#hes just imagining it very accurately

[mbat]

this was an idea i had last year that i found in my files and decided to revive. woe, angst be upon ye

[potatobugz]

dugon my friend my buddy my pal

[sneez]

circle of sir godfrey kneller, portrait of lord fermain clancharlie, oil on canvas (1705) [id in alt text]

[yardsards]

clint mcelroy creating a dnd character: oh yeah, this bad boy can fit so much simple zest for life in him

[tofixtheshadows]

"Why would Kui draw Kabru wearing business casual in the dungeon" he's not, but making a comic is hard as fuck and drawing historically accurate costuming is time consuming. Accept the visual shorthand instead.

[my-thoughts-and-junk]

i have to think about chilchuck and laios forever

[arsene-fixates]

Though all the layers, it’s still me

[karinyosa]

i could make a massive essaypost about it, or i could just show you all the genius lyrics annotations i made about clown bible judas

[dimiclaudeblaigan]

Honestly though, this (what Ashe is pointing out) is exactly why I don't think GW could possibly end well. There's no "talking it over" after all the bloodshed (especially bloodshed started by them, and especially bloodshed started by them that didn't have to happen).

The way the narration leaves it "open" too at the end of GW just comes across as "it failed". It feels like... a kind of pointless story?

And I know some people might think that since Dimitri personally isn't as deeply affected by losing Matthias and so might be willing, that's still no good if his people and closest allies aren't. Rodrigue and Sylvain wouldn't be so forgiving, and I do think Dimitri would follow suit because that's his father (Rodrigue)'s closest friend and one of his own closest friends' father.

Add that to the fact that they have Sreng to deal with still (and I imagine sooner or Sylvain would figure out that Leicester had a hand in provoking Sreng to attack Faerghus) on top of losing Matthias and I imagine all the stress and aggravation wouldn't bode well for Leicester as far as Claude's thinking of things working out goes.

I just really can't see where GW goes afterward that would be "good" or works in Claude's favor at all. Maybe that was the intention and it was meant to be a route with a completely tragic ending, but apparently there are players who think it would end well and whatnot and I just can't see that happening (both from Faerghus' end and from Adrestia's end, the latter of which Claude discussed within GW itself).

If their intention was for a totally tragic ending, like yeah, I can see that... but as always the writing muddies the waters to make it sound good while something bad is happening. It keeps trying to have a positive spin on bad things as if they're just afraid to commit to a fully bad ending.

[wayfinderships]

Good morning gamers! Hope you're all doing well!! As for me, I'm ping ponging between multiple f/os this morning!

[suppenzeit]

my favorite self-indulgent dragon age headcanon is that elves can move their ears. you cant give me big pointy ears and expect me to not make them move.

[fideidefenswhore]

Never ended up adding this, but: 

I don’t believe DM ‘woobified’ Thomas Cromwell, but I see some sort of marriage of narrative in his own biographical apologism & the depiction in Mantel’s series and its adaptation that filed off some his sharper, less palatable, edges, including the TV adaptation (if not literal marriage, then certainly a feature now of this sort of Cromwell-focused subgenre/...fandom?). It’s Cromwell holding a kitten that we see, not Cromwell introducing a bill for the utter abolition of sanctuaries, Cromwell gently scolding an imperious Anne who insists Thomas More should be tortured ( ‘we don’t do that, madame’), rather than Cromwell as the orchestrator of the rather torturous executions of John and Alice Wolfe. In so many of these scenes, the characters opposite Cromwell feel like strawmen-- an irony, from an author that so often derided that infamous author of so many strawmen arguments where he came out the moral and intellectual victor, himself...

I also don’t think the criticism of misogyny as it concerns AB’s character in this series, the original source material nor the adapted TV series, is proportional to how eye-watering it was (dismissed because she’s so auxiliary, maybe...?). There is literally a scene where Anne tries to facilitate the seduction (and probable rape) of a teenage girl (presumably inspired by a dispatch of Chapuys in which he does not even report that there’s any rumor of this plot, just that he believes she might do so, that it is the goal and potential method of the isolation), as Cromwell stands on in silent, long-suffering, morally reproving judgement (which emerges as a pattern, another scene later or before is him being the calming voice of reason as she squawks in outrage at the wording of the Act of Succession). Paired with the absolute Mary Sue gender-equivalent of this character (in TMATL, even his own daughter-in-law wants to fuck him), it’s just nauseating. 

[copiawife]

HE'S OKAY HE'S ALIVE

[angeltism]

Maryne drew a full body of xerself,, oddly purroud of how it turned out since normally she cannawt do full body poses that look even. slightly decent. so ermm yayay,,

blame any slight errors on aqua's shaky hands ok? ok :]

[theriverdalereviewer]

seeing the discourse around whether oppenheimer should have represented japanese/indigenous americans and I just wanna say I think they can feel however they want about this film

[croakings]

SO. sorry this is going to be deranged i'm not proofreading this

so i've been writing a lot recently, and this particular project involves a language and culture i'm making up. and it's got me thinking about language, and communication, and lying.

and this is probably a very autistic realization, but it's hit me that usually when people lie, what they are trying to convey— and like, we're ignoring the ethics of it, this post is devoid of judgement one way or another, i'm just examining this thought— is a request for an emotional response from someone that the truth is less or unlikely to get across as effectively or as easily.

like, normal example, totally excusable: "my wife is in the hospital," when it's your girlfriend in the hospital. factually untrue! but what one wants people to hear is "someone i love and want to spend the rest of my life with is in dire straits and therefore so am i, please excuse anything in my behavior that may be caused by this," essentially. or like you can swap wife/girlfriend with sibling/best friend or aunt/neighbor or whatever. what you're trying to get across is the magnitude of the relationship rather than communicating the nature of the relationship itself.

we have words for that! like, yes, it's lying to use the wrong words, technically, to "trick" someone into understanding how close whatever given person is to you, and how much their condition is affecting you, but! also, i do have to say, in that particular instance i do have to say that, the primary goal of language being communication...... it's interesting! the facts are untrue. but the gravity of the circumstance was conveyed clearly with intention, which is to say, the emotional impact was increased by sacrificing literal clarity. this is basically what hyperbole does!!!!

most lying does that, doesn't it? most lies that i can think of are in some way in service to emotion above like, anything else. someone wanting to spare themselves someone else's emotion ("i'm fine", "i didn't do that", "i don't want this, you take it") and this is....... in a way, strictly speaking, effective communication. it's. hm.

like, for the record, i'm not pro-lying, and also, to reiterate, it's also ineffective communication, because it's factually untrue, which means again that however much an aim was achieved or a meaning conveyed you do it at the expense of one whole half of the venture. but it's interesting, isn't it? how much lying is usually angling for a specific impact, or to gain some form of ease and/or expediency.

i feel like i'm probably getting this across poorly which is also like, really funny, but what prompted this is like......... language is an imperfect tool! we know this. speaking (or whatever) is always an act of translation, and in translation something is always lost. like, even if that thing is only time. one is never able to express anything exactly as quickly as the original; thoughts take time to parcel up and deliver, or come out poorly if not mangled if at all recognizably. when going from one literal language to another, you have to decide whether you want to be more accurate literally, in impact, or in delivery, so respectively and with the simplest example you have to decide if when you translate an idiom you do so verbatim, or with an equivalent, and then whether or not you explain your choice and/or its value. because like, in an unattainable "perfect" translation, you could communicate both the meaning and the trappings of its delivery seamlessly and simply in about the same space as it was originally given more or less immediately. instead, because we can't do that, you can sacrifice to some degree either the original words, their original impact, or the original delivery, by again respectively changing the words altogether, losing the impact (generally also altogether), or losing the directness/straight forward nature of the communication by inserting an info blurb. and of course any kind of translation needs some extra degree of time, even just in its delivery. you lose things! you have to decide which things are most valuable to you to allow you to be "truest". like, which part of any given sentence is most important ? it varies, right? and sometimes one can effect another, like, what if brevity is important to the impact? or conversely, what if something specific has to be communicated in a long-winded and round-about way to have the same impact, but it's tricky to manage doing so without losing the clarity? what do you sacrifice? the meaning, the impact, or the delivery? does that make sense? and you're probably always going to lose time.

so, lying!!!!! it's sacrificing meaning for the other two, is what i was trying to say earlier. it's an imperfect translation!!!!! in one sense!!! but it is a translation!!!!! isn't that interesting?? actually no, sorry, most ethically speaking it's 2 sacrifices; meaning and delivery. like, as i kept saying, the facts are untrue (meaning), and at some point for the sake of clarity it'll be necessary to be like "oh no, sorry, actually it was [the factual truth], i just said [x] because [some form of expected expediency/ease], [explanation of that choice]." (<- delivery.) but y’know with lying with ill intentions you do get to skip that part, and in that case the lack of correcting by revisiting/extending the delivery is part of the communication, whereby you are implicitly saying something like "fuck you, also". or possibly "fuck me," idk, lying can contain multitudes. which!!!!!!!! isn't that interesting??? talking!!!!!!!!!!!! communication!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how and why and in what ways we say things........... the choices we make and the reasons we make those choices....... the sacrifices that are and are not acceptable to make, and in which contexts, in order to come across as you intend to...........

idk i'm just turning this around like a shiny rock in my hands. like, also, i do know that lying is done with the intent to deceive, and also that lying (derogatory) is done maliciously, with either the intent to harm or at least a lack of intent of care, but. hm. isn't it interesting, what you can learn when you look at how people lie, and how those things can change based on why you think they were lying? they still communicated effectively!!!!!!! they did it on purpose!!!!!!!!!!!!! they made those choices for a reason. that still..... tells something!!!!

even imperfect communication can, in its flaws, tell us something!!!!!!!! does someone sacrifice time, meaning, impact, delivery? why? in what contexts? with intent? for what purpose? isn't it interesting????????????????