon is, arguably, what makes the Marauders’ story so compelling in the first place? The fall of the Marauders—this group of young, talented, promising boys—hinges on Peter’s betrayal. You can't just ignore that without losing a fundamental piece of what makes their story so tragic. He’s not a random character you can swap out. He’s the pivot point.

Peter’s character also raises some interesting discussions about how we view heroism and villainy in fandom spaces. For instance, we’re often quick to forgive other characters—Sirius, for all his bravado, is reckless and cruel to people like Snape, but we don’t hold it against him in the same way. We empathize with his trauma, his tragic backstory. So why is it that Peter, who is also a product of his circumstances, is written off? He wasn’t born evil; he was shaped by the same war that shaped all of them, but his path led him to make different choices. There’s something so fascinating about exploring how someone who was once a friend could betray everything. It’s a conversation about human flaws, not just villainy.

And yes, in a world full of Marauders fan content, it’s fine to like your AUs or write your fix-its. But let’s not pretend that sticking to canon, and appreciating Peter for the complex character he is, is somehow less valid. The fandom would benefit from looking at Peter as more than just “the betrayer” and instead as someone who, like everyone else in the story, is a deeply flawed person whose mistakes have devastating consequences. That makes the story richer, more painful, and ultimately, more meaningful.

forgive me for the ramble but Im going insane with my term paper and my thesis, unfortunately I've been diving too deep into the marauders again

[oddyseye]

Okay, I wasn’t going to say anything else about EPIC. I really wasn’t. But then I remembered I’m a survivor of SA, and staying quiet about things like this is just not in my nature.

This is your last warning for SA discussion before I go on. Cool? Cool. Here’s the deal: Epic the Musical erased Odysseus’s experience of sexual assault at the hands of Calypso, a key element of his story in The Odyssey, and then went ahead and invented a new storyline where the suitors plan to rape Penelope. Yes, you read that correctly. They removed male sexual assault entirely from the narrative but decided to increase Penelope’s suffering by adding gratuitous violence that wasn’t in Homer’s text. This is a deeply troubling creative decision, and I can’t let it slide. First, let’s look at Odysseus’s ordeal with Calypso. In The Odyssey, he is trapped on her island for seven years. This isn’t some romantic getaway — Odysseus explicitly says that he longs to return home to Ithaca, to Penelope, and to his life. Calypso refuses to let him go, keeping him against his will. But Epic completely erases this part of his story. There’s no exploration of what it means for Odysseus to be a victim of sexual violence or how this impacts his journey. Instead, they pretend it never happened, as if male SA is something that can just be brushed under the rug because it’s uncomfortable to address. And that’s a huge problem. When you erase male sexual assault, you contribute to the stigma that male victims face in real life — the idea that their experiences don’t matter, that they’re not “real” victims. Odysseus’ story is one of the few examples in ancient literature that acknowledges male vulnerability in this way, and for Epic to cut it out is not just a missed opportunity but a blatant dismissal of an important aspect of his character.

Now let’s move on to Penelope. In Homer’s text, the suitors are undeniably vile. They invade her home, consume her resources, and harass her with unwanted advances. They also sexually assault the female servants in the household, a horrific but historically grounded detail that highlights the suitors’ depravity. However, Penelope herself is not subjected to physical sexual violence. Her suffering is primarily psychological and emotional. She endures years of torment as she waits for Odysseus, using her wit and resilience to protect her home and her son. She doesn’t need to be physically brutalized to be a compelling, tragic figure — her strength and intelligence speak for themselves. But Epic decided that wasn’t enough. Instead of respecting Penelope’s original characterization, they added a plotline where the suitors actively plan to rape her. This change is not only unnecessary but also deeply harmful. It’s yet another example of modern media using sexual violence as a lazy shortcut to create drama or “raise the stakes” for female characters.

What makes this even worse is the way the creator, Jorge, has handled this topic in the Epic community. Discussions of Calypso’s sexual assault of Odysseus have been explicitly banned in the musical’s Discord server. Imagine that for a moment. A canonical instance of sexual violence is considered too taboo to talk about, but inventing new sexual violence against Penelope? That’s apparently fine. This double standard is infuriating. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the source material and a disregard for the real-world implications of these narrative choices.

This adaptation could have done something powerful by acknowledging Odysseus’s assault and exploring its impact on him. This could have been a valid artistic choice if handled carefully, if, for instance, it had been used to explore Penelope’s fear and determination in the face of such a threat. But in the context of Epic, this addition feels hollow and gratuitous. Why? Because while the musical amplifies Penelope’s suffering, it silences Odysseus’. I will only add that adding a storyline where the suitors plan to harm Penelope isn’t inherently a bad creative choice. Sexual violence is already present in The Odyssey. The suitors’ treatment of the female servants, for instance, is a horrifying but integral part of the story, showing how power and entitlement corrupt them. Expanding on the danger Penelope faces in her own home could have been a powerful way to explore her resilience, intelligence, and the stakes she faced while waiting for Odysseus. But Epic the Musical completely erases this part of Odysseus’ story. There’s no mention of his captivity or the abuse he suffered. Instead, his time with Calypso is framed as little more than a delay on his journey, a footnote rather than a defining trial. When Epic decided to add a plotline where the suitors plan to rape Penelope, it fundamentally changed her struggle. Again, this isn’t necessarily a bad choice, it could have been a way to emphasize the danger she faced as a lone woman surrounded by violent, entitled men. But for this addition to work, it needed to be balanced against the rest of the story.

Imagine if Epic had included both Penelope’s new storyline and Odysseus’ abuse at the hands of Calypso. This could have been a profoundly meaningful parallel. Odysseus and Penelope, separated by years and miles, both endure profound violations of their autonomy. He is physically held captive, forced into a relationship he doesn’t want. She is psychologically held captive in her own home, under constant threat from the suitors. Both fight to maintain their sense of self in the face of overwhelming violation. Both cling to the hope of reunion as their anchor and their strength.

The Odyssey is one of the most enduring stories of all time because of its complexity and humanity. Stripping away that complexity in favor of cheap, exploitative drama is an insult to the original text and to the audience.

[dorlilymylovesss]

I want to speak out on a topic that has been really bothering and stressing me out. For several months now, Me and my friends who don't even ship jegulus, but are just Regulus fans have been harassed by Jily shippers. And not just with hateful words, but with specific accusations of fascism.

I want to start by saying that fandoms are a place where people can express their creativity and interpret characters as they like. Fanfics, art, and shippings are forms of self-expression, and they don't have to conform to canon. It allows us to look at characters from different angles, develop alternative plots, and create something new. And I don't judge or hate people for their favorite characters and ships.

I'm a huge Regulus fan even before the Jegulus ship came along. Regulus Black is a character I have a deep interest in for many reasons. Despite his limited appearance in the Harry Potter books, his story and character leave room for a lot of interpretation and thought. And I don't like it when people describe him as a regular Death Eater.

First, Jily fans often argue their dislike by saying that their ship is canonical( of course this is true and no one denies it) and James would never date a death eater. However, it should be remembered that fan art and shippings are inherently activities for the self and the soul. Even if a couple doesn't conform to "official" canon and never even met, it doesn't diminish the right of fans to create their own stories and interpretations.

Second Jegulus shippers are called misogynists.

But they may simply see these characters as interesting dynamics that catch their attention or interesting tropes that can be created. Choosing this ship doesn't necessarily mean they are intentionally excluding female characters and being negative towards them. Yes there are people among jegulus shippers who dislike Lily and exclude her from the story, but they are a minority. Plenty of jegulus shippers love Lily and also ship jily.

The charge of misogyny implies a conscious and systematic disregard for women or female characters. However, in most cases, Jegulus shippers simply enjoy a particular story or interaction between two male characters. This does not preclude an interest in or respect for female characters. Many shippers actively create and support content featuring female characters in other contexts or ships.

There is always a diversity of interests and preferences in fan circles. Not everyone likes the same characters or couples, and that's fine. However, to infer misogyny just based on someone's preference for a certain male couple without considering the overall context of a person's interests is wrong and unfair. Plus, I've seen thousands of Jily fans who were blatantly homophobic towards the marlily and pandalily enjoyers, and called James her only love, and erase her identity, leaving only her relationship with James.

Third, why calling the death eaters fascists is wrong and insulting to the actual victims of the tragedy.

Fascism as a political ideology and movement had specific historical roots and consequences, including brutal repression, genocide, and war. Death Eaters are fictional characters created by transphobic Rowling for a work of fiction, and their actions and motivations are part of a fictional universe.

Using historical examples of real-life suffering and tragedies to compare to fictional characters is disrespectful to those affected by real-life events. Historical tragedies such as the Holocaust require special respect and careful handling. And many Jewish content makers have already spoken out about it.

The kind of hate I've encountered as a Regulus fan is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. That being said, I've always loved jily, but after the hate, stupid accusations I've cooled off to them. You can't treat living people like that because of fictional characters. A lot of people don't care about canon written by a creepy transphobic woman, can you imagine?

Instead of wasting time on conflict and hate I suggest you create content on your favorite ships and leave other people alone. You have no idea how your hating can affect a person.

Not all shippers have the intention to demean or exclude other characters. Many of us simply love a particular dynamic and choose to explore it in our writing. This should not be taken as a threat or insult to other fans.

I love jegulus and jily, but my fav ship is dorlily and it saddens me that fans of the same fandom hate each other so much.

Not all shippers have the intent to demean or exclude other characters. Many of us simply love a particular dynamic and choose to explore it in our writing. This should not be taken as a threat or insult to other fans.

Leave other people alone. If u can't create content for your favorite ship and only can hate others its your f..king problem, it's unhealthy and childish.

I'm deeply sorry for jegulus artists and writers who got hate here and even death treats. I hope you will continue creating something that makes you happy.