#idk why he responded to me

[ironasss]

NEIL GAIMAN NOTICE ON TWITTER I CAN DIE IN PEACE

[scramble-crossing]

I saw it and I had to

[ratcandy]

every day i am forced to go on unnecessary sidequests

[skunkes]

unsure how to word this but there is something about having ocs with unsavory events happening in their past where it's like. talking about it, even when asked, seems almost gratuitous and inappropriate. and i'd much rather describe it through the oc themself and/or draw Them saying it. which is like. fitting for the subject matter? like of course its weird to talk about somebody else's business...!

and falls back into humanizing em/exploratory writing and development where u consider the impact of words said/words unsaid/HOW those words are said etc etc

[surging-eyes-seeing-through]

Hello again Mr. Apollo! Do you have any fandoms you’re a part of? Sorry for my random questions, I just noticed you’ve gotten some more serious asks and stuff so I hope a few of these every now and then help lighten the mood a little. :]

~🐢

"Well, um... I... like some manga series, and some of the shows based off of them, I guess."

(Not like I want to admit exactly which ones...)

"Other than that, mm... I don't really watch many movies, and I read less than I'd like to. I'm not much of a 'gamer', either."

[agirlinthegalaxy]

It's been rolling around in my brain the last few days for some reason, but I still hate the family backstory reveals for Sophie and Eliot. I've seen some of the meta for it, but quite frankly, it still makes no sense. If it had been something actually thought of and intentional in the original, I think it could have been so fascinating. I mean, Sophie's willing abandonment of Astrid to contrast with Nate's loss of Sam or Eliot's adoption in contrast with Hardison's and Parker's? Could have been excellent! But they came out of nowhere in Redemption and don't work with these characters.

Sophie was still actively using the fucking alias that she met Astrid under! She met with someone from her past on the show! Like. Quite frankly, that one is unequivocally bullshit that they made up and threw in and pretended could fit with the established canon. (And I'm sorry, but the idea of Sophie abandoning Astrid and never telling Nate about her just... So much of Nate's trauma was rooted in the loss of Sam, and I think that introducing this element after he's gone and unable to respond to it taints Sophie and Nate's relationship in a way bc I'm not exactly sure how Nate would've responded to learning about this but I think that it's something he'd have needed to know. I don't know how to fully express my thoughts on that but yeah.)

As for Eliot, I don't like the adoption aspect literally at all. The way that he would interact with his family and the memory of his family would be different, and I think that it's flat out ridiculous to think that he'd have never mentioned it to the team in the original show, especially when dealing with the kid cases. (I also dislike the biracial adoption as its own element because if Eliot was actually raised by Black parents in the... idk what 80s/90s? That just. doesn't feel congruent with how they write Eliot interacting with PoC, not necessarily in a bad way, but babe, he's written like a white southern man raised in a specific kind of culture that does not jell with that. It also makes Eliot look... really bad that he was apparently raised with the knowledge of how fucked up the military was and his parents' history and made the choices that he did.) Like the show may not have explicitly stated it but the implication of that relationship was vastly fucking different throughout the original show.

Just. These were not backstories that were congruent with their depiction and characters in the original show, and they're also just moves that I don't particularly like or find interesting directions for those characters. There's also something to be said about how it was apparently unacceptable for a woman to not have kids or someone not reconciling with their biological family when that was something that the original show handled a lot better. Out of all the directions to take Sophie and Eliot's stories, that's just not really one that I think was a good idea.

[alchemiclee]

i know this has been said 473773474833 times by the kavetham/haikaveh shippers and probably even nonshippers, but i'll say it again. I finally finished the genshin summer event and did the little after quest in sumeru and.....every time kaveh is sneaking around trying not to be noticed coming out of alhaithams house it's just such a gay vibe. he's basically screaming "I can't be caught being gay in a homophobic society!" even if that's not what the game writers are *actually* saying. that's just how it comes off and they can't make it come off any other way. with hoyo's gay history, it makes me wonder if it's on purpose and all a cover-up to have a technically different reason for it so they can get away with it lmao but we will never know.

[sanasanakun]

Since people are discussing Larian’s “people pleasing” updates with this latest hot fix, I’m gonna add my two (unnecessary) cents to this as well. I really love Baldurs Gate 3 for the choices and agency it affords me as a player. That’s its main draw to me. However, when comparing it to its main inspiration (i.e BioWare games), the writing in BG3 is far worse.

And I think this shines through the most with the companion content disparity. I do think Astarion is a very well written character, but I also think his popularity partially comes from the other characters being far too underwritten. This isn’t even touching on Karlach’s lack of depth and the shocking disparity that is Wyll’s entire storyline/character. But other companions like Shadowheart and Gale, while well written, lack the same attention and suffer for it.

And god, the villains. I think that’s another egregiously bad area of the writing. Kethric gets a whole act! Meanwhile, Orin is interesting but crammed into sharing space with Gortash. And Gortash is given an incredible backstory that ties to another villain, but nothing is done with it and it’s mostly hidden in notes. And the story overall is just ok. Act 2 is easily the most compelling. But compared to BioWare, the story is lackluster imo. The Dark Urge plot line is the most interesting part of the overall main storyline, but it’s not afforded enough detail or content (imo).

And none of this is helped by Larian removing bits and pieces of their characters in these hotfixes. I really wish they’d just start adding content to flesh out these problem areas, especially Wyll and Minthara.

[batsplat]

You cannot imagine how giddy I get when I see you've posted a nice long thesis on the riders. And the timezones work as such that I see it during breakfast and it MAKES MY ENTIRE DAY. The content just keeps tumbling around in my brain the whole day. Thank you!!!💛💛💛

this is so incredibly kind that I really don't know what to say... so I'm going to fire off a random undercooked take that is very very far away from thesis territory. featuring the 2015 season

in 2022, jorge gave one of his own regularly scheduled takes on the 2015 season. he offered up a bit of an unusual opinion by focusing on the argentina clash that year - which he that "crucial" in the collapse of the marc/valentino relationship:

(god, can you imagine having a workplace falling out so bad that seven years later it's still an active topic of speculation what exactly the precipitating event was, and several of your coworkers enjoy regularly weighing in with their thoughts? like man they'll never be allowed to rest)

I find this really interesting coming from jorge. one of the fun things about that season is the degree of genuine ambiguity that exists about all of the major on-track flashpoints. was one of valentino or marc responsible for the argentina crash? was the cutting of the chicane at assen premeditated by valentino? and, of course, did valentino really kick marc at sepang? that being said... the argentina one has always been the one where it just seemed... unfortunate timing, shit happens. it's more on marc, he made a misjudgement and also just took a bit too much risk in the context of the title fight, but complete racing incident. that's the reason why this is a slightly odd take from jorge. it's the one incident nobody really has pinned on valentino, certainly not the commentators or the commentariat or otherwise or anyone

to be clear - this post isn't about figuring out what 'really happened' at argentina 2015, it's more about... well, how it was perceived at the time, and what that tells us. but, just to quickly get this out of the way: from the outside (and with the obvious caveat of 'what do I know'), it's a little tricky to see how you'd solely blame valentino for the collision. valentino is by this point clearly ahead of marc, he's literally just been bumped into by marc so may also not have been 100% in control of the bike, and he's taking a regular line into the next turn... when marc essentially rides so closely to him that valentino turning the bike takes out marc's front wheel. even if vale's deliberately trying to ride defensively against marc, he's perfectly entitled to do so. I know jorge doesn't actually specify valentino crashed marc out deliberately, but given the specific situation, I feel like that's what you're implying when you're saying he's "responsible". you're suggesting valentino knew where marc was and essentially purposefully moved the bike across to wipe out marc's front wheel and... look. I suppose it's possible, though valentino's also allowed to some extent to deliberately make the life of the guy behind him harder. more likely, this is just what happens when two hard racers race each other and insist on practically sitting on each other's bikes when they're on track together - sometimes it'll go wrong. except, of course, that won't stop controversy from breaking out... especially not when it's these two. here, from one of the write ups of the race, is a description of the two of them I've always been fond of:

which is very them, yes. same type of guy, slightly different flavour, both with carefully cultivated reputations. but look, the main takeaway is this: we don't know their actual intentions. I don't know if valentino deliberately made contact with marc. let's be honest, marc doesn't know if valentino deliberately made contact. only valentino knows that. jorge lorenzo certainly doesn't know that. so why is this the incident he brought up?

in part, I'm curious how jorge even got that impression that marc was mad, and also why he thinks valentino was to blame. the latter, okay, jorge isn't naturally inclined to be generous towards valentino's particular style of racing, not least because he's fallen foul of it a fair few times over the years (though I'd say valentino on occasion was rather less subtle than that against jorge lol). but why is this the thing jorge brings up? I mean, you'd think he'd point to assen as the turning point, given he was literally sitting in that extremely awkward post-race presser and clearly very much enjoyed the whole thing. does he know marc was mad at valentino for argentina? that marc "didn't like it"? was this some kind of paddock rumour at the time? would there have been any basis for that rumour?

so, marc himself was quick to publicly deny that he was angry at valentino, something he reiterated at the next race in jerez. immediately post-race, he said the following:

and the official statement:

it's still far from the snarky digs of the post-assen presser, but to me this is a little open to interpretation. I always find 'learn' a very interesting verb. casey over the years was particularly keen on using that word, typically in relation to valentino, to the point where when you see that his tweet commemorating valentino's retirement includes the phrase "I learnt a lot from you".... well, that can be read in lots of ways, not all of them positive. it kind of depends on what you're learning, right? when casey uses it, the implication is basically that valentino was an asshole and casey had to learn to play his games and be more selfish fighting vale. marc uses the word four times in the interview, plus again in the statement. valentino has a certain reputation, a reputation marc is of course more than aware of. he is known for... not being a cheat, necessarily, but being a little underhanded in his tactics, a little devious. yes, valentino did a good job in managing the race, but also in the "melee". "you learn different things and different strategies". what kind of different strategies, marc? are we sure he's talking about tyre preservation here?

(speaking of tyre preservation, one of the reasons why marc was probably feeling particularly disinclined to let valentino go without a fight was the fuckery with the tyre choices. long story short, tyre choice was a big talking point due to the extreme wear they'd had the year before and the extra compound bridgestone had developed. marc made a bit of a show of faffing about with a late switch that he kept concealed until basically the last moment, presumably to fuck with his competitors who were tensely waiting to see what he'd pick. valentino, who had opted for the hardest option, said after the race that he'd ignored what marc was doing because he knew there was only one choice for the yamaha anyway. so in the end it didn't really work to unsettled his key rival and also... well, I mean, marc was two laps away from the tyre choice working in the race, but not quite! just couldn't build up the lead he needed to prevent valentino from reeling him in)

also, "in the end you can see perfectly what happens" is not technically the same thing as saying valentino was not to blame for the incident. it's a phrasing that shies carefully away from actually giving marc's own take on the incident. basically telling the viewer to draw their own conclusions from what they've seen on tv - even though of course marc does make clear he sees it as a racing incident. it's the kind of vague statement that marc has occasionally popped out over the years, at times perhaps implying more than outright stating he has a problem with a certain incident, which does make you maybe raise an eyebrow or two at how he words it here. it's just... listen, it could be 100% innocent and the whole thing isn't flirting with disaster as much as assen is, far from it, but it's the kind of thing where with 20/20 hindsight you do kinda go. hm.

there is a little more evidence that marc was indeed mad at valentino for what happened at argentina... if valentino is to believed and marc's manager told him so directly after sepang:

(why, if you are marc marquez's manager, do you go to valentino rossi after sepang 2015 to tell valentino you think marc was angry at him for losing him the title. why would you do this. what are you trying to accomplish here)

do I believe this conversation happened? yeah, kinda, because it feels like an odd and very specific thing to make up. that's just a gut feeling thing - I have zero evidence either way obviously. I think at most it's plausible valentino misinterpreted what alzamora was saying. of course, the words "as much" do set off an alarm bell or two, maybe suggesting alzamora didn't directly tell him the bits about argentina and assen. but, y'know, it's also entirely possible marc did think valentino had deliberately taken him out in argentina, especially in the heat of the moment - and his team would very much have been aware of his feelings on the matter. not fun to crash out of the penultimate lap. not when clashing with the championship leader, who is also your hero and who you've generally gotten the better of... not easy not easy

anyway, again, this is definitely a bit of an undercooked take, but it's always nice to get a little bit of insight into what the paddock vibes were at the time. if there are many people - and if there were many people back then - who think that valentino had deliberately taken out marc, that he should have apologised to marc, that marc was mad at valentino.... if it got back to valentino through alzamora, did he hear it from other people too? to what extent was this kind of thing common wisdom within the paddock, or are these takes literally nobody but jorge believes in? we don't know, but it's interesting! argentina is kinda the unloved child of 2015 divorce incidents. partly because it does look so innocuous, partly because it's harder to ascribe ill intent, partly because the two parties are far more pleasant to each other in the aftermath. that's why jorge coming back to this specific incident has stuck with me... in all honesty, I don't really trust jorge to be a particularly good judge of marc and valentino's interpersonal chemistry at any given moment in time, but did he see the cracks beginning to emerge so early in the season? to what extent did argentina already make things visibly less comfortable between the pair of them? why does jorge think marc wanted an apology?

if marc really was particularly angry, then it does go to show how quickly he flipped the switch himself when it came to valentino, swiftly reappraising him as a serious rival who should be treated as such. also, let's put aside a minute what valentino's actual intentions were... it's revealing if marc did think valentino was deliberately fucking him over here. (which, given he's repeatedly using the word "learn" - if he does think valentino's responsible as jorge suggests, then he also doesn't think it was just an innocent lil mistake. you don't 'learn' from your hero making an error, you learn from them riding in a way that wins them the race by crashing you out.) like, y'know how in this post I was saying marc obviously was perfectly aware of valentino's past history, including the feuding and controversy of it all? I mean, if you want proof of how aware he was, look at assen 2015! he's clearly immediately suspicious of valentino and his motives... because he knows what valentino's like, because he knows that 'planning to exploit a grey area in the rules by deliberately allowing marc to make contact before cutting the chicane' is absolutely the kind of sneaky shit valentino is renowned for. what if marc does share jorge's belief that valentino is responsible for the argentina crash? if marc thinks valentino did so deliberately, then that tells you something about how marc sees valentino, no?

obviously they both massively over-correct when they arrive at jerez, which is how we get 'in bed remains the same' and lingering hugs feat. hip-stroking in parc fermé, all that stuff. if it did plant a little seed of suspicion, a little seed of doubt, then that maybe helps explain why they were focused on each other more than they were on the guy who won the next four races - even when it became increasingly clear jorge was the championship favourite. which is what it comes back to for me - the fact that such a seemingly innocuous incident was allowed to blossom into so much more shows there was already something there between the pair of them. the championship might be one thing... but somehow, if given half a chance, they were always going to see each other as their number one rival

[lucky-clover-gazette]

he's expressive!!! the boy is expressive!!!

also the way she asks if it "awakens memories" OUCH

[clits-and-clips]

Spiralling AGAIN would you believe it

[heisttheblackflag]

manifest platy replying to my fucking email today please 🔫

[pigeonsareevil]

Idk about all of you but it never sat right with me when people portrayed Dutch as evil, manipulative and money driven ever since begining. I mean pre-canon pre-gang begining.

I think if it really was that way there would be no way the gang would trust him that much and that blindly after making so many bad and dangerous decisions. I know from expierience that emotional manipulation can go far but not that far. I simply cant see the younger him as the giant asshole that he becomes during the second game. I believe that, in order to achieve this level of trust and loyalty he mustve really loved all of them.

In a way, i think he also loves them during the course of the second game in his own, twisted way. I think he truly wanted to get them out of the trouble he caused, but had no idea how, and with his own paranoia and whispers about traitor in the gang, he kept making desperate decisions that in the end, resulted in even more trouble and suffering.

Now, i know there were no traitors in the gang (not counting Micah) and if he got his head out of his ass he would probably realise that but sometimes i think about how he mustve felt, thinking that someone that he loved, raised and gave so much to, would turn back on him and the rest of their family, let them die for a pile of cash, not even realising he himself was doing exactly that, but that feeling alone would be enough to drive someone crazy.

Combine this with the grief he mustve felt for the fallen members and the fact that none of this has ever happened before Blackwater, he must have thought that him failing and showing weakness would be the reason someone would betray him and it would explain his insane plans and attempts at regaining control over the situation, only realising just how wrong he had been when he saw Arthur dying at his feet.

Im not apologising him and DEFINETELY not trying to paint him as innocent. He did manipulate Arthur and many others during the game but i think it came from a different place then just wanting money. And of course he wanted the money, his greed was one of the many reasons the gang ended the way it did but there were deeper reasons as to why he wanted them so desperately, besides just for the sake having them and i choose to believe it was because he really wanted to provide and have enough for his family to live comfortably.

I just think the way he acted during the second game was, as tragic as that sounds, mostly out of fear of losing the people he saw as his family. Not even realising it would be that fear that would eventually kill them all off.

[karamazovanon]

your art is so amazing i cant stress this enough every time i see any of your drawings i want to rb it 763924 times and go feral

AHHH THANK YOU <333 this ask made my day so in exchange here is a super secret mitya wip that is part of a bigger thing...........

[enha-stars]

i hate when people ask me stupid questions 😭 use your common sense bro, PLEASE.

“hey, are you using that?” as i’m using that. “are you busy?” after i’ve texted them that i am, indeed, busy. “is this yours?” as i’m holding onto it. “are you done eating?” as i’m clearly not done eating because i’m still chewing, spoon in hand, and rice on the plate.

[werebutch]

Omg it would be way easier if my bff just ignored me and changed the subject but instead I have to wait like a week for him to just say “that sucks wtf” to my rant 🤦