#infodump time i was thinking about stuff

[moonlightsmasquerade]

What does being a wizard's apprentice actually mean in Weslyn?

Often it means two things:

The apprentice is trying to work a similar occupation to the wizard they are taken under the wing of ex: teacher/potion maker/spellbook writer/duelist

The wizard needs a bunch of people to do various jobs and needs to show an apprenctice how to properly complete a specific one, often these wizards will have more than 1 apprentice.

Apprentices are college aged, choosing to either continue studying via school or accept an apprenticeship (there are a few courses an apprentice is still required to complete, you can't skip courses entirely)

Apprenticeships are enticing because you are guarenteed a job once completed, you will either take the job your teacher has (they will retire after) or you can have that job in a different area. However that doesn't mean it's easy, the various tests an aspiring apprentice must take seem daunting and not worth it, but those who stick it out find it very very rewarding.

[autisticcassandracain]

I dunno man I feel like most statements along the lines of ‘Batman isn’t REALLY x, he’s y’ don’t hold much water because usually, there’s a pretty good chance a number of writers over the years have written him as x, you just didn’t like it or think it doesn’t count for some reason.

For example ‘Batman isn’t REALLY a good parent, he’s actually a bad parent’, when Batman has been written as a good parent by a number of writers, and has, in addition, been written as realizing that he’s screwed up with his children and resolved to fix it by even more. At the same time, stating ‘Batman isn’t REALLY a bad parent, he’s actually a good parent’ is also incorrect, because Batman has been written as a bad parent by a number of writers, either intentionally or not; in addition, the pattern presented by the tug-of-war between writers who believe he should be a good parent and writers who don’t has, over the years, created an unintentional pattern that strongly resembles that of an abusive relationship. So, stating he is a good parent is inaccurate and dismisses a bunch of his canon writing, but stating he is a bad parent also dismisses a bunch of his canon writing and the intentions of the authors that wrote him.

The secret here is realizing that Batman has had so many writers over the years that it’s practically impossible to find a universal truth about him beyond the basic premise and maybe very, very basic characterization keystones. Writers with different beliefs about both the character and the world at large have written him in accordance to their worldview, and sometimes that worldview will align with yours, and sometimes it won’t.

Like, at this point, Batman is more an idea than he is a character. He is the bare-knuckled fight against injustice, but what ‘injustice’ is depends heavily on your worldview, as does what ‘bare-knuckled’ and ‘fight’ mean. Batman has been interpreted in dozens of different ways over the years, and singling out a few of those as the True Batman is largely arbitrary and dependent on your personal taste and belief in what the character should be. The only ‘objective’ measurement you could apply here are the old Golden Age comics, and I think most fans can agree that measuring modern Batman comics by how faithful they are to the Golden Age comics is, more often than not, a little ridiculous.

For the record, I do think that arguing about what Batman should be matters; if right-wing assholes use the character as a mouthpiece for their worldview we can and should critique that, but not because it’s ‘OOC’, but because the worldview espoused by those right-wing assholes is harmful and shitty. Batman should be a good parent, not because it’s ‘OOC’ for him to be a bad parent, but because having your paragon of justice be a child abuser is pretty shitty. Etc.

I don’t really have anywhere specific to go with this, I just think it’s a little strange when people try to view Batman as a character with a clear-cut characterization, rather than a concept that many people have approached in different ways over the years. Can that concept be mishandled? Sure. But it’s usually mishandled for reasons a bit more substantial than ‘a previous writer wrote it differently’.

[thepandalion]

help I'm going insane over deltarune and Undertale stuff again

[moe-broey]

.... I am going to run out of Sharena quotes in my queue 🧍

[thetwilightroadtonightfall]

1/2 So this is driving me crazy cause I only noticed it after my hundredth rewatch of khux, but do all the cutscenes involving the union leaders only take place in like 4~ish days? I know UX is suppose to take place over a year, but when looking at the cutscenes with just the union leaders I think I counted like 4 days lol. I think the first day is from when they meet in the graveyard to when they enter the foretellers chamber for the first time cause Skuld tells them "not the touch anything".

no yeah you’re on the right track here!!

We have no hard confirmation for the timeline of…any of the union leaders scenes, really. But we do know that a lot of the scenes do happen in tandem and consecutively or like you said, within the span of a few days. Let me follow things with you…

Shift Pride’s the tricky part because that could’ve happened at literally any point after they began working on the Spirit Pets. Could’ve been a week, a month, a year. I like to think at least 3 months passed offscreen to account for them settling into their new responsibilities, getting to know each other better, and Player going to some disney worlds in between. The way they talk in the Shift Pride scene also suggests that a “substantial” amount of time has passed since they met at the graveyard. Like for example, Ephemera asks if they all remember reading about Shift Pride in the rulebook. He wouldn’t be asking if that they’d all just read it a few days prior, you know what I mean?

Following along the next scenes…yeah, it checks out. Lauriam meets Elrena, then returns to the tower. Then I assume he meets Player later the day after, since Eph says he wants to spend the day with them (implying “an entire new day”). Then the glitches happen and Eph and Player go off to Game Central Station. I’d guesstimate Eph is there for the rest of that day, and returns to Daybreak later that night.

Everything that happens after Eph returns from GCS (aka the impostor leader stuff, Maleficent vs Lauriam, Lauriam’s breakdown) happens concurrently with the rest of Player’s time in Candy Kingdom, which could reasonably be an additional 1-2 days maybe? And then they return to Daybreak just in time for the fight against Darkness

The next possible timeskip we get is after Ven’s sacrifice, where he’s unconscious. I can’t imagine it’s more than a day though, since Darkness just informed them that the world is ending, so there’d be that sense of urgency to get the lifeboats and everything all set up. I’d say maybe a few hours passed. And everything that follows in the finale happens consecutively.

So if we wanna approximately add it up…the union leaders’ collective screen time would encapsulate a week or less than a week’s worth of in-universe time. (4 days like you said seems reasonable, I’m just overshooting it a bit to provide some leeway.)

So in conclusion, we only got to see about one week of the time the union leaders spent together. Which is really insane to think about if you ask me!!

[too-many-paper-cranes]

oh hey the video is public now so i can post on tumblr about this without sounding insane! anyway everyone should go watch me and a few other speedrunners hunt fire for sport (randomizer edition)

[ilovettrpgs]

rip Magnus Carter you would have loved causing problems for the general public and also not having mad cow syndrome

[teamcavota]

being ND in a southerner family is hard

[the-acid-pear]

Coincidentally "ohh doggy!" Is the same thing that comes to mind spotting you out in the wild of my dashboard

Don't have any fucking doggy reaction pics only kitty cat and horsey so have this crude edit. Wags my tail at this ^_^ correct reaction too. If you catch me around you gotta do a Tommy Wiseau and hit me with the oh hi doggy!. It's the morally correct choice.

[coollyinterferes]

Today, I offer you...

🌟 he 🌟

[rowavolo]

so weak for this old man ohhh my god. hes so cute. who gave him the RIGHT... ugh

[arcadequeerz]

Speaking of weretoons au, I'd speak bout it more on here but i am: a anxious fool about talking about my aus anywhere other then discord anymore NKGMLFDJNG

[silverselfshippingchaos]

hehe he's so handsome!

[seilon]

man im really fucking bad at hanging out with people no wonder i have like two friends

[roughentumble]

Is it just me or does Henry Cavill seem…lowkey ND? I dunno. Something seems kind of "off" about him, but not in a sinister way. His interests, the way he'll go into rambling, info-dumps. He even admitted in a recent interview he still can be a bit naive and too trusting of people's intentions. I'm not saying he definitely is, but he's pinging the "radar" for me.

not to sound rude but i try not to "diagnose" celebrities, or speculate about their "true" sexuality/gender/etc, that sort of thing, in anything other than a joking/offhand comment sort of way

though i will say that if youre seeing bits of yourself in interviews and BTS footage of him, its always nice to feel like you can see yourself in the industry or relate to the people who work there, no matter what their diagnoses' might be!

[parakeetpark]

I was info dumping so hard on my poor mother last night about various iterations of the Rocky Horror Show productions and also facts about the movie while we watched RHPS last night.

AND I was saying too many lines in time with the characters despite being extremely drunk. We had a good sing together to the songs and i said "wait no - this is the worst song" three times