#his ideology and what type of being he's meant to be

[misha-v]

stupid pissman

[n3ptoonz]

mk1 dialogues with the outworld guys!

a/n: only some characters will have flirtatious lines, while others i can't stand so they WILL get made fun of (i'm looking at you shao.)

i get reiko has fans, so i pander A LIL BIT🙄i can't with havik tho im sorry i didn't grow up w his character so 🧍🏾‍♀️

for syzoth reader is a demon that can shapeshift cause he clearly got a type (ashrah is so freaking pretty)

enjoy ;p

Rain

you: i like wizards

rain: i don't like being called a "wizard"

rain: you couldn't handle the son of a god.

you: if you mean in a fight, probably not, otherwise, absolutely

you: i don't mind getting a little wet from rain

rain: you earthrealmers sure are painstakingly persistent.

rain: i would never court a commoner.

you: you won't be saying that after this match, i guarantee it (wink sound effect).

Reptile

syzoth: if you're from the netherrealm...do you work for quan chi?

you: when i was brain washed yes, now i am reformed and seek redemption

you: do not be afraid, i am kin to ashrah and share her ideologies

syzoth: never thought i would meet so many demons in this life

syzoth: you see what you like? i mean like you- see-

you: demon got your tongue?

you: i find you adorable in both forms, syzoth

syzoth: hey, that's my line!

Shang Tsung

shang tsung: how could I bring harm to such a fine specimen?

you: the same way i'm about to

you: stop flirting with me, sorcerer

shang tsung: not until you consider my offer of ruling the realms by my side

shang tsung: i wouldn't fight me if i were you, i could split your body into eighths

you: tough talk from a man with a silk press

you: you wanna kiss me so bad

shang tsung: kiss, kill, life is all about wonder

Reiko

reiko: you dare poke fun at the ways of an Outworld warrior?

you: uh, you should've seen how you looked shadow boxing at Raiden, I had to laugh

you: come here often?

reiko: wha- you came to my house!

reiko: you just won't quit, will you?

you: there's just something about meatheads that do the trick

you: kiss me, k-k-kiss me, infe-

reiko: it was ONE drunk night!

General Shao

you: just big and greedy

shao: careful, kung lao might overhear you.

shao: ha! you think your puny little self could win against me?

you: you were bested by a farm boy with a sleeper build. nothing about you scares me

you: reiko did not get his looks from his father

shao: soon you won't live long enough to compare!

shao: if i win, you serve as my consort

you: you actually have to have power first to have such imagination

Baraka

baraka: your flesh smells amazing.

you: thanks, new fragrance I made mys- oh you meant as food.

you: so like, does your mouth ever get dry?

baraka: that is the stupidest question i've ever been asked since my affliction

baraka: every day i wake up in aguish.

you: i asked you what time it was...

you: i would ask you to dinner, but you'd run straight for the civilians

baraka: i cannot help what i've become- wait, ask me to dinner?!

Havik

you: what in the actual fu-

havik: continue and you won't be having a mouth either!

havik: why are you looking at me like that?!

you: i'm trying to figure out just how the hell you and baraka pronounce your M's and P's

you: impressive you didn't die from getting a face full of lava

havik: it's probably the only thing liu kang did right!

havik: don't tell me to relax! i lost half my face!

you: hey, you could chill on the whole realm domination and killing a god thing, just saying

--

a/n: this was so hard to write omfg i don't even like half this list😭let me know if y'all want kameo dialogues either in comments or ask box

[idlebirdsparagon]

Musings On Sacrifice And Happiness Regarding Ram & Bheem

@hag-lad this snowballed a bit and took me a few days, but I was not making empty promises in the tags; it is done.

All right folks. This little analysis was inspired by this post by @enigma-the-mysterious and is an exploration of Ram and Bheem's attitudes toward their mortality and potential deaths. Neither of these two knuckleheads (affectionate) seem even the least bit apprehensive at the thought of their own deaths and I want to unpack that.

Content warning for talk of death, and disregard for personal safety, as per the movie.

Bheem: "I'll die with pride."

[Note: this section will be a little less of a deep dive into subtext and deeper meaning/conjecture and more a general explanation of the text, mainly because Bheem, barring the necessity of his Akhtar persona, functions narratively as the "what you see is what you get/I said what I meant" type. But it's fun to talk about him, and I'm making a culminating point at the end of this so I need this here for the sake of ✨️balance✨️]

Given his role as the protector for the Gond people, I would argue that it's reasonable to assume Bheem is, at any given point, ready to sacrifice himself for those he considers to be under his protection, whether directly a part of his tribe or not, especially based on the description of the protector given by Venkat Avadhani; yes Bheem is often likened to a tiger within the fandom (I do this too), but I think the imagery presented of a man willing to break a tiger's teeth and pry open its jaws to save someone is incredibly visceral and indicative of how far Bheem is willing to go as just one person.

Bheem lives with the knowledge that there's always a high chance that he will die as a natural outcome of his role among his people, as evidenced by how he doesn't promise his return when comforting Ram, saying instead "If we get out safely, I'll come meet you again."

And if he dies for the sake of ensuring that others get to live, that's a net positive for him; his purpose as protector fulfilled.

His entire line to Ram before he leaves to rescue Malli is a verbal acknowledgement of how much love he holds for his friend and an assurance to Ram that he'll have comfort in his final moments should they come to pass; he's not actively seeking to die, and he'll do his best to avoid dying, but he won't deem it an untimely tragedy should it happen. And having forged such a close friendship with Ram, that's another net positive he's been party to, so he can die with pride having done his job and holding the memory of Ram in his heart in his final moments.

Ram: "I will die gladly, Uncle."

I'm not gonna ease into this idea, I'm too eager so I'm just going to lay it out: Alluri Rama Raju does not live for himself and does not pursue his mission with his wellbeing in mind. Ram operates under the notion of being an instrument of the revolution and, even in times of his most heinous acts, regards himself as such rather than as a person. This is ultimately a topic for another dissection, but to tie it into the point of this post: when a tool breaks, do you weep? Does the tool?

I'm not going to wax poetic about material loss versus emotional loss; there is a nuance there that begs for a much longer word count. However, I will underline the point I'm making about Ram and how he regards his life.

Ram is given the mantle of being the weapon of the revolution at a very young age and we are told that he has worked for 15 years toward his (and his father's) goal; if you subscribe to the ideology that your life is that of a tool meant to achieve a goal, rather than as evidence of a living being, how will that change how you regard that life? Is it something precious outside of the mission?

Ram has a severe reckless disregard for his personal safety; jumping into a throng of protesters with nothing but a lathi as his weapon/protection being the biggest example of this.

(look at him go. wild. i'm armchair diagnosing him as clinically unwell.)

Ram is well aware of his prowess as a weapon and that gives him the confidence and internal permission to take wild risks without a moment's hesitation; he also knows that, ultimately, a weapon, if broken beyond repair, is replaceable; while he isn't looking to break himself, he certainly isn't being precious with his existence either.

And I would posit that he functions on a day to day basis under the need to accomplish his mission, get the weapons for his people and expel the British; beyond that? I wouldn't put money on Ram having planned for the future, or even having thought of making it to whatever future might be there for him. Though this idea is more of a headcanon than anything else; feel free to agree with or dismiss it as you like.

Then comes his ideological shift in the face of Bheem's rousing defiance of the Empire, and Ram's participation in it, in front of the people of Delhi at the whipping post.

Ram is forced to reckon with the fact that in his bid to be the weapon that brings about the downfall of the British Empire, he has effectively put that weapon into the hands of the enemy and allowed it to be wielded against the people he has been trying to liberate, and he knows this. The thought has been building for some time, as evidenced by his letter to Sita, but being ordered to flog Bheem expedited the process of cementing it as truth, with the final acknowledgement of that truth happening during Komuram Bheemudo.

But what to do with that realization?

What do you do when your purpose is thrown at your feet and you're forced to look at the culmination of your life's efforts as something that has been horribly corrupted and been rendered ultimately impotent? Let's me be specific with this rhetorical bit: What is Ram meant to do when looking at his guilt made manifest in the wounds littering Bheem's body, put there by his hand? Guilt that has been looming over his actions since his final shot in his village at his father's back?

(do you ever think about the fact that they show us the moment Ram stopped genuinely smiling until the day he met Bheem?...i do)

After the flogging Ram says Bheem is a volcano; I want to take that metaphor and turn it in my hands a bit to say I'd regard Bheem more as the catalyst for the eruption of people in Delhi, the introduction of magma into the chamber that triggers the previous buildup to come rushing forth; again another analysis for another time. Suffice it to say Bheem's actions and defiance in the face of the British and his torture incite immediate and tangible results in a way that Ram's methods from the inside never have and never would have been able to.

Here's where I'm going to bring it back to the idea of Ram and his happiness to potentially die for Bheem

Ram pins his hopes of a successful revolution onto Bheem. He doesn't seem the type to excuse failure in any capacity in regard to himself, and he has just been made painfully and undeniably aware that what he has been doing for the past 4 years has not been working; time to effectively decommission himself as the weapon. And if he dies, well, such is the way of things, no? Ram is beyond skilled in a great many things, especially combat, but I doubt he's ever regarded himself as invincible, he gets hurt too badly and far too often for that to make sense. Luck eventually runs out. He can do what needs to be done, he has every confidence in that, but he's aware of the possibility that doing so will come at the cost of his life. And with all that he has done up to the point of his about face after Bheem's flogging, he's more than ready to pay that price in his own blood.

Ram's life is not his, at least not by his estimation, and if he can keep Bheem alive, his own life is fine to be forfeit. He can die happy knowing Bheem still lives, with the added bonus of knowing the revolution will continue in his absence. At least in death he will have successfully done something good for his people and country.

To Summarize:

Both men are at peace with the idea of their respective deaths: Ram ultimately because he doesn't see his death as a loss if Bheem is still alive, and Bheem because he doesn't see his death as a tragedy if it means saving the life of another, especially with the knowledge that he can hold his friendship with Ram in his heart as he dies.

Though of course, within the context of the movie, neither of them has to die for the other, and I like to think that after the events of the movie they will gladly keep each other alive and never even think to regard doing so as a burden.

And that's where I'll end this analysis. If you made it this far, or just skipped to the summary, thank you for reading!

[techramonic]

Descent to Death and Destruction: A comprehensive analysis of “Zero-day”

Disclaimer: This post is not meant to glorify or romanticize the film and the event it is based on. My heart goes out to all affected by these types of events, thank you.

“I am become death, destroyer of worlds.” a phrase originating from a portion of Lord Krishna’s dialogue from the Bhagavad Gita. With an archaic English structure, formed using the auxiliary verb “am” instead of “have”, forming a poetic expression that transcends grammatical correctness.

Saying “I am Death” emphasizes embodying death itself, a state of destruction, but it negates the process of becoming. Conversely, “I have become Death” focuses on the process of becoming but nullifies the state of already being. However, by saying “I am become Death,” you actively encapsulate both the process of undergoing and the current state of becoming. This means you have undergone and become one with creation and annihilation.

This concept can be applied to analyze the characters of “Zero Day,” the fictionalized troubled teenagers Andre Kriegman and Calvin Gabriel, who meticulously plan a school massacre. Throughout the film, each character undergoes a transformation fueled by hatred.

Firstly, Andre exemplifies the process of becoming and the active presence of becoming itself. Plagued with suppressed temperamental issues, Andre undergoes a plethora of emotions like any teenager has over the world and the uncontrollable circumstances that affect him. Yet two remain most prominent — anger and hate.

His meticulous planning creates a new layer of detachment, an approach that sees purpose in destruction due to the inherent lack of purpose other than vengeance. With constant efforts to alienate himself because he has already actively experienced it his whole life, Andre’s sense of identity develops from being victimized into being the perpetrator, a role distinct as a mere harbinger of death. Andre sees this as the foremost desirable identity, the immortalization of oneself as a destroyer. From the constant detachment from the world because of the understanding that no one has the capability to understand him, even if he does not understand himself, he undergoes the metamorphosis of becoming destruction itself. When he does finally become it, he has achieved a sense of purpose.

In contrast, we observe the opposite with Cal, where he does not focus on the process of becoming death but rather being death itself. There is complacency in trusting Andre’s plan with an underlying ideology of fulfilling his purpose, death. Death that is all-encompassing, both for those around him and himself — where this destruction not only consumes others but ultimately himself. Unlike Andre’s active pursuit of purpose, Cal is well aware of the fact that he does not have one, and with that, he accepts what Andre has to offer, believing it will give him one. As the film progresses, he embraces the role of the destroyer, indicating a loss of his former self and the complete adoption of his new, destructive identity. In following Andre, he unconsciously gains the purpose of a destroyer, however, it is still void for him to ever have one, hence why he killed himself after the event. Ultimately, this portrays his loss of sense of self in trying to find a sense of self.

In the context of Andre and Calvin, they do not simply perform an act of destruction; they become embodiments of destruction itself. This transformation is not a fleeting moment but an irreversible process leading to the massacre. The parallels between the phrase and their characters suggest their disconnection from normalcy and humanity. Andre and Cal are now unrecognizable, stripped of the humanity and identity they ever had; they are now “Death,” signifying a complete and terrifying metamorphosis.

This movie exemplifies the psychological impacts and effects of being mentally disturbed and unable to be helped. Where people experience a trauma so deeply nestled within them that it hinders them from recognizing the idea of getting better and moving on. They remain in perpetual limbo, filled with self-deprecation and hatred of others. Though the traumas they have faced are not easy to cope with, the denial of change and empathy intensifies the destruction felt by their torment and ultimately allows it to consume them whole.

They are now met with the very destruction they are affected by and consumed by it whole. Now having simultaneously become death and are death at this very point on.

They are become death.

[sky-is-the-limit]

As I'm only getting into episode 30 of the anime *i've already watched opla 50 times*, I need some Luffy experts to tell me if he'd be the jealous/possesive type cause I have something in mind for my introduction to the OP fandom (mainly drabbles/reactions for now)

Cause I see him as the type to be more possesive than jealous, in the sense of "I'm your Captain, I should be your top priority" and then that quickly turning into "I'm your Captain so you're mine" but being kinda chill about it? Like it's obvious it should be that way.

And then he'd get jealous whenever you'd defy that ideology??? cause despite him being the Captain, you are your own person so you can talk/flirt with whoever you want.

At first he wouldn't understand what that angry green growing feeling in his belly is until he'd be 1 step away from gum gum pistoling the guy you're talking to and someone from the crew *prob Nami* would call him out on it.

Maybe Sanji would then have to explain to him later on what Nami meant and how people who are in love sometimes tend to get jealous etc for him to fully understand the urge to beat people up whenever they'd get too close to you or other straw hats spending way too much time with you when he's right there???

Let me know if my assessment is correct or what you think would be a better approach/headcanon!!

[denimbex1986]

We are lucky to be alive in the age of Andrew Scott, an actor of extraordinary breadth, skill and sensitivity, who can terrify as Jim Moriarty in Sherlock, make us fall in love (inappropriately) as the hot priest in Fleabag and cry in All of Us Strangers. He can also astonish, last year playing eight parts in a stage adaptation of Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya. He recently became the first actor to win the UK Critics’ Circle awards for best actor on stage and screen in the same year. And his latest project, Ripley, is a beautiful and chilling adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel The Talented Mr Ripley, with Scott playing the lead, dominating all eight one-hour episodes. It’s been a wild, crowning year for the 47-year-old Irish actor. But in March his mother, Nora, died of a sudden illness; she is who Scott has credited as being his foremost creative inspiration. His grief is fresh and intense and for the first half of the interview it seems to swim just beneath the surface of our conversation.

“We go through so many different types of emotional weather all the time,” he says. “And even on the saddest day of your life you might be hungry or have a laugh. Life just continues.” We are in a meeting room in his management company’s offices, talking about his ability, in his work, to modulate between emotions, to go from happy to sad, confused to scared, all within a matter of seconds. How does he do it? Scott laughs. “I would say that I have quite a scrutable face — is scrutable a word? — which is good or bad depending on what you are trying to achieve. But my job is to be as truthful as possible in the way that we are, and I don’t think that human beings are just one thing at any particular time. It is rare that we have one pure emotion.”

It’s an approach that is particularly appropriate for the playing of Tom Ripley, an acquisitive chameleon who inveigles his way into the lives of others (in this case Johnny Flynn, as the careless and wealthy Dickie Greenleaf, and his on-off girlfriend Marge, played by Dakota Fanning). “Ripley is witty, he is very talented. That’s gripping, to watch talent. I can’t call him evil — it is very easy to call people who do terrible things evil monsters, but they are not monsters, they are humans who do terrible things. Part of what she [Highsmith] is talking about is that if you dismiss a certain faction of society it has repercussions, and Ripley is someone who is completely unseen, he lives literally among the rats, and then there are these people who are gorgeous and not particularly talented and have the world at their feet but are not able to see the beauty that he can see.”

The show was written and directed by Steven Zaillian, the screenwriter of Schindler’s List. It’s set in Sixties New York and Italy, and filmed entirely in black-and-white, its chiaroscuro aesthetic evoking films of the Sixties — particularly those of Federico Fellini — while also offering an alternative to Anthony Minghella’s saturated late-Nineties iteration that starred Matt Damon and Jude Law. This has a darker flavour. “I found it challenging,” Scott says, “in the sense that he’s a solitary figure and ideologically we are very different. So you have to remove your judgment and try to find something that is vulnerable.”

It was a tough shoot, taking a year and filmed during lockdown. Scott was exhausted at the end of it and had intended to take a three-month break, but delays meant that he went straight from Ripley into All of Us Strangers. “Even though I was genuinely exhausted, it was energising because I was back in London, I was getting the Tube to work, there was sunshine,” he says. “I found it incredibly heartful, that film, there were so many different versions of love … I feel that all stories are love stories.”

All of Us Strangers, directed by Andrew Haigh, is about a screenwriter examining memories of his parents who died when he was 12. In it Scott’s character, Adam, returns to his family home, where his parents are still alive and as they were back in the Eighties. Adam is able to walk into the memory and to come out to his parents, finding the words that were unavailable to him as a boy. Some of it was filmed in Haigh’s childhood home, and there was a strong biographical element for him and his lead. Homosexuality was illegal in the Republic of Ireland until 1993, when Scott was 16. He did not come out to his parents until he was in his early twenties. I ask if he was working with his own childhood experiences in the film. “Of course, so in a sense it was painful, to a degree, but it was cathartic because you are doing it with people that you absolutely love and trust. I felt that it was going to be of use to people and I was right, it has been. The reaction to the movie has been genuinely extraordinary — it makes people feel and see things, and that isn’t an easy thing to achieve.”

The film is also a tender and erotic love story between Scott’s character and Harry, played by the Irish actor Paul Mescal. The two found a real-life kinship that made them a delight to watch on screen and off it, as a double act on the awards circuit. “I adore Paul, he’s so, so … continues to be …” Scott pauses. “Obviously it’s been a tough time recently and he just continues to be a wonderful friend. It’s everything. The more I work in the industry, I realise, you make some stuff that people love and you make some stuff that people don’t like, and all really that you are left with is the relationships that you make. I love him dearly.”

Scott and Mescal were also both notable on the red carpet for being extraordinarily well dressed. Scott loves fashion and has a big, well-organised wardrobe that he admits is in need of a cull. “I don’t like having too much stuff. I really believe that everything we have is borrowed — our stuff, our houses, we are borrowing it for a time. So I am trying to think of people who are the same size as me so I can give some of it away, and that’s a great thing to be able to do.” One of his favourite labels is Simone Rocha. “I love a bit of Simone Rocha. What a kind, glorious person she is. I just went to her show.” Fashion, he says, is in his DNA. “My mother was an art teacher, she was obsessed with all sorts of design. She loved jewellery and jewellery design. Anything that is visual, tactile, painting, drawing, is a big passion of mine, so I have tremendous respect for the creativity of designers.”

Today Scott is wearing Louis Vuitton trousers and a cropped Prada jacket, dressed up because he is collecting his Critics’ Circle award for best stage actor for Vanya. I ask how it feels to have won the double, a historic achievement. “Ah …” he says, looking at the table, going silent, having just been so voluble. “I’m sorry …” His voice cracks a little. “It’s bittersweet.”

At the ceremony Scott dedicated the award to his mother, saying of her “she was the source of practically every joyful thing in my life”. Is it difficult for him to carry on working in the circumstances, I wonder. “Well, you know, you have to — life goes on, you manage it day by day. It’s very recent, but I certainly can say that so much of it is surprising and unique, and there is so much that I will be able to speak about at some point.”

He is looking forward, he says, once promotion for Ripley is over, to taking some time off, going on holiday, going back to Ireland for a bit. He has homes in London and Dublin. To relax he walks his dog, a Boston terrier, dressed down in jeans and a hoodie “like a 12-year-old, skulking around the city” or goes to art galleries on the South Bank — he was considering a career as an artist until he was 17 and got a part in the Irish film Korea. He goes to the gym every day, “not, you know, to get …” he says, flexing his biceps. “More that it’s good for the head.” He is social, likes friends, likes a party. When I ask if he gave up drinking while doing Vanya, which required him to be on stage, alone, every night for almost two hours, he looks horrified. “Oh God, no! Easy tiger! Jesus … Although I didn’t drink much, I did have to look after myself. But we had a room downstairs in the theatre, a little buzzy bar, because otherwise I wouldn’t see anybody, so I was delighted to have people come down.”

Scott was formerly in a relationship with the screenwriter and playwright Stephen Beresford and is currently single, although this is not the sort of thing he likes to talk about. He is protective of his privacy, not wanting to reveal where he lives in London, or indeed the name of his dog — but he swerves such questions with a gentle good humour.

He is famous on set for being friendly and welcoming, for looking after other people. “The product is very important, but most of my time is spent in the process, so I want that to be as pleasant and kind as possible. I feel like it is possible to do that, that it is an honourable goal.” He is comfortable around people, with an easy charm — no one I have interviewed before has said my name so many times. And although when we talk he sometimes seems reflective or so very sad, there are also moments when he is exuberant, silly, putting on accents. “I feel like, as a person, I am quite near my emotions. I cry easily and I laugh easily, and there is nothing more pleasurable to me than laughing.”

Scott was raised a Catholic and is no longer practising, but says his view about religion is “ever changing — I definitely have a faith in things that cannot be proved”. When he was younger and felt overwhelmed, just before or after an audition, he would go to the Quaker Meeting House in central London and sit in silence, something that made its way into the second series of Fleabag, in which Scott’s priest takes Waller-Bridge’s character to that same meeting house. “It’s just around here,” he says, standing up, looking out of the window at Charing Cross Road. “When Phoebe and I first talked, we met at the Soho Theatre. We talked about love and religion, we walked all around here. And I said, ‘This is a place I go,’ so we called in and there was no one there, so we sat in there and we talked. It was a really magical day.”

Scott says he sees all the different characters that he has played as versions of himself. “It’s like, ‘What would this version of me look like?’ rather than, ‘Oh, I’m going to be somebody else.’ You filter it through you, and you discover more about yourself. I think that is a very lucky thing to be able to do, to find out more about yourself in the short time that we are here.”

[letteredlettered]

Hi, just finished By the Grace and.. I love? Unattractive!draco isn't what i enjoy cus his canon description is my type. But to see THAT as harry's version of ugly and then slowly as he falls, him finding THAT same face beautiful was painfully adorable. Also, i laughed a lot at draco's humour + found Timothy's story horribly scary. As dead beings aren't new in HP we don't actually realize how creepy it is when they 'exist' with the living. While reading, i could imagine Timothy as alive, struggling, confused and in pain. Probably tortured too before the sacrifice. His story before he was the "Timothy tree", which i find so disturbing that people still read it all as the "tree" as if the BOY wasn't the one whose spirit was forced in it. Tree wasn't sentient, Timothy was. I loved him addressing draco even though he wouldn't let draco climb. When he's freed, I love how the rot of the tree is shown.

Another point, even towards the end we see draco addressed in the fic as "Malfoy" instead of draco(except the last page) and as it's from harry's pov did you intentionally choose that? Is there anything you meant by that?

You don't have to answer me(obviously) still thanks for writing the fics! And (copying draco) i hope you too sleep beautifully. I'm sorry this is so long, forgive me.

I am so glad you liked unattractive Draco, even though you don't picture him that way! I've been frankly a little shocked at the number of people who have tried to tell me Draco is "canonically" hot. He is canonically blond, tall, and pointy. Two of those traits are actually turn-offs for me. Then I'm told that Draco is hot in the movies, which means he is canonically hot. I find this interesting on several counts. I'm not writing movie canon. I don't find Tom Felton hot (though he is a fine guy!)

Most importantly, it's news to me that objective hotness exist. I was deeply aware that there is a societal conception of hot that depends upon an agreed upon set of facial features, coloring, and body characteristics, but that is not objective hotness, and even that is under dispute, cf Benedict Cumberbatch, who half the world seemed too find the very definition of too hot to handle, and the other half of the world thought looked like an alien.

Sometimes I imagine Draco like that--a face that is wildly attractive to some and odd to others. Sometimes I do imagine him as very symmetrical and most people, even Harry, grudgingly admit he's a bit fit. But most of the times in my head he is pretty unappealing.

I'm glad you liked the Timothy Tree as well! I admit, I started with the name of that tree and only later invented why it was called that. I just liked the sound of something called the Timothy Tree!

I think Harry thinks of Draco as "Malfoy" because he is struggling so much with dealing with everything Draco has done to him, to people he loves, and to society. At first, "Malfoy" is just what Harry as always called Draco, and then, when Harry's feelings begin to soften and warm, it's hard for Harry to deal with, so he thinks of Draco as "Malfoy" to hold him at a bit of a distance.

Because Draco embraces fascist ideology and genocide at some points in canon, because he bullies Harry, physically and mentally, tries to kill him and his friends, I struggle with fics where Harry doesn't struggle with those issues about Draco. In lots of fics, Harry immediately starts calling Draco "Draco" as soon as they get to know each other a little better. It feels like a big thaw that comes way too soon for me. So, in this fic, I kept the "Malfoy" until nearly the end to show how hard this was for Harry, about how he has to give up some self-protection and be vulnerable in order to think of Draco as just another boy, and not someone who tortured him and hurt people.

[haveyouseenthisskeleton]

Introducing... 8 am in the (fucking) neighborhood

Papyrus is back with the groceries.

Unfortunately, his Karen neighbor is still mad at him for ruining her perfect white wall.

Alas, Papyrus is in trouble once again! (or not).

You can read it down the line or on AO3:

8 a.m in the neighborhood

Papyrus finally had his groceries. After a long morning that almost felt like an entire year, the house was finally in sight. He took a look at the clock in his car. He had to meet with Undyne at 2 p.m., which meant he would have to leave at precisely 1:38 p.m. to be on time. It would leave him plenty of time to clean the groceries and wait by the door until it was time to leave.

The skeleton turned at the end of the road to park in his alley. Or at least he intended to. Because he had to stop almost immediately.

His two bins were in the middle of the alley again.

Oh no. He closed his eyes and took a deep breath. Please, please just leave him alone…

A terrible knock on his window made him jump out of his bones. He looked up in disbelief. Here she was once again.

His Karen neighbor.

Papyrus tried to keep his cool. Everyone said he was the most patient monster they had ever met. So he was going to honor them and be patient with her as well. He could do this. He was the Great Papyrus after all!

He forced a smile and rolled down the window.

"DEAR NEIGHBOR, WE MEET AGAIN! IS SOMETHING WRONG?"

"Something wrong? You dare to ask me if something is wrong? You ruined my wall!"

Papyrus turned around. Ah, yes. He almost forgot the amazing crack he made in that horrible perfect clean white house of hers. She was just dramatic. If he closed his eyes hard enough, no one could notice it.

The skeleton rolled his eyes. Where was he? Ah yes, being patient. He was the great Papyrus and according to Tumblr, he was supposed to be nice and always smiling, because cute boys can't be sad or have a bad day. He couldn't betray his Tumblr fans. He needed to stay in his role. Hum… What would his Tumblr fans do in these types of situations?

Oh!

He knew!

"RUINED IS A BIG WORD. YOU COULD EASILY HIDE IT. I SUGGEST YOU PUT A PRIDE FLAG ABOVE IT AS WE ARE IN JUNE, THE PROUDEST MONTH OF ALL!"

Well, for sure, Karen didn't expect that. Her face turned from angry to disgusted very fast. Did he say something wrong?

"You are one of them?"

"THEM?"

"Those people who are identifying to helicopters and wearing pink thongs in the streets. Don't you think you did enough already? You're going to contaminate the children with your… Ideology. We're respectable people in this street, you can't just show your pink string to the children and call that an identity. That's absolutely disgusting."

Papyrus shuts his mouth in a loud bone noise. He took a deep breath, then made a slow turn towards the screen of his phone, hanging to the opposite window of his car.

"DEAR TUMBLR FANS, I AM SO SORRY FOR THIS AS I WILL BE OBLIGED TO USE A LOT OF STRONG WORDS IN THE NEXT FEW SECONDS THAT ARE NOT VERY PAPYRUS AT ALL BUT HOLY FUCK. EXCUSE ME FOR A SECOND."

"Who are you even talking to? Do you hear voices?"

Papyrus forced a huge smile and met her eyes.

"JEEZ LADY, YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE. I KNEW YOU WERE A RACIST FUCK ALREADY, BUT THAT'S EVEN MORE FUCKED UP SOMEHOW. WHAT ARE YOU EVEN SAYING? DO YOU THINK THIS IS A NORMAL THING TO SAY TO SOMEONE? DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT EDUCATION WHEN YOU HAVE THE LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF AN OYSTER."

She gasped loudly.

"I am not an oyster, you sick asshole!"

"THIS IS NOT THE POINT! YOU COULD BE A MOLLUSK OR A CRUSTACEAN FOR ALL I CARE, THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING: YOUR OPINIONS ARE DISGUSTING, HURTFUL, AND DISGRADING. INSTEAD OF BEING JEALOUS OF ME AND MY GROCERIES, WHY WON'T YOU BUY SOME DECENCY TO THE GROCERY STORE? IT'S JUST TWO MINUTES DOWN THE STREET."

"I will talk to your brother about your behavior! If I can't make you realize how wrong you are, maybe he will! I can't believe how immature you are! What a shame for your kind! And gay with all of that! Poor, poor children! What an example you are for them!"

"FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT GAY BUT ASEXUAL AND AROMANTIC. SECONDLY, I AM AN ADULT AND CAN TALK TO MYSELF. AND LAST…"

"if it can help, i don't identify as a helicopter but i for sure wear bright pink thongs. they're cute." Sans said from the first-floor window, watching the drama show playing in the street. "also, my bro is right. he's not gay. i am though. need something else?"

Karen opened and closed her mouth in shock, like a dying goldfish. She then let out a scream of rage and left, raging. Sans lazily waved goodbye at her as Papyrus, very satisfied, flipped his two middle fingers in her back. Anyway. He still had groceries to clean.

Maybe the day wouldn't be so bad after all.

Fuck Karens.

[fl00mie]

I like to think of Ink as the type to look for beauty in stuff. The type to live in the moment and enjoy everything to its fullest. His weak points may be his inability to not separate himself from happenings that don't involve him, as just as he ends up appreciating the will of people and the stories they tell, he focuses on the "what could be" and "what's supposed to be" of every world which inherently is without his interference, and fails to consider changing their course for a "better" outcome. It's canon he doesn't think of people as real in the same way he is, but I like to hc that he doesn't see himself as real either, not in the same way. All these peoples have canonical stories and world's and he is the outsider who is observing the script. He is not meant to be real or canon to any of the world's he visits. Skfkdkf I'm bad at explaining...

I don't know if he himself gives it all as much thought as I do, but I HC that he thinks of the world and his place in it a bit like ecology. the structure of everything is like an ecosystem, and just as we can't help every single injured deer or stop every predator from hunting it's prey, he doesn't want to intervene in every AU because it's unsustainable stale. The death of the ecosystem is when a story veers off what makes it interesting so much that it becomes uninteresting because of a deus ex machina (which is him).

The other part is I think he thinks of them like art. Everything around him is art and made by an artist. All of these complex scripts are an ecosystem of characters and plots, and interfering is like going to a museum and drawing in the paintings. I HC this is also part of how he observes the ecosystem of universes and that to an extent, he avoids meddling with them because an unfixable ecosystem caused by outside intervention is worse than a bad timeline because a bad timeline continues to exist. An unfixable one that's slowly leading to nowhere gets abandoned. If universes keep getting abandoned he'll die and that's no good!

And he might not remember it but he knows there's no fate worse than being abandoned

(excuse the ramblings of a me. I am unwell ✨💕)

it's interesting to think of him that way considering how he behaves with the rest, honestly i don't feel like anyone knows him well enough to know that kind of things and i love to think about it too x3c the thing about him not feeling the same as everyone else, most likely it's about him not thinking that anyone can reach his capacity for meta-knowledge, in this aspect (forgive me for this) i feel like error might be the one that most resembles him, he's aware of the aus in all their splendor but not of the artists.. xgaster might also fall into this category for obvious reasons

god i love the way you say stuff😭😭 you took the poetic very literally/pos AND IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE ISTG whatever perspective you try to justify him with, he'll always have valid reasons and be directly involved with the well-being of the creators.... and i'm sure he wouldn't be able to put it into words like you did no matter how hard he tried so other characters as an error, nightmare or anyone who does not understand his ideology will never do it if they don't do their part, for this and a thousand other things i love ink as a character inside the multiverse and metaverse❤️‍🩹 it lends himself to too many interpretations that don't seem to be exhausted with the passage of time, i love him so much like you have no idea

[lord-squiggletits]

So what's up with Megatron's sensory panels, anyways?

I know that miner Megatron taking off his helmet to reveal his sunflower petals is kind of a meme, whether it's people going "aww adorable" or just making headcanons about what the purpose of the panels are (usually something sensory related), but I think that's actually put in there as a symbolic moment.

Throughout Megatron: Origin thus far Megatron has killed people either in righteous anger or self-defense, but he clearly is afraid of violence/doesn't see himself as a killer.

The context of that scene of Megatron taking off his helmet is that he's in the arena fighting his first(?) opponent and wavering when it comes to the killing blow. There's like, a solid two pages dedicated to Megatron being unwilling to kill the other gladiator, and another two dedicated to Megatron's reaction after doing so, so it's clearly a pivotal moment. Hell, the panels of Megatron hesitating literally show him having trauma-type flashbacks to his first kills. His face is in shadow as he looks around at the announcer and the crowd, showing his emotional closed-off-ness.

Throughout this is interspersed so many panels of the crowd, the proctor, everyone screaming for Megatron to kill the other gladiator, and then screaming and cheering even more once he finally goes through with it, which is when Megatron takes off his helmet and shows the sensory panels.

This might be stupidly obvious and not really worth pointing out, but I want to offer some praise and interpretation of the way these pages were laid out to both 1. symbolize Megatron's emotional state and 2. be static, unmoving images that represent what would be a pan or zoom shot if M:O were a movie.

During these three panels, there's a ray of light shining on Megatron that gets brighter and brighter as he fully removes his helmet. Symbolically, light is associated with clarity of mind and discovery (there's literally a word called "enlightenment"), implying that at this moment Megatron is coming to some sort of realization or shift in thinking. He's simultaneously taking off his helmet in this moment as well-- a piece of armor for humans, but a literal part of his body for a Cybertronian-- which presents a form of vulnerability. It also invokes the image of a warrior taking off their helmet after a battle in order to see the aftermath better, which again fits with this visual symbolism of light as mental/emotional clarity.

Additionally, light has an association with moral goodness and purity, which in this scene acts as a form of irony: Megatron just killed another person for the entertainment of an apathetic crowd, while feeling sick and hesitating over the act of violence, and yet a beam of light shines on him. A contrast of evil versus innocence-- or, perhaps, a reversal of the symbolic meaning of light, since this marks the moment that Megatron begins his descent into violent ideology and tyrannical, a view which Megatron believes makes him heroic and right and thus on the side of "light" (as in good).

The last page of this moment is a full page vertical spread in which images of the cheering crowd dominates the top and sides. If this were a movie, the camera would essentially be at the top of the arena stands and sweeping all the way down to the bottom, giving us an all-encompassing view. We are seeing the entire arena, and what is the entire arena doing?

Cheering. Cheering for violence. Praising Megatron for the act of killing another person for entertainment, glory, and personal gain. Not only is this what we're seeing as viewers, it's also what Megatron would be seeing as he stood in the center of the arena.

In the midst of this celebration, Megatron is expressionless, with his eyes shadowed, and he's looking downwards, at the corpse of the person he just killed.

In comics/sequential art, the larger a panel is on the page, or alternatively, the more panels a single sequence of action takes, this is meant to represent a slow and lingering camera shot. Essentially, this was drawn as a 5 panel sequence of a very slow zoom in on Megatron's face because we're meant to linger on this image. Because it's demonstrating a pivotal change in Megatron's mental/emotional state and how he views the world.

Although there's not as much focus on lighting during this sequence as there was with the rays of light shining on Megatron as he took his helmet off, we can see the background around Megatron darkening slightly, and as the panel zooms in, Megatron becomes more and more claustrophobic and boxed in. Finally the sequence ends in darkness lit by nothing but Megatron's blazing eyes.

So we began this sequence with Megatron taking off his helmet with light shining upon him (symbolizing vulnerability, enlightenment, clarity, revelation), and end it with Megatron putting his helmet back on as darkness boxes him in and leaves nothing but the glare of his eyes into the darkness-- a literal descent into darkness to go along with the moral descent, alongside Megatron putting his armor back on which shows him raising his defenses both physically and mentally.

So what are those panels underneath Megatron's helmet for, anyways?

Pretty much to add to the visual symbolism of this moment that represents Megatron's face-heel turn and descent into villainy, honestly. 😂

Though for me personally, I like to imagine that those panels under his helmet are indeed sensory panels, and by taking off his helmet, Megatron was able to hear the entire arena more clearly. And in my headcanon, the reason he was trying so hard to hear the entire arena is because he was searching for anyone at all who was appalled by the violence on display... and he heard no one.

Maybe things would've gone differently if Megatron had listened to the audience and found even one voice condemning it, or expressing the same emotion Megatron felt in the moments before and after killing someone: what have I done? What's wrong with me? Why is everyone cheering on this senseless death?

[rathologic]

Eva and yulia? Also Daniil and Eva? I could never tell if Daniil is meant to like Eva 😞

OKAY SORRY THIS WAS DELAYED...

eva/yulia: mostly I'm just glad to have a canon wlw relationship in the game :-) I don't have a ton to say about it as an ongoing pairing, but what really gets me about yulia in general is her fatalism as a response to losing things that she honestly could probably have fixed with a little personal effort (see also: LARA), c.f. her Humble trait being hypocrisy. her ability to cope with eva's loss is exactly what yulia's optimized herself to do and exactly the type of Misery that I find compelling in a pairing so... heehee... although the vast majority of evayulia content is them having a much deserved nice time together and not that

daniil/eva: Honestly, I don't think it matters if dankovsky is "meant" to like eva romantically; it's a compelling piece of writing either way! I like to think he does care a lot, since that makes his failure to pay attention to her as a person / grasp the Utopian building/death situation / save anyone resonate harder. on the other hand, also fun to see it as "dankovsky's lack of interest in human connection is making his and the people around him's lives worse." ALSO very fun to consider all of the ending options where he knowingly throws her sacrifice away, like, after meeting her actual ghost. how's your quest to defeat death being superseded by an obsession with the magic of the utopian ideology going pretty good it doesn't seem. adding feelings back into that mix is more fun though :^) and we have eva's canon interest in him relating to her death in a way that's fascinating to dig into with taking unrequited love as generosity (real unrequited love fans know)

[talenlee]

Dealing with My Dad

Okay, I write about fundie stuff, right? And time to time, I will wind up mentioning that my dad is a fundamentalist Christian and has beliefs like climate denial and supernatural demonic possession. With the coming of Christmas, and a greater period of socialisation with families, it’s that time of year when this kind of story circulates around: ‘Oh boy, dad’s going to do X.’

Well.

What about my dad?

Content Warning: I’m going to talk about my relationship to my dad and it’s going to possibly be a bit of a bummer. Also, if you’re the weirdo trying to stalk my blog to build a case of lies about that guy, you’re not going to find anything interesting. Really, this is going to make me look bad, not him.

Alright, so my dad is an older, conservative Christian who believes in some things that I think are conspiracy theories, like Velikovskian Catastrophe. He does reject modern arkaeology, but not because he thinks that the Biblical flood story didn’t literally happen six thousand years ago, but rather because he thinks God would have hidden that important artifact to prevent it from being an item of political power in our world. My father once extolled to me how amazing the Flood must have been in that it has successfully obliterated every sign it ever happened, something that shows the absolute power of god’s decision to wipe out history.

I don’t tend to fight with my father.

We have had conflicts; certainly since I left the house. We have largely been limited to a few moments where it became evident that we weren’t going to have a smooth time around something. But I still try to see my father regularly, and I don’t try to avoid him. This is because I like my father. It is a a complex relationship, where my father is someone I care about and also do not have a strong social bond to. It is a complex and frustrating way to be where I do not wish harm on him and recognise the ways he has improved as a person but also know there are things that he will do socially I dislike a great deal.

How then to handle this.

How do I square the problem with him institutionally as a person in a place of prominence in his church with my personal opinion about that entire organisation?

A long time ago I asked dad a hypothetically question about how he would feel about knowing that a member of his church that he was teaching was an atheist. He was someone who grew up in the church, who had a deep love of the Biblical text and the experience of church, concurred with the church on moral frameworks and behaviours, but simply did not believe in the existence of a God. This is an interesting question, to me, to pose to a religious leader type because it seems to me that hypothetically at least a person should care a great deal about why someone is at a place that is meant to be built around an ideology like a church is. My father’s stance was, not quite instant; he thought about it a moment, and then explained that he would be glad to have them, and would much rather they be there in his church than not.

His argument was that he couldn’t see into anyone’s hearts; he couldn’t verify what someone thought about the faith. What he could do was engage the community, encourage behaviours and exclude people based on what they were doing. If this person wasn’t disrupting things and get something out of the experience of the church, then he would much rather they be there, because how else was God going to reach them if they were being excluded from things?

It was honestly, a great answer. It was humble, it was honest and it looked at the material realities of the church situation. Even if you believe you have supernatural insight into the mind of god, which, I gotta hold onto, preachers believe they have, you can look at the actual relationships between people before you and decide you’d rather have someone singing along than not just because of how you think they hold to your ideals.

I think about it a lot when I think about how I deal with my dad, because pretty much most of my adult life I’ve been concerned that I treat my dad like a child, or at least, like I am the parent doing my best to encourage good behaviours in someone who doesn’t know better.

For example, in social gatherings, I will sometimes make it my job to keep my dad occupied on something he cares about. I don’t get to have long talks with him often, but being able to sit down with him and ask him specific questions about areas of his expertise give him a chance to engage with it without feeling like he’s the centre of attention. This means there are some topics I keep myself informed on even if I don’t know much, like Formula 1, the council of Nicea, and weird stories out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Seven Day Adventists. Note that these are Very White Topics that are mostly about people who are like himself, meaning that he doesn’t have a lot of reason to veer out of that lane to have opinions on complex ideas.

Similarly, there’s giving my dad opportunities to avoid social experiences. If we have the youngest family members in one spot, and they make noise, I take ’em somewhere and do something to keep ’em entertained. The infamous ‘uncle joe said something awful at dinner’ can be avoided if uncle joe isn’t people’d out by the time the dinner is happening. These kinds of outbursts can be seen as an outcome of stress and unhappiness in intense social situations. If dad can take a break at a social event, then he’s not going to be running low on conversation topics.

Also, and this is important: I have a lot of control over what I bring up and I can keep myself from bringing up stuff that I know will require an argument. And yeah, that means that there are times I won’t specify things about people I’m talking about, I don’t need to make my dad realise he’s hearing a story about a bunch of queers including his son. There are things I don’t need to talk about with my dad, and by choosing to keep some things private, I am able to keep him wanting to be connected to me, such that those normal things that are part of his mind now aren’t going to feel like alien ideas when he encounters the ways I am not what he wants me to be.

Finally, dismiss but don’t engage with conspiracism. He shared a story about bible college teachers being fired for showing their pronouns, where he presented the story that these teachers were fired from a Bible college for ‘not including their pronouns.’ This isn’t the case. The story, which took me a few seconds of checking on my phone, was that the Bible college fired two teachers who included their pronouns in their email signatures, which is especially telling because those teachers’ first names were Shua and Raegan. You wanna call your shot on those pronouns if you’ve never seen those names before? But yeah, dad internalised the story as something that’s literally opposite to the truth. I didn’t pull out my phone and fact-check him on the spot, I just shrugged and said ‘doesn’t sound true,’ and changed the subject.

Does this suck? I mean a little bit. It sucks that dealing with my father is work. But it’s work because I can’t change what’s in his heart or mind or how or why he thinks things, but I can do things to change his behaviour. I don’t think my dad wants to have an argument at a social gathering, but he has attached great value to an organisational social structure that makes him feel like he needs to be prepared to do so. And because of that, it means that my father is a person attached to this thing, this immense thing, that I hate. And I can love him even though he is part of that, and want him to remain connected because of it. I’d rather he have me in his life and remember ‘oh yeah, my leftie hippie commie son is like that, and I don’t hate him, so maybe hating people like that isn’t a hard rule.’

Not saying any of you need to like my dad. It’s not your job. It’s apparently, my job, but I don’t think it’s bad to try and keep these relationships present.

I can maintain a relationship with people who are part of something I find hateful.

It’s how I was raised.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[isokoe]

SILVER DAWN: Iron Steve’s

ABILITY: Physical Power, the strongest physically of the Ore Steve’s

VALUE: Community, Unity, Loyalty

RELIGION: Iron Steve’s aren’t very religious, at least, not anymore, but the religion they do have is that the world was created by Elemental, who moulded the ground and oceans, the skies and underground, every biome was his. The Ore Steve’s were created as Elemental had grown lonely one day, finding that his little world was boring with just animals and nothing else. He used the ore blocks from the underground and moulded them into the first Ore Steve’s. After creating the Ore Steve’s, he was satisfied with his work, and resided into the core of the earth. It is popularly believed that when Elemental rises from the Earth again, it is what is considered judgement day.

When Praying to Elemental for more religious Iron Steve’s, they go on their knees and lean their head forward onto the ground, they must have an offering of Lily Of the Valley’s, Fresh Apples and/or a Azalea sapling to pray as it is believed this is Elemental’s treasured flower, fruit, and tree. After you’re done, throw the offerings into the fire and bow once more and then leave.

CULTURE: Iron Steve’s have a few very special events in their years. One that was commonly shared between Ore Steve’s is the Ore Steve Festival, which originated when racism between Ore’s were very high, and there were a vast majority of Ore’s in land that had prejudice against the Ore’s who chose to stay underground(Obsidian, Amethyst) and those who resided in the ocean(Prismarine). The Ore Steve Festival is meant to commemorate all Ore Steve’s, the lives lost during this period known as the Ore War, and make sure that this type of thing doesn’t happen anymore by promoting harmony regardless of Ore. However there are still some more mild hidden racism that can be seen in certain Ore Steve’s, particularly the older generation. In the festival, Ore Steve’s from all over, every kingdom, come together and share their culture, food, and so on. It’s probably also the only way you may see certain Ore’s, especially Prismarine.

A more Iron Steve pertained festivity is the New Year Celebrations, Iron Steve’s spend their new years counting down together and spending time with the whole community. The Leader and Apprentice arrange games and activities and everyone takes part. There is also shared meals and everything, this is because of how Iron Steve’s value their community a lot, you’re more likely to see two Iron Steve’s than one. Ever. Or well, in the past really…

another Iron Steve culture event is Independence Day, this is because Iron Steve’s used to be colonised. During the time when Ore Steve’s had high racism, there was also colonisation of certain Ore Steve’s. Many Ore Steve’s planned to colonise the Prismarine, Amethyst, or Obsidian. But the Land Ore’s that were colonised are: Gold’s, Coal’s, Iron’s. Lapis Steve’s colonised Gold Steve’s, Redstone Steve’s colonised Coal Steve’s, and Diamond Steve’s colonised Iron Steve’s. The Iron Steve’s fought for their independence and overthrew the Diamond’s which finally signed a treaty to let them go. Emerald’s were pretty much the only ones who remained neutral(though there was still a racial bias)

Iron Steve’s commemorate their independence from the Diamond’s by hosting their own festival, where they have old games Iron’s used to play, mourning of the lives lost for their independence, and the reminder of history for young Iron’s, always to remember that United as one, they would fight for their freedom together as a family. Or well, community.

One of the events is also related to another war, the Iron Civil War. This was when the Withering had first started, prior to this, Iron Steve’s were already having a split between ideologies and views, but when the withering happened, a lot of crops and so on were hit badly, and both sides had different plans. This caused a HUGE civil war, resulting in many lives being lost until finally the treaty was formed, where the two leaders of each side melted a part of the iron in their body briefly, and mould the magma together into what is now known as the Unity Heirloom, something all leaders have to wear. It isn’t necessarily a festival than it is a day of itself. The leader has a speech, many Iron Steve’s spend the day with each other, baking food or gifting is a strong part of this day.

Iron Steve’s more religious holidays however probably have to be Elemental’s Birthday, which is the equivalent of Christmas in there. For the month you cannot eat meat or fish, you must fast at night, and pray everyday. On the day itself, there are masses or get togethers hosted and Lily of The Valleys are decorated everywhere.

all these Culture festivities and events have however unfortunately been stopped and cannot be properly commemorated because of the Skulk. Everyone’s struggling to survive and put food on their plate.

BACKGROUND: Iron Steve’s were hit pretty badly by the skulk. They’re one of the most nutritious types of Ore’s for skulk, because of how their ability is physicality. After the first wave, a thankfully fast evacuation helped save the lives of many and ensured that they didn’t all go extinct. They’re endangered just as most Ore Steve’s are pretty much. They can’t live in fertile land because they lost a lot of the manpower and firepower they needed, and well… physical strength or speed or anything does not help when you’re against a infectious parasitic highly speedy growing plant which has spores that can cause one of the most devastating diseases seen by Ore Steve’s.

Thus they had to try and farm on infertile land even if it isn’t very successful, and actively scouts have to go out. They have a special outfit for scouts going out with full body set armour to prevent infection more. It’s really dangerous. Livestock is considered important, and any crops grown is good. Currently there has been issues with unpredictable and extreme rain downpour, ranging from heavy to pretty much nothing in an instant. Another factor is how Iron Steve’s are an ageing population, same as every Ore. Their leader has been the leader for generations, he’s already suited to retire to a Elder but he can’t. So his apprentice though relatively young is getting ready to take over. Rationing is getting pretty bad too.

Agsshaha I would say more but… sillies…. GRAHHH, thank you if you made it this far for coming to my Ted talk ramble /pos, hope you enjoyed!!!

[bestworstcase]

So I know that "GoL=final boss" is a predominant theory around this corner of the fandom. But admittedly I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around them actually fighting one of the Brothers, especially considering that the last time they tried to fight the Brothers head on, GoD wiped the entire army (and the rest of humanity) in a single blast. And assuming Salem's main goal from the onset is to kill the God of Light, how is she (and RWBY for that matter) meant to go about it?

oh, good, this is something i've been meaning to talk about

because as the fandom has begun to, um, notice that the god of light is not actually the benevolent adjudicator he pretends to be, the idea that the god of light (or the brothers) might be the "final boss" is circulating around more and i keep seeing this sort of objection raised by specifically the handful of other serious analytical types:

"maybe, but the story is built on the conflict between ozma and salem, and the gods are not very interesting, and they're too powerful to fight, so probably not."

and i find this rather baffling because all of this seems very obvious to me, but on the other hand, the sentiment is self-explanatory in a way. i have never seen somebody who thinks this express the idea without including some variant of "i find the brothers a little boring" and what this tells me is that they only consider the gods in relation to salem and ozma's backstory, thinking about them as little more than plot devices used to set up salem and ozma as the main villain and her adversary.

but i don't think that's what the gods are in this story—otherwise there would have been no need for the kids to learn about where the brothers came from before they made remnant. the brothers matter because the conflict between salem and ozma is religious in nature. the plot of rwby is a religious war.

maybe this only seems obvious to me because i think religion in fantasy is interesting in general and i read a lot of epics and folk stories. i don't know. the important thing is that the brothers are gods.

not "all-powerful characters who serve as occasional plot devices but are otherwise distant from the narrative," which is what most people in fandom tend to mean when they say "god." the brothers are gods, beings regarded as divine and worshipped by some of the characters.

divinity is a social construct.

i find the brothers to be interesting characters in their own right, but as gods their function in the narrative, along with the god of animals (who isn't real!) and the blacksmith, is to embody the religious beliefs and ideological stances that define the conflict between salem and ozma. as gods, these characters are expressions of what the important characters believe in.

this is the idea the god of light represents: "humans are pitiable shells of what they once were and need the brothers to make them whole again, but first they need to repent and cleanse themselves of what salem did. if they don't, they deserve annihilation."

this is the idea the god of darkness represents: "creations should not be condemned for the mistakes of their creators, and the god of light's rules benefit no one but himself."

this is the idea the god of animals represents: "humans are remarkable, but it's important to keep an open mind, accept change, embrace diversity, and be true to yourself; otherwise, you will become small-minded, afraid, and hateful, and that will make you cruel."

and this is the idea the blacksmith represents: "balance is not two forces locked in never-ending conflict, but a living breathing thing that grows and changes organically. it can't be created, or restored by force or calculation; it can only be found."

one of these is not like the others.

ozma is dedicated to his mandate, given to him by the god of light, and because the huntsmen academies are a religious institution whose guiding purpose is to safeguard the divine relics until such time as humanity is "united," the main cast of huntresses and huntsmen and their allies are all ultimately serving the god of light.

in the ever after, RWBYJ meet the blacksmith, who tells them a story about the brothers and shares her philosophical beliefs with them. they discover a new perspective.

salem rejected ozma's mandate at once, by quoting a myth about the god of animals ("descendants [of those humans who rejected the change and freedom offered to them by the god of animals] resent [faunus] because we remind them of what they are not and what they never can be" / "why redeem these humans [on behalf of the brothers] when we can replace them [the brothers] with what they could never be?")—after quite literally millions of years believing that humanity can, and should, overthrow the divine order.

so the central narrative conflict is between salem and ozma, but what that conflict is about is whether the god of light's view of humankind is correct. ozma either believes that it is or believes that resisting him is futile; salem believes that the god of light is both wrong and possible to defeat, or at least ignore.

(i think there is a not-insignificant possibility that her Plan A is to destroy the relics, making it impossible to ever invite the brothers back to remnant, but that the presence of the spirits inside the relics will prohibit that. "none of that matters anymore!" and all.)

and, in the most recent volume, we learned that the god of light is a very broken character who has lost his way and desperately needs to heal. the god of darkness probably does not exist anymore (i am almost certain he returned to the tree and ascended), so light has no one to guide him back home. he is also not immortal, just ageless.

here is what the narrative is setting up:

salem is going to win—and her victory is also the god of light's defeat, because she wins by persuading ozma, and everyone else, to join her in rejecting the genocidal ideology underpinning the divine mandate and thus refusing the mandate itself. the only way to win is not to play. she herself will have to change first, by relinquishing her many layers of emotional armor and allowing herself to be vulnerable and honest again, and her opponents will also have to change how they see her, as a real person instead of a fairytale monster. this is the core narrative arc.

then, they will need to make a decision regarding the god of light. the relics can be scattered or destroyed to prevent the day of judgment from ever coming to pass, or they can try to send the god of light back home to the tree. the former is safer, perhaps, but… rwby is a story about trying to save everyone. "sometimes it's worth it all to risk it all and fight for every life." right? confronting the god of light will not even be an option until everyone is on the same page about refusing the mandate, and by that point the conflict is over. they could simply get rid of the relics and carry on with their lives and never think about the god of light again. the only reason to summon him is for his sake.

will any of them want to help him? no.

is it the right thing to do? yes.

i think dealing with him will turn out to be very simple, because the god of darkness is gone and the god of light said that both he and his brother would return to judge humanity. by his own word, he does not have the right to judge humanity alone—and while he may bend his rules, he will not break them. if he returns to find humans and faunus united in opposition to him with salem, he returns to a world that does not belong to him or have any need of him and falls into a trap of his own making.

this will be enough to give him pause. they can try to talk him down, but given that he embodies the fear of change i think they will fail and he will lash out—not with magic, though. what did light do to jabber and to salem to punish them? he lunged and bit or slashed them with his claws.

beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

<- in the poem 'jabberwocky,' the boy searches for the jabberwock a "long time," then stops to rest under the tumtum tree. there, the jabberwock finds him—and he rather unceremoniously cuts off its head:

one, two! one, two! and through and through the vorpal blade went snicker-snack he left it dead, and with its head he went galumphing back.

(incidently, the jabberwalker is not the jabberwock—he's jabberwocky, the poem, and also a bandersnatch.)

anyway, i think light is going to lose his temper and lunge at salem, and someone (probably ruby) will chop off his head with the sword of destruction when he does. then a smaller, more vulnerable part of him will be exposed (think the curious cat after team rwby slay the "furious" form) and they will talk to him again and send him home.

the fights against cordovin in V6 and the cat in V9 directly foreshadow the shape of this confrontation with the god of light. there is no victory in strength: they won't overpower him, he will resort to violence and that will be his undoing. (remember how ruby cut off tyrian's tail after tyrian reached past her to sting her uncle? yeah.) and then, with his power broken, he'll have a choice to change or not change.

[ludiharambasha]

Hey! So I saw your anti atla posts. I was intrigued.

I have to ask, how would have liked the show to go about Zuko? How to handle him and his plot and arc? And what do you think about him as a character in general?

Hi, sorry that it took me so long to answer this ask, and this is sadly because I am not sure I am able to provide a satisfactory answer. (This is going to be very long). I will try to approach this from several angles.

In short, Zuko's entire conception is one I have a problem with. Zuko is not a character the writers tried to do something with and failed or wrote in a confusing, messy way that could be bettered with some tweaks- Zuko is exactly what the authors of AtLA wanted him to be, and it is their artistic vision that I have a (and at the same time don't- this will be clear to you as you read on) problem with. Not just Zuko, but Iroh as well, and I think this character arc stems from the privileged background of the authors, and a larger context of Western popular art, something I discussed in greater depth when I wrote a couple of posts about The Hunger Games.

Now, there are three angles I read Zuko and his redemption arc from:

1. Redemption arcs generally being indicative of poor or mediocre story-telling;

2. Zuko as a Western, colonial fantasy;

3. Zuko as a character in media intended for children.

I think this is the most organized way I can argument my feelings and thoughts about him as a character.

1.

It was fairly obvious that Zuko was a character fallen from grace that will see glory by the end of the story. From the moment he first graced the screen, it was apparent that he would go through a redemption arc, and that his character was all about that. There are some blogs that I will add here that might have a lot more to say on the issue (I will tag them in an edited version of this post if they would be ok with me tagging them), but redemption arcs are indicative of, at best, juvenile, at worst, flat out bad writing. Redemption arcs are really fine in children's literature because of their didactic nature, but in writing intended for older audiences they should not be treated seriously.

Art really isn't about instilling morals into the audience - art is supposed to make the readers'/observers' ideological, sensory and moral world challenged in interaction with it - art presupposes the already existing morality of the one interacting with it, not a blank slate onto which the art is supposed to leave an imprint. This notion that art is about didactics is a very outdated, passée idea that resurfaces every now and then, usually in think-of-the-youths type of discourse. Art is the fruit of the author's sensory, ideistic and moral world, and innately expresses something about the auhor and the world as they percieve it-it is not meant to indoctrinate or instill something, but to provide someone's perspective on a phenomenon or idea. This does not mean that art cannot be evaluated because it is personal; its merit is decided through analysys, usually of theme(s), characters, motifs, etc., of their quality, inventiveness, coherence, and so on. It is a delicate matter and not all critics agree on every work; moreover, there are different schools of methodology of the analysis of literary works; they do not agree on many things. There are good resources on the internet where you can find more info on lenses, approaches, etc.

I cannot say that evey literary lens or critical approach condemns redemption arcs (some classics with this arc include A Christmas Carol); however, there are two very good reasons to be vary of them in fiction. A) they are moralistic, and b) they are predictable, and these two reasons are somewhat intertwined.

I've already said quite a lot about didactics and moralizing in fiction earlier, so now I will try to focus on why this impacts characterization poorly and give more focus to reason b). When I say predictable, I mean that the character that this character arc goes along traditional lines of a certain archetype, and never once goes beyond them or manages to state anything new about the convention itself or break out of its confines. Zuko starts as a prince fallen from grace and ends up as the new Firelord- there is nothing in his story that even once nods to the fact that anything else was going to happen (him failing to redeem himself in book 2, only to then be consumed by guilt and finally be redeemed for realz is also an incredibly common pattern). There is nothing transgressive or challenging to constructing a character like this. There is no profound idea that Zuko brings forward with his presence in the story. How can someone genuinely say that writing a character that has been written a MILLION times before in the EXACT SAME way to be good? We laud stories that say something; creating a character like Zuko is akin to butting into a conversation, not because you genuinely have something to say, but just to hear yourself speak. Redemption arcs are the death of character- if we know where the character arc is going to go, the readers' perspective is not challenged. It is failure to tell a unique, authentic story.

Redemption arcs are enjoyed because they deal with a commmon fantasy that we CAN do better and be better, eventually. Very few follow up on this and become better people, but reading about people that do sure is reassuring. This creates this self-righteous feeling in the reader for aligning with the right cause. This has a very clear moral and instructive tone - do better. When art is made to instill values is when the art ceases to be creative. This does not mean that art is and should be devoid of morality; on the contrary, art is meant to engage your morality through self reflection. When you read about deplorable characters doing deplorable things, there is no need for the narrator to outright say 'this bad' - how you feel about actions of the characters is inherently a moral excercise. (Why should anyone celebrate art that insults the readers' intelligence and their ability to make moral judgements?)

At the heart of redemption arcs is that they are digestible, easily understood, and reaffirm the goodness of the reader. It is the most simple, juvenile type of writing there is.

2.

There is a reason why Zuko's redemption arc (and many others of the like) have a particularly strong appeal - they are reassuring to white, Western readers. They play into another, more disturbing fantasy - the sins of one's colonial past can be undone, forgiven and forgotten. If a prince of an empire that committed genocides, military occupations, and so on (there is a very long list of the crimes the Fire Nation committed), can be redeemed and become better and help the oppressed people, then so can they (they won't, and don't really intend to, but the fictional realization is enough!). There is also a reason why the fucking beach episode is beloved in AtLA fandom- it goes through the motions of 'humanising the Fire Nation' and showing them full of just some random, 'normal' kids that just live normal lives (in the eyes of the 1st worlders). It is the ultimate justification of white Western conformity, ignoring how this conformity keeps oppressive, violent systems running. Aang's culture being wiped off the face of the Earth, showing us the torture Hama went through, seeing Katara never find peace about her mother being killed by a Fire Nation soldier, never getting to see Jet get justice for the murder of his parents, all the environmental damage the Fire Nation caused is extended as much or less sympathy than privileged kids from the Fire Nation. Let that sink in. Zuko is just the most glaringly obvious realization of this motif.

Zuko's redemption arc is reflective of Westerner's feelings about colonialism and racism. This guilt is something that is part of them, as one has to be painfully stupid to be oblivious to their nations' pasts- everything around them reflects their vile history. They either choose to double down on this fact and percieve themselves as victors and their past as full of glory, others have trouble dealing with the gravity of these facts. And Zuko's moral dilemmas, his failures reflect this "revelation" and (surface-level) abhorrence towards imperialism. And it reflects a more awful truth, that these people seldom truly recognise the true implications of their own involvement in these systems - they often see colonialism as these sins of the past and systems divorced from their own involvement, and not the sins of both the past and present they actively contribute to - and Zuko also realises the faults of the Fire nation not based on what he personally did or has seen with his own eyes; he truly starts to recognise the evils of the Fire Nation when confronted with his past and his lineage. It is not the institution of the Fire Lord and the immense power it carries that has led to these heinous crimes, or the militarism- it is particular people that need to be brought down. Zuko, despite being a war criminal just like his father and sister, is absolved of what he did de facto. Just like the primary audience of AtLA would like to be.

Another thing to note, one that is not analytic but entirely subjective on my part, is that I cannot brush off the feeling that Zuko's redemption is more strongly motivated by Zuko's feelings of inadeqacy, rather than a developed sense of justice (this one is more up to interpretation, as there is proof n the story for and against this assertion).

3.

Redemption arcs and Zuko I don't have a problem with if we are looking at AtLA through the lens of mediocre standard children's media. Children's media should be didactic, because children learn a lot from engaging with the environment, and media is a particularly influential one. A child will not be capable of detecting all the implications of AtLA as a narrative - for them, it is enough to see a simple character like Zuko. I just cannot stand it when people delude themselves into believing he is written well, he's average at best.

That is all I have to say on the matter, for now. Thank you for your question. Take care.

[woodsfae]

B5 s04e04 Falling Towards Apotheosis previous episode - table of contents 

I had to look up what Apotheosis meant, having only been able to draw up the vague idea of one of itstwo definitions: the highest point smething can reach. And the other, glorifying something, or someone, to the point of godhood. 

Hm, god Sheridan or god Valen?? Surely Valen became a sort of demi-god to the Minbari. Probably Sheridan? But it would be cool to see Sinclair one more time. 

Ivanova updates us on the situation via an emergency broadcast to B5. That's clever, I like that as a method of exposition/don't forget where the plot is. 

Wow, Sheridan parting the stampeding masses just by walking through. Also lol at the 90s fear of trampling. Looks like some early stage apotheosis alright. 

the credits: "The year is 2261 [...]" Partner: "If this doesn't actually happen in 2261 I'm going to be so pissed." 

Personally, I would not.

Garibaldi is suspicious of and investigating a god. Lorien is pretty strange and a very random, new element without much explanation. 

And he's having a weird time. As he says, the captain disappeared for even longer, and just says he's back from the dead and everyone's fine with him running things. But Garibaldi comes back and gets closely monitored and not allowed to return to work without multiple medical examinations despite being seemingly fine.

Well. He's wrong because he is compromised, but yeah, they also have no way of knowing that the captain isn't. More of that being venerated by the people, clearly. 

Sheridan better not get a swelled head over it, is all I'm saying. If he doesn't take his ascension with an aw shucks then is he really a wholesome side of corn-fed Iowa beef? 

Morden's still fucked up. And he's dictating defense policy on Centauri, while Cartagia blithely agrees. 

Cartagia has another secret room which I assume witll be as fucked up as his secret torture-murder chamber.  

Aaaand it is. He has a secret council where he sits in a room with the corpses of deceased members of court. Lovely. A very sane sort of thing to do, to keep oneself grounded. 

A very sane plan, Cartagia. I commend you on the whole "become a god by being the person who caused the end of Centauri while dying too" is a normal thing to want and possible to achieve.  Very unfortunately possible to achieve. And lowkey destined. 

Living the trainwreck he willfully set into motion would be satisfying if it wasn't so horrible and tragic and wide-reaching in scope and loss of life. 

Garibaldi is most likely clean of Vorlon technology impanted in him. But sadly he cannot, or does not, test if he has a secret personality implanted in him by psicorps. 

The Vorlons are going fucking murder-serious, wiping out planets, colonies, and ships. 

I suddenly wish I paid more attention to the types of clothes and colors of clothes that Delenn wears. Her red and blue outfit is vivid, and I feel like I recognize it, and she's worn it before. 

Cute Delenn and John. The sweeping romance feels well earned, and solidly set up, and the actors have really good chemistry. 

Ah! They finally mentions not-Kosh. He's still here. Sheridan wants him gone. 

Lyta! And she's here to help carry out Sheridan's plan to kill not-Kosh! Presumably while Garibaldi is off trying to kick him out without knowing about his plan as not to betray it telepathically. 

Another planet down. With all this destruction the Shadows have certainly won ideologically already. 

Y'know, I don't remember Sheridan saying "force him to leave," but Garibaldi apparently heard "fire guns at him a lot till he kicks your asses." Like, I didn't get the sense that was Sheridan's order. Luckily, no-Kosh didn't kill any of them. 

Sheridan shares information about when the Vorlons might arrive at Centauri Prime freely when Londo asks. 

Operation: Kill A God is underway. Lyta lures him out, with the fragment of Kosh that is/was in Sheridan. I don't know if the fragment of Kosh passed on when Sheridan died or not. 

not-Kosh walks into a trap of an electrical field and a couple dozen soldiers firing plasma guns. 

Although they succeed in discorporating the Vorlon, it still isn't down! 

Ah, it seems that the Kosh fragment survived! It, and a bit of Lorien, join the discorporated Vorlon, and reverberate outwards like ripples on water till they joined the Vorlon ship and exploded. Wow, Kosh literally turning on the Vorlons that are massacring in his name. At least we know Kosh didn't approve of it! Not all Vorlons :P

Londo's assassination plan is to lure Cartagia out to Narn, to have a trial for and "execute" G'Kar on his homeworld. 

John Sheridan is going to die young becase he died already, and Lorien could only give him so much biochemical energy, Yeah, younger death, but like the mildest of death sentences. That would be pretty rough as a member of a long-lived species! Counting on sixty years or more with John and already knowing you'll outlive him by a lot would make the loss of that sixty years pretty heartbreaking. 

Awwww they're being cute again. Sheridan and Delenn are engaged. I wonder what the Minbari custom is - or was that the three nights of sleeping that was interupted by puppet!Anna?

Cartagia is having G'Kar's eye "plucked out" fuck man. That's so augh. C'mon. If he must lose an eye have it be in a fight, it's just overwhelmingly negative. No one else is getting this. 

Also a bummer point to have the episode end on! It does build a sort of dread fascination though. What horrible thing is going to happen to G'Kar next episode. 

onwards!