#i. out of character / wanted opposites.

[wyvernity]

been thinking about the sinnohtrio lately......plus misc other stuff

also, casual ko-fi drop!! get something in this sketchy style starting at $10 woop woop

[dykedvonte]

I think depictions of Anya being cruel to Curly or drawing out his suffering are artful and chilling but completely miss the point of the story and her character.

I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to have that "I told you so" moment with him but not in something callous or cold. Even if that is how it happened, she'd immediately feel guilty cause at that point she's not tormenting her tormenter or even the person truly at fault. She's doing something cathartic, similar to how Jimmy likely hits Curly to release rage he can't against the rest of the crew. She'd see herself as no different when she'd come back from the moment and see Curly cowering at her. She wants someone to take responsibility but how does being cruel to the defenseless help? Why would she want the power Jimmy has over her over Curly?

The idea of her extending someone else's pain is just so against the struggles she already faces and how she can't even bring herself to cause someone pain even to help them. Her very desire is to release herself from her own suffering and I doubt she'd even fine some sort of guilty release in being cruel to another.

[superkirbylover]

peppino and noise character studies

in this essay i will explain why i am the only one to understand these characters

[cosmicredcadet]

A character looks straight into the camera and says "I'm not interested in romance" and people will still say "No, it's not confirmed they're aromantic!!!" "They could change their mind!!!" "it's a challenge for them to overcome!!!" "They'll have character development that makes them fall in love"

It's like they are given the most blatant answer to a character romantic orientation and they actively ignore it. all the while all it takes is subtext for people to speak as if it is fact for a character to be any other sexuality.

[arrghigiveup]

ALONZO. ALONZO YOU CANNOT JUST SAY THAT AND THEN LEAVE ME HANGING COME ON. GIMME CHIBI ALONZO DAMMIT

[freaky-flawless]

The De Nile sisters!

[canonically47]

i cannot ever get over gi-hun actually. the fact that he chooses to believe in the good of humanity even after witnessing what he has, and that he joins the games AGAIN with (mathematically) even LESS chances of survival JUST because he wants to save people, people who DON'T CARE, people who are SELFISH and who continuously betray and hurt him just fucking KILLS ME. a very big critique from many people (and i've noticed, especially men) about the second season and gi-hun's character is that he is stupid. they find him to be stupid that he has this weak spot for an uncaring crowd, that he comes back to the games to save people who wouldn't think of him twice, instead of going to his daughter. they think that him caring and despising a system this deeply is a sign of weakness and stupidity.

but if anything, i find it admirable. maybe i can't bring myself to hate him because i think i'd do the same thing. i watch him on-screen and think, "yeah, i would do that too", every single mistake, every single thing, i get him. and he may look stupid to some but i think if anything, he's just too caught up in an ideal world in which people care, but i find it admirable that this is his personality even after witnessing the previous games. he still has hope, they haven't wiped it away from him. comparing him to in-ho is like night and day, because in-ho was broken by the games and came back to perpetuate that same hurtful system, while gi-hun was broken by the games and came back to break the people that created the system, and the system itself.

he speaks to me, as an individual who clings to hope until his very last breath, who can never seem to learn from his mistakes because he is so stubborn, he wants to prove that humanity could, and should, have hope and that it's worth to fight for it, not to just leave for a different continent and forget about it. that's what draws me to him, this endless fight in him, i can't find him stupid because he's so desperate to change things. and he never gives up even after his friends die before him.

idk i just am really unwell about gi-hun. i think people treat him too harshly. i'm unsure how well this is worded, but what i really want to say is that i don't think he should be perfect and immediately learn from every single mistake he has ever made. the fact that he is this broken given his past, even before the games he's set up as this really caring and traumatized individual, and that they double down on his same characteristics that make him so incredibly real... he's just really special to me. i really admire the way he is written and i think he's a really good representation of people who fight for a change even when it all seems lost. he's just that kind of guy that doesn't, couldn't, will never give up. and i really love that.

[majimaisms]

absolutely fascinating to me that this is what majima thinks makoto wants/needs to hear. considering how much he's projecting onto her, and how he sees her as a version of himself, i think one of the logical conclusions to draw here is that this is what majima wants to hear. he wants to be told that someone will be there beside him and that they'll keep him safe no matter what happens.

and she's having none of it. because she is actually too much like majima. she acts as a perfect mirror. and certainly, there's an interpretation of this as majima underestimating her, not giving her enough credit, but i think it's also possible that he's just projecting. believing that this is what she needs to hear doesn't mean he thinks any less of her, just that she is too much like him. his double standard then becomes a matter of something more akin to self-recognition through the other, rather than something that can be boiled down to misogyny.

but here's where things get interesting. this implies that whatever "similarity" exists between them, at least in terms of how self-reliant they are, how "independent" they are, is an illusion. that it's not that makoto is actually too much like majima -- it's that she's the ideal that majima is aspiring to. makoto at this point in the story is a genuine example of what majima only appears to be, was forced to be, and perhaps resents having to be. because why go out of your way, over and over again, to shelter people you strongly identify with (as opposed to just people you care about) if you don't believe it's something everyone, if given the choice, would choose? to have someone to "keep them safe no matter what happens"?

it's the kind of baseline assumption that people make when they think everyone who's a lot like them is exactly like them. a very common pitfall. but he's wrong.

she proves his assumptions wrong. she does not, when given the opportunity, choose that. she asks him to kill dojima and his lieutenants, because she has convinced herself it's what tachibana would've wanted, and she's had enough of people trying to solve her problems for her by protecting or sheltering her, without her input. "helping" makoto has to be done on her terms now. and the first words to come out of her mouth as she's dying? expressing shame for failing to accomplish her goals on her own. for not being able to be self-reliant enough.

and majima tried to discourage her from taking revenge on the dojima family because it's "not who she is," and he "can't imagine that's who her brother was." because he sees her as better than himself, too good, too pure, too soft, and he wants to preserve that in her. and this time it's because he thinks they're too different. but he's actually wrong again. he's both not giving himself enough credit here, and giving her too much. because he's uncharitable to himself, and too charitable to her. but they are the same in this. and the moment she's in danger, he's the one seeking vengeance, for her, in her stead, just like she did with tachibana.

they both think the ultimate sacrifice you can make in the name of love is to compromise your values, your principles. do the unspeakable thing, do the "wrong" thing, as long as that's what it takes to keep your loved ones safe.

it takes sera spelling it out to majima that bloodying his hands for makoto's sake will hurt her more than it will help her to stop him killing dojima. and majima goes ballistic at the suggestion that even the ultimate sacrifice is not enough to protect her, to save her from a lifetime of being a target for the tojo. (an organization he has sworn unwavering loyalty to, by the way, and is trying to crawl back into.)

majima's "hannya" side has never been about his own retaliation, his own revenge. it's always been for the sake of people he cares about, and makoto is the most prominent example of this. but more importantly, she also is exactly like this. majima lists nishitani, sagawa and lee as the people he learned from in y0. and they certainly were the people he modeled mad dog after and learned important life lessons from. but i think #1 on that list is and always will be makoto, followed by sera. because he would never have found the strength to become mad dog if he had not watched makoto do it first.

makoto has a level of emotional strength that majima lacks but is drawn to and inspired by. her whole life, she has been protected by "older brothers" who took care of her like a little sister -- tachibana, lee, majima. she has had to fight for her independence to be recognized.

majima has had no one. he's too independent. but it's not by choice. and he wants to be protected and taken care of. this is the one thing they are opposites in and i think what makes them such compelling parallels and contrasts to each other, as well as people who had a lot to learn from each other but ultimately needed the exact opposite of what they could give each other. yakuza 0 the game that you are

[rookflower]

the thing about any post that talks about what "The Fandom" thinks or acts like, is that the warrior cats fandom (as well as like, basically any other given fandom) isn't really one group of people but rather dozens if not hundreds of smaller, overlapping groups of people across different websites who have fundamentally different approaches to the way they engage with media, how much of the books they've read, what personal values they're more likely to hold, general demographic, etc. the warrior cats fandom isn't that big comparatively but i can't really take what the common opinion is on here (as in, this extended group of mutuals and mutuals' mutuals and so on) as what the entire fandom consensus is the same way i can't really take the weird squirrelstar-hating subculture on reddit as broad fanon consensus any deeper than going "hey isnt it weird that this is a prominent group of people who exist in the fandom". anyways point of this post is that while i do it too obviously, i find it kind of fascinating how much discussion is spurned by "fanon" and "what the fandom acts like" when this is a concept far broader and more arbitrary than it's portrayed. there are parts of the warrior cats fandom we probably cant even fathom. who knows what those roblox kids think about sunningrocks ownership if they've even read the books

[pali-and-proud]

Would Buddy hurt anyone? Why was Buddy shocked when he hurt Chase with the spear? AND WHY THE COMPLETE DIFFERENCE WITH THE SPEAR AND DEACON WITH THE WOLVES?!?

I GET TO TALK ABOUT BUDDY AND DEACON. AHAHA.

Thank you for the Q <3 I love and respect you, but I am going to bypass the first two questions because I am filled with thoughts on Buddy and Deacon's dynamic. Because I don't know if more people noticed (I'm 100% sure others have noticed) but Buddy and Deacon absolutely parallel each other.

What's Buddy's big motivator, as established by the Dreams By Night episode? To escape Ex Libris. To be free, essentially.

What's Deacon's big motivator, as established by The Book of Deacon? To lead his own story, without his parents controlling everything. To be free, essentially.

Buddy, from the beginning, harps on Chase's lack of preparation. Deacon, from the beginning, gripes about Chase's lack of preparation. Deacon over-prepares, to the point where Chase asks him what different scenes mean and what happens in the story. Something he used to do with Buddy, because both Deacon and Buddy indulge Chase in their explanations.

Deacon gets caught off-guard by Chase's perceptiveness, and Buddy gets caught off-guard by Chase's personality. And Chase might gripe about both, sure, but often about superficial, irrelevant details. Complaining about Deacon always being busy, or complaining about Buddy being pretentious. (Not about things of substance, like Deacon having enough money to attend college AND disliking the experience, or about not even knowing Buddy's name.)

We all laugh about Buddy being paranoid, but Deacon matches him pretty well. Deacon isn't spilling any names. Deacon, like Buddy, understands the necessity for secrets. Who makes the plans to hide Prunella? Who keeps telling Chase not to talk to Buddy about her?

(A thought for another time, but--something about kids of strict parents being sneakier, and something about Deacon always convincing Chase into keeping secrets.)

Deacon's being reasonable, and we know that, because we're listening to his reasoning, and his reasoning is nothing like Buddy's. (Buddy's all "EVERYONE is out for themself," while Deacon is a lot more subtly judging the shirtless Hot Topic wanna-be.) But their ACTIONS match each other.

Are they the same character? lmao absolutely not. They have different experiences, different mentalities, different perspectives. Deacon has a support system, whether financial (parents) or emotional (Bronze) or even social (Chase). Buddy has a bright eyed, stubborn kid who sees a vampire and somehow therapizes him, and sees someone covered in thorns and reciprocates their hug because he knows it was needed.

But how similar they are really shines in the Requiem arc. Deacon and Buddy match the other's barbs seemlessly, and they call out the other with ease. Deacon insults Buddy's fashion sense + teeth, Buddy tricks Deacon into nearly getting mauled by wolves, which is probably an escalation, and Deacon immediately starts plotting a revenge. "When I get my hands on him," he outright says, implying some retaliation, and yet he sees Buddy and Chase wrestling a vampire to the ground and immediately asks "What're we doing?"

He immediately joins them. He has no idea what they're doing or why they're doing it, but they're doing it, so he alas has to ascribe to it. And then you remember that Chase is the one who jumped Vamp, and Buddy ALSO has no idea what they're doing or why they're doing it, but Chase's doing it, so he alas has to ascribe.

They get each other, is what I'm saying. They're foils in methods (Deacon annoys Buddy verbally, Buddy annoys Deacon physically////Deacon chooses to maintain peace via secrecy, Buddy prefers honest communication despite the impacts/////etc etc etc) but they're mirroring the other. They're two beams of light, coming from the same source, going in completely opposite directions.

Buddy hurting Chase risked everything Buddy had gained, all the trust and the companionship and the grossly genuine friendship he gained. The physical pain risked ripping the emotional connection between them. Buddy hurting Deacon DOESN'T rip open anything, because however far Buddy takes things, Deacon's prepared to follow out of annoyance and spite alone. They have the same priorities: keep themselves (+ Chase/others) safe, and humble the other when necessary.

And Buddy has an embarrassing crush or something. everyone point at the idiot and laugh

[kenmaiii]

after two years i finally draw the favorite

[quietwingsinthesky]

thinking about how dean’s character gets simplified in fandom, or more specifically, the very black and white lens that gets applied to him. because integral to dean, from my point of view, is that he is both a victim of abuse and a perpetrator of it. that these two things do not cancel each other out or outweigh each other to the point that only one matters. he’s both, you cannot separate him from the fact that he’s both.

but very often, people do. dean is either a victim. or he’s an abuser. it’s like it’s hard for people to hold both those facts in their heads at once. dean went through incredible amount of trauma as a child and an adult, is routinely faced with violence, has resorted to alcohol abuse to cope with it. he’s also a violent person, someone who retreats into tactics of emotional abuse and control when he feels threatened, who hurts the people around him constantly and the people who are closest to him (ie Sam, Cas, later Jack) get the brunt of that abuse. these are just facts. they’re things that happened on the screen and cannot be denied.

and it’s. idk it’s weird to me (not unexpected, because he’s hardly the only character to ever get this treatment) that dean of all people is the one portrayed in such an either/or way when one of the defining moments of the show for him is that during his stint in Hell, he was tortured and then became a torturer to escape that, to feel like he had some control again, and he relished in it. it’s baked into who he is.

[expectiations]

The Husbands of River Song is not and has never been about the Eleventh Doctor being a deadbeat, distant husband (gross mischaracterization by the way) and the Twelfth Doctor being the "better, more mature, affectionate" husband.

It was about River Song. It was about River and how the events in Manhattan took such a toll on her. It was about letting us see River dealing with grief the way The Snowmen showed us how the Doctor coped after losing believing he had used up all his time with River.

Looking at THORS now with The Ruby's Curse in mind, I get the instinct (for lack of a word that I cannot remember) that the Manhattan incident Blue Roach read from River's diary was not the Manhattan episode that we saw in series 7.

On that note, I'd also like to bring up the fact that the Doctor grounds River and River grounds the Doctor. As Tree talked about in one of her tags, River's empathy is more cognitive than emotional and after musing on it for a bit – considering that the Doctor can no longer go to Manhattan (which may have changed in later series but I wouldn't know at the moment because I have yet to overcome series 7b) and that River does spend time with her parents in Manhattan post-TATM, would the latest Manhattan incident in River's diary be the funeral for Amy? Amy's death? Perhaps even Anthony's? I mean, we already know Rory died five years earlier than Amy. So, knowing how deep River's love for her mother is, it's not too farfetched to say that River spent that time with them. River was by their bedsides as they drew their last breath.

Then Rory's gone, Amy's gone, Anthony's gone. Where does that leave River? Where is the Doctor? (sulking on a cloud on top of Victorian London? trying to figure out the mystery of his newest companion? all while constantly mentioning a certain Professor Song who actually turns out to be his dearly sort of departed absolutely beloved wife?)

Without her parents (and her husband) to ground her, she goes on this maddened, grieving space Robin Hood spree. She seeks fun to fill in the void and takes up marriage as a hobby/side quest. Does she look for the Doctor? Perhaps. Yes, actually. Considering she crashed her latest sort-of-husband's ship onto a planet where she purported the TARDIS to be.

But... she's stealing the TARDIS. She could have just called the Doctor, yeah? So, she doesn't want the Doctor to know then. Well... yeah, considering she has two sort-of-husbands in hand.

So, River would just have gone on from one space Robin Hood spree to the next had the TARDIS not sort-of-stranded herself on Mendorax Dellora to make sure her Water stopped being stubborn and reconcile(?) with her Thief?

Also taking note of how River has read stories about them and knows that Darillium is purported to be their last night together (I could also bring up the fact that this is why I find it easy to digest the "River meeting regenerations of the Doctor younger than the Tenth Doctor makes sense and doesn't break cannon nor ruin SITL/FOTD" but that would take a whole other post). Does this River believe her time with the Eleventh Doctor has ended? The same way series 7b Eleven believed his time with older versions of River has ended? Is this all part of some grand fuckup in communication all thanks to their tangled timelines?

Maybe. Maybe not.

But has River not just been running from her family's death? Has River been running from her supposed last night with the Doctor?

"But River doesn't run." Oh yes. Yes, she does. She knows when to stand her ground. She knows when to charge. And she knows when to run.

"That's out of character for her." No, it's not. She's not invincible. She's this well trained assassin, yes. But invincible? No.

Invincible from the tendency to be blinded by their emotions? Obviously not.

River lies. And River runs.

She is not afraid of her death. She is afraid of the day when her husband, her Doctor, looks into her eyes and looks right through her. And it shouldn't kill her but it does. It did.

So she ran and ran until her bigger-on-the-inside Mum gently reached out and put her back together with the only person left who could ground her. Who she didn't recognize at first but still fell in love with (and would have loved even if he hadn't been revealed to be her actual, long missing husband). Who finally found out their last night wasn't just any night – it was a twenty-four year long last night. Who finally gave her a breather from all the running she'd been doing.

And oh what a night that was (it was the talk of the universe).

[space-candy]

- The handwriting is beautiful. Almost as good as mine.

- Guy. We both know it's better.

- Your opinion is noted.

[bodysnatch3r]

FUCK ME. art really is subjective.

[yourmajestybee]

I saw Wicked the movie (I had already seen the musical!) and now I got wizard of oz on the brain so here’s my pitch for a rise of the brave tangled dragons au

Are y’all seeing the vision??