#conflict theme

[wallpapersmonster]

🐉 Dragon's Domain: A Clash of Realms 🌆

Hey there, wallpaper enthusiasts! 🎉 Are you ready to dive into a world where fantasy meets the urban jungle? Introducing our latest creation, Dragon's Domain! This stunning wallpaper features a fierce dragon's head looming over a bustling city skyline, capturing an epic moment of tension and conflict. Just imagine the stories this scene could tell! 😮✨

Whether you're a fan of mythical creatures or just love a good fantasy theme, this wallpaper is sure to ignite your imagination and bring a touch of magic to your device. The intricate details of the dragon and the cityscape blend beautifully, making it a perfect backdrop for any fantasy lover!

Ready to make your screen pop? 🌟 You can easily add this masterpiece to your collection by clicking on the link below: Explore the Dragon's Domain

Let us know what you think in the comments! We love hearing from you and seeing how you use our wallpapers. Keep your screens looking fresh and fantastical!

Happy decorating! 🎨

Tags: "fantasy creatures", "dragon wallpaper", "city skyline", "fantasy art", "mythical creatures", "epic wallpaper", "urban fantasy", "fantasy landscape", "dragon head", "tension art", "conflict theme", "wallpapers monster", "digital art", "HD wallpapers", "fantasy lovers", "artistic wallpaper", "creative backgrounds", "fantasy design", "unique wallpapers", "wallpaper collection", "fantasy cityscape"

[chloesimaginationthings]

Mike can’t handle Abby in the next FNAF movie..

[stil-lindigo]

motherhood.

[bevioletskies]

If God doesn’t want us to love each other, then what’s the point of having God in this world?

GEMINI NORAWIT & FOURTH NATTAWAT in TICKET TO HEAVEN (2025)

[fulcrums501st]

how is hallucination Silco more sympathetic to Vi’s prison trauma than the writers lmao

[gummi-ships]

Kingdom Hearts Dream Drop Distance

[kithj]

some stories are written precisely to elicit strong emotions from the reader INCLUDING negative ones. some stories and characters are meant to be upsetting, they are meant to challenge you and make you uncomfortable!! when a story makes you feel Big Feelings sometimes you are meant to sit in those feelings and ask yourself why! fiction is a great space to explore these emotions in a safe environment. you, as the reader, are meant to think critically about the art you are enjoying and that includes asking yourself questions like why has the author presented their art in this way and what are they trying to tell me. and then you get to have fun picking it apart and figuring it out and deciding what, exactly, the art means to you.

[aventurineswife]

reader x sunday but the after affects of the penacony 2.2 story, like maybe reader being left in the dark about everything and they’re slightly upset with him :>

Bound by Dreams, Torn by Truth

Summary: After the events on Penacony, you confront Sunday about keeping his plans for Sweetdream Paradise hidden from you. Despite his vision of a pain-free society, you feel hurt by his secrecy and question his motives. In a vulnerable moment, Sunday reveals his desire to protect you from the harshness of reality, asking for your understanding as he attempts to balance his ideal with his love for you.

Tags: Sunday x Reader, Angst, Hurt/Comfort, Post-Penacony 2.2, Emotional Conflict, Confrontation, Bittersweet Romance.

Warnings: Mild existential themes, Mentions of escapism, Slight manipulation(?)

The aftermath of the events on Penacony leaves you feeling unsettled, uncertain about the man you've trusted. Sunday's lofty vision of a painless utopia — one where people live in eternal dreams, safe from the harsh realities of life — now appears more complicated. The illusion of a paradise that he believes in clashes with your desire for a real, imperfect world. Although he speaks about shielding others from pain, his choice to withhold the truth about his intentions and the cost of Sweetdream Paradise leaves you feeling like an outsider, someone he couldn’t fully confide in.

One evening, you decide to confront him. You find him in his office, surrounded by ornate, dreamlike decor, the quiet hum of reverie hanging in the air. His golden eyes, like halos of their own, meet yours with the same calm conviction they always hold. But tonight, you want answers — real ones.

"Why didn’t you tell me everything?" you ask, your voice wavering slightly. "You talk about protecting people, but this... this dream isn’t real. It’s not what I thought we were building."

Sunday’s expression softens, and for a moment, a glimmer of regret crosses his features. He reaches for your hand but hesitates. "I wanted to keep you safe," he says, his voice as calm and steady as ever. "The truth is harsh, even painful. Sweetdream Paradise… it’s mercy, even if it comes at a cost."

"But don’t I deserve to know? To understand the real consequences?" you ask, feeling the weight of everything he chose to conceal.

He nods, a small sigh escaping his lips as he steps closer. "You’re right. I should have trusted you with more. But understand, this world, this dream — it’s my way of giving people peace, of sparing them the torment of life’s cruelties. Even if you don’t see it as I do, know that my choice was out of love. I wanted to protect you from the darkness that reality brings."

His hand finally reaches yours, a bittersweet touch that’s both comforting and conflicting. "Stay with me," he whispers, a hint of vulnerability slipping through his composed demeanor. "If you can, believe in me just a little longer."

Though the ache of his secrecy still lingers, you sense the sincerity in his words. He may never see the world as you do, but tonight, you realize that perhaps love isn’t always about sharing the same dreams — it’s sometimes about walking together, even through the differences.

[julesnichols]

Okay bear with me here because I've got brain fog and tend to word salad but I'm gonna try my fucking best--

Everyone who insists that shipping/romance isn't the point of Severance and that anyone who ships is missing the REAL point about what capitalism does is also missing the fucking point, because it's BOTH

Because yes, it's about what capitalism does and the evils of giant corporations. But it's also about love, and specifically two things about love:

1. That falling in love when you're not supposed to, when you're trapped in hell, is one of the most revolutionary things you can do in a system that wants to crush you into dust. In a system that wants you to obey, loving somebody instead of giving in or giving up IS the most revolutionary choice you can make. This corporation can tell you that you're less than human, they can torture you, but you can still carve out a life and a family and find romantic love, too

and

2. That you cannot create a version of yourself that exists solely to do labor for his entire life so that you can cease to exist for forty hours of the week to escape your grief, and not face the consequences of that action

I think I've made my point about the first one enough as is, so let me just get into the second a bit more:

Mark Scout was choking on his grief over losing Gemma. He drowned himself in alcohol to cope, and either lost or left his job that he loved. He took a job that involved brain surgery to split his consciousness in half rather than confront his grief head on; he can choose not to exist for forty hours of his week, and spend the other hours either drunk out of his mind or asleep (the consequences of drinking being something that bleed into his innie as well).

I think that anyone who's dealt with a traumatic and painful loss can relate to why he would do such a thing. Isn't it understandable, if you had a way to not exist for a while, that you would take it without hesitation? That if you were drowning and confronting it would mean more pain before it got better, you'd run from it if you could?

But what Severance wants us to do is go beyond sympathizing with Mark Scout: it asks us to consider the consequences. Because in severing himself for a reason people can sympathize with him for, he created a version of himself that exists solely to work for his entire life, with no breaks, no rest, and torture tactics when he fucks up-- no matter how small the fuck up may be.

A version of himself without his memories, who has trickles of his grief but none of the love to go with it. Who falls in love with someone he meets down there, because Mark S. was created so that Mark Scout could avoid his grief and his love for Gemma. And thus, Mark S. moved on, because he never knew anything else.

Then Mark Scout finds out that Gemma is alive. He reintegrates without his innie's consent, because he views Mark S. as inferior to him and entitled to his memories. Their relationship is inherently exploitative.

Mark S. and Helly's relationship progresses further. Helena Eagan stalks Mark Scout. And here's something that gets me: you have to have your head buried six feet deep in the fucking sand to not see that they were flirting.

A sane person would've run when Helena awkwardly bragged about who she was and offered to bring Mark Scout to her father. But Mark Scout escalates it, turning it into a flirtatious joke about her taking him home to dad. And yes, he does ultimately go for more brain surgery because he feels guilty and spooked that he was flirting with Helena. Because he escalated the flirting.

Again, you have to be deep in denial to not see that. It relates back to the point about how he feels entitled to his innie's memories and experiences: he feels guilty and unsettled, so he tries to absorb more of them in hopes of more glimpses of Gemma to help him find and save her.

Again, can't you sympathize with that?

And again, the show asks you to consider the ramifications beyond that.

(note: I am on the side that innies and outies aren't cut and dry separate people as they are the same base people with different memories and lived experiences, akin to amnesia)

The first thing that Mark Scout remembers is Mark S. having sex with Helly, specifically as he watches her orgasm for the first time while he's inside of her. An extremely intimate moment, and it's intentional that it's that and not another flash of Gemma. Because the show, once again, is asking the audience to consider the consequences of Mark Scout's actions in severing himself.

And Mark S. recognizes that Mark Scout is exploiting him at the end! Mark Scout demands he find Gemma, save her, and be willing to die (because even if he reintegrates, NEITHER of them will be the same-- I'll come back to this in a sec). He belittles what Mark S. has with Helly and the life he's made for himself. He dehumanizes him. Because Mark Scout created Mark S. to escape, to do labor for him, and again-- he wanted to use him to get Gemma and then cast him aside, furthering how he dehumanizes and exploits him... and there are consequences to that action.

Back to the thing about reintegration I said I'd get back to: the characters within show, and quite frankly a large swath of the audience, thinks that it's Mark Scout absorbing Mark S.'s memories, and just still being Mark Scout with those memories. And yet, the show has shown us that this isn't the case. Petey says his earliest memories of the severed floor feel as far back as his childhood! What I think reintegration does, is create a new version of innie and outie, with both their memories. And that it's probably reliant more on harmony of goals and desires than forcing it; but again, the outies view the innies as inferior. Even the people in the show who claim to advocate against severance don't consider the innies human enough to consider what'll happen to them.

And so of course Mark S. chooses himself for the first time in his life at the end of the season. Because once again, the show asks you to look beyond the surface and consider the consequences.

And yet, too much of the audience also subconsciously (or consciously sometimes tbh) thinks of innies as subhuman, and miss the entire fucking point. Yes, there are obnoxious shippers; there always fucking are in large fandoms, use the block button as God intended. But you are being equally obnoxious and obtuse if you insist that the show does not want us to consider love and romance, too. Because again, it's about both the evils of capitalism and how revolutionary love can be, and how you cannot escape your actions. You cannot separate those two themes, because the show uses the romances in the show as vehicles to explore the evils and consequences of capitalism.

So stop fucking saying everybody who ships things doesn't understand the show, and actually watch it yourself, because clearly you don't either.

[genosoffline]

all in

[jon-sedai]

There are people out there who genuinely think that the Starks aren’t thematically linked to ice in a way that is meaningful and central to the story? What?? I mean, never mind that they’re characterized as exclusively living in a frozen land, it is said that a Stark who goes south of the Neck melts. It’s not like their ancestral sword is called Ice. It’s not like they rule a castle called Winterfell. It’s not like their house words are “Winter is coming”. It’s not like their banner is a direwolf (a creature that is now synonymous with the snowy north) running on what is described as either snow or an ice-white background. It’s not like they are consistently characterized with having icy or cold demeanors to the point of it being a house trait (e.g., Benjen, Ned, Jon). It’s not like they ruled thousands of years as Kings of Winter. It’s not like the Starks, the wolves, are said to be uniquely suited to surviving winter. It’s not like a big part of their house legacy and how they even came to be is the construction of a giant ice Wall. It’s not like a key historical event in the last couple centuries is the Pact of Ice (Stark) and Fire (Targaryen). Apparently none of that matters 🙄 It’s so disingenuous to claim that any house with First Men blood would take on the role of ice. No, that’s a special characteristic given to the STARKS, and their connection with ice and winter and snow has thematic relevance.

[vigilskeep]

lately my brain has been really dead on da2 but i think it’s going to resurge. i can feel something starting to grow back. when i look at anders art i’m like ough i think in a month or two that is really going to hit like it used to

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Can you perhaps elaborate on the "Ganondorf should get to pummel Rauru"

As far as I'm recalling, we don't actually get that much of their issues in totk? We see leaders clashing, and then essentially Ganondorf kills Sonia and steals the secret stone, kicking off the imprisoning war. It's been a minute since I looked at the lore of totk (No Urbosa, so I'm nowhere near as invested as I am in botw) so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something big I missed, or even subtext I never picked up on

Sure! It's always very funny to me to receive the occasional ask like this, since I have been Renowned as a Rauru hater since release, but to briefly recap my perspective: I think Rauru was one self-conscious writing decision away from being the most compelling morally gray character in all of the Zelda canon, but unfortunately is heralded as being a near-perfect ruler (though even his imperfection is an extremely unclear and unexamined flaw that no character ever hold him accountable for --except for Ganondorf, and even what Ganondorf does call him out on is also unclear and also depends on translation because it wouldn't be a Zelda game otherwise) even though Rauru is mostly responsible, not only for his own problems, but also for everybody else's --including, crucially, Zelda's.

In a few words, he cannot be excused (like Zelda or Rhoam) by having to bear the weight of a kingdom for his poor decisions since, you know, he invented the damn thing (then of course maybe he would have to uphold the zonai legacy or something, and this is his motivation, but we don't know, since the game isn't interested in giving us this kind of information). His repeated invitations to the gerudos (and others but the gerudos are the only one not drinking the kool aid? which should be completely ok), being this new ruler of a brand new kingdom that didn't exist 5 minutes prior and yet feeling like he is somehow owed extreme levels of loyalty and devotion from everyone around him, being considered reasonable by the writing, is really baffling to me. Him dismissing Zelda's warnings (as tame as they are, which is just incomprehensible writing contrivences) even though he accepts that she does indeed come from the future, from a Hyrule ravaged by war, is crazy. Him running off to hunt and leave his priestess-wife in charge of the kingdom he founded on her lands while still speaking over her politically is.... sure a choice that was made in the writing. Him then choosing to warn Ganondorf that Link is a guy that exists and will kick his ass, is literally the reason why Link doesn't get the advantage and gets his arm destroyed. And then, in spite of all that, in spite of having the full picture, Rauru is vague and utterly unhelpful as a spirit while Link recovers, pondering that it's so sad that Constructs have to toil for all eternity for no purpose... :(

And like, yes Rauru, indeed Rauru, but maybe, just maybe, that should tell us something about how incredibly self-centered this goat-dragon-dude is --not realizing what he was imposing to his servants and people for his own leisure, in the name of his peace. I don't think he is evil, as in: he's not a cackling unsubtle and vapid caricature like Ganondorf is, but wow is this guy the most self-unaware and entitled character accidentally written in a game that fails to realize the absolute metric ton of red flags inserted in every single one of his scenes that I've... ever seen.

Again, if all of this was intentional, he would have been a masterful character. Maybe my favorite guy.

But the game destroying all other characters' interiority (and botw's worlbduilding) to tell this incredibly uncompelling tragedy about this super-cool perfect king and his series of completely avoidable failures... yeah, that really did not sit well with me at all.

Other posts about the topic that I've written previously:

A post about imperialism themes and aesthetics in TotK (I think it probably deserves an update with more specific historical examples)

A post about intent VS execution (especially re: good rulers and good kingdoms, and why this trope needs to be earned --contrasting TotK and EoW)

So yeah! Rauru. Weirdo guy. Compelling weirdo guy I think, but in a way the fandom really uhh disagrees with overall haha

[strangerthanyou011]

will and mike when they first met: i’m not the only one who’s lonely

will and mike in season 1: i’m not the only freak

will and mike in season 2: i’m not the only one who feels crazy

will and mike in season 3: i’m not the only one struggling to survive puberty and figure out who i am if i’m not a kid anymore

will and mike in season 4: i’m not the only one who’s afraid to be honest with people about my feelings

will and mike in season 5: i’m not the only one who’s gay and in love with my best friend???!?

[1001galaxygal]

It’s so interesting to hear what mokumokuren was intending with the hand in chest scene! I think the themes of the story come through excellently. “Difficult to accept” in the sense of Hikaru’s death and yoshiki’s sexuality. It’s a bit genius I fear

[randlemartin]

the use of the wwi monument in day of days is so good i don't think i talk about it enough but the hint at this whole wider conversation that can be had about the show and ww2 as a whole...crazy.