#interesting assumptions

[metro-mtp]

Hi, DK! For the “What hyper specific things can you infer about me from my art” challenge, I already know a bit about you since we’re mutuals, but if I didn’t, I would probably guess:

You like retro Pokemon stuff, old Disney cartoons, and cartoons in the 90s and early 2000s.

Minish Cap is your favorite Zelda game, but Four Swords is a close second. 2D toon Link is your god.

You prefer DS over 3DS because it can play GBA games.

You really like hot chocolate with those giant marshmallows.

In the 2010s, you had a phase where you wore dramatically big glasses and were very proud of being nerdy.

You used to say XD a lot and still prefer emoticons to emojis.

You love when dignified characters act like chaos gremlins (we all do lol)

You love reading but are really busy and don’t have much time for it atm.

Hugs, Dem 💕

Pretty much. I like a lot of retro things in general, and I'm particularly into the overall vibe of animated shows/films from the 90s-00s. Lot of newer stuff is good too

Not sure if I ever explicitly mentioned that one, but yes! There's a certain charm to the 2D games that I love. It's probably childhood nostalgia tbh

My 3DS (modded) is the only one I have at the moment, but it actually *can* play GBA titles natively! (They just have to be digitized due to the lack of a cartridge slot)

I was a horribly awkward middle/high schooler during most of the 2010s and kept my interests to myself (except my dad/friends), so I'm now having my openly nerdy phase in my mid-20s. No more cringe, I'd rather have fun :)

Who doesn't love a scrunkly scrimblus?

Being a full-time student for the last several years and transitioning to a (hopefully!) long-term career in my chosen field has, unfortunately, taken a lot of my energy to read for fun. It was one of my main hobbies aside from gaming and drawing, but I do more of the latter two these days. I mostly like books about history, animals, Spanish language/culture, and graphic novels of all kinds

[botanyshitposts]

dichotomous plants are so weird man. like they’re not even weird it’s the becoming the dichotomous that’s weird. i went to a talk once about a population of strawberries that were accidentally slowly becoming dichotomous and they didn’t even have sex chromosomes, like they had like a bunch of genes across a bunch of chromosomes that did a little bit of sex but not a lot and it added up to one whole sex kind of but not enough that they had all collectively decided to be one sex or the other, so there was still like, a sizable chunk of the population that was producing flowers of both sexes. like they were microdosing it. taking the sex genes for a spin in the strawberry patch

[carlsdraws]

the last remnants of [REDACTED]

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

------------

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[yellowocaballero]

Miguel is Fine, Actually (Being Spider-Man's Just Toxic As Hell)

Before I watched ATSV I said that I would defend my man Miguel O'Hara's actions no matter what, because he's always valid and I support women's wrongs. I was joking, and I did not actually expect to start defending him on Tumblr.edu. But I'm seeing a lot of commentary that's super reductive, so I do want to bring up another perspective on his character.

Miguel wasn't acting against the spirit of Spider-Man, or what being Spider-Man means. Miguel isn't meant to represent the antithesis of Spider-Man. Miles is the antithesis of Spider-Man. Miguel represents Spider-Man taken to its extreme.

Think about Miguel's actions from his perspective. If you were a hero who genuinely, legitimately, 100%, no doubt about it, believed that somebody is going to make a selfish decision that will destroy an entire universe and put the entire multiverse at severe risk - if you had an over-burdened sense of responsibility and believed in doing the right thing no matter what - you would also chase down the kid and put him in baby jail to try and prevent it. He believed that he was saving the multiverse, and that Miles was putting it in danger for selfish reasons. Which is completely unforgivable to him, because selfishness is what he hates the most. And then he goes completely out of pocket and starts beefing with a 15yo lmfaooo he's such a dick.

But why did Miguel believe that? Why did he believe that Miles choosing himself and his own happiness over the well-being of others was the worst possible thing? Why did he believe that tragedy was inevitable in their lives, and that without tragedy Spider-Man can't exist?

Because he's Spider-Man.

Peter Parker was once a fifteen year old who chose his own happiness over protecting others. It was the greatest regret of his life and he never forgave himself. Peter's ethos means that he will put himself last every time, and that he will sacrifice anything and everything in his life - his relationships, his health, his future - to protecting and helping others. Peter dropped out of college because it interfered with Spider-Man. He destroyed his own future for Spider-Man. He ruins friendships and romantic relationships because Spider-Man was more important. If Peter ever tries to protect himself and his own happiness, then he's a bad person.

That is intrinsic to Peter. Peter would not be Peter without it. A story that is not defined by Peter's unhappiness is not a Spider-Man story. If Peter doesn't make himself miserable, then he's just not Peter.

That is a Spider-Man story: that not only is tragedy inevitable, that if you don't allow yourself to be defined by your tragedy then you're a bad person. If you don't suffer, then you're a bad person. If you ever put anything above Spider-Man, then you're killing Uncle Ben all over again. Miguel isn't the only one that believes this - as we saw, every Spider-Man buys into what he's saying. There's no Spider-Man without these beliefs.

Miguel attempted to find his own happiness, and he was punished in the most extreme way. He got Uncle Ben'd x10000. He tried to be happy, and it literally destroyed his entire universe. It's the Spider-narrative taken to the extreme. Of course Miguel believes all of this. Of course he believes this so firmly. He's Spider-Man. That's his story. And the one time Miguel tried to fight against that story, he was punished. And like any Spider-Man, he'll slavishly obey that narrative no matter the evil it creates and perpetuates. Because if he doesn't, the narrative will punish him. The narrative will always punish him. It's a Spider-Man story.

I don't think the universal constant between Spider-Mans, the thing that makes them Spider-Man, is tragedy. I think it's the fact that they never forgive themselves. And Miguel is what that viewpoint creates. He doesn't believe this things because he's an awful, mean person. He believes them because he's a hero. He's a good person who hates himself.

Across the Spider-verse isn't really a Spider-Man story. It's a story about Spider-Man stories. Miguel's right: if this was a Spider-Man story, then Miles acting selfishly really would destroy the universe. But Miles' story isn't interested in punishing him. It pushes back against Peter's narrative that unhappiness is inevitable and that you have to suffer to be a good person. It says that sometimes we do the right thing from love and not fear, and that Peter's way of thinking is ultimately super toxic and unhappy. ITSV was about Miles deciding that he didn't need to be Peter Parker, that all he needed to be was Miles, and ATSV is about how being Peter Parker isn't such a good thing. Miguel shows that. Whatever toxic and unhealthy beliefs he holds - they're the exact same beliefs that any Spider-Man holds. He's a dick, but I don't think he's any more awful a person than Peter is.

TL;DR: Miguel isn't a bad person, he just has Spider-Man brainrot.

[uncanny-tranny]

I think a lot of discussions would be made better by recognizing that masculinity and femininity aren't inherently preferred, but adherence to cishet standards is, which is slightly different.

This is why a masculine trans man* or a feminine trans woman* often still face stigma - it isn't that they aren't gender conforming to the gender they are. It is that cishetero standards do not want trans people to exist at all, in any capacity.

[borgialucrezia]

"You are too much like me. A man feels less… favour for his own image reflected." [Give him his sanction…His support…His powder, his army, his control. His love. He is made in your image.] "Do you think we don't know that? He is me. All the fire and the fury, the drive. The pitiless ambition. I look into his eyes, I see myself. Do you expect me to love that?" — Rodrigo Borgia, The Borgias (2011-2013) // "You aren’t my son, you’re myself. The love I have for you is awkward for both of us. But it is greater than any love known. Even if you can’t understand it.” — Agustín Gómez-Arcos, The Carnivorous Lamb (1975)

The relationship between Rodrigo and his children is complex, but his love for his eldest son, Cesare, is the most intense of all. Cesare is a representation of Rodrigo's own generational trauma and personal flaws. Rodrigo loves Cesare deeply, but at the same time, he feels frustrated with him because Cesare serves as a mirror reflecting Rodrigo's own self-worth issues and flaws. Cesare's presence reminds Rodrigo of his own shortcomings and self-loathing, which created a complex dynamic between them. His intense love for Cesare is intertwined with this frustration, stemming from the recognition of their shared imperfections. Despite these challenges, Rodrigo still holds Cesare in high regard and has chosen him as his successor because Cesare represents both the best and worst aspects of himself.

[lunar-wandering]

THIS FUCKING EXPRESSIONNNNN

[biblically-accurate-dca]

for dca fandom members specifically: have you played and completed security breach?

when i say "complete" i specifically mean "played through it at least once and got to 6am", whether you got all the endings and/or achievements is irrelevant to the question

another additional note is that if you've played other fnaf games but haven't completed those then that still counts as you playing them and you can answer yes to that!

no shame towards anyone who hasn't played the games! this is just to see what the general statistics are among everyone here

please reblog for a larger sample size! thank you ♡

[thevalleyisjolly]

There’s a weird recurring take in D20 fan circles that Zac doesn’t play “complex” characters and that people are just waiting for the day when he “finally” plays an asshole, which kind of baffles me.  Quite apart from the idea that only morally grey characters are complex or compelling, are you sure we’re watching the same show?

In Fantasy High, we have Gorgug, an adopted biracial teenager whose journey includes realizing his self-worth, coming to terms with his rage (literally), seeking out and navigating new relationships with others (his birth parents, the Bad Kids, Zelda), and discovering what he’s capable of. 

From The Unsleeping City we have Ricky, a second-generation Japanese-American, who has a very personal struggle across two seasons between doing the dutiful/sacrificial thing for other people’s benefit and expressing his own needs, wants, thoughts, and feelings; it’s a very particular exploration of immigrant generations and the relationship between the sacrificial model of your ancestors and the culture you grew up surrounded by which emphasizes the self.

There’s A Crown of Candy and Lapin, whose snark and one-liners are honestly less interesting than the way he engaged with and sought to understand religion and faith; the different yet similar ways in which both the Sugar Plum Fairy and the Church exerted control over their followers, and the search for spiritual meaning beyond these figures/institutions.

Then there’s Cumulous, whose every character aspect navigates a space of tension - the ultimate war guy who made himself hardened (literally) and pragmatic to get the job done but who also remains soft and caring and empathetic at the same time; wielding the power of death without glorifying or giving into it; the cousin who both is a member of the family and yet who remains at somewhat of a distance from the centre; a literal warrior-philosopher who is single-minded in battle and quietly thoughtful about the mysteries of life and death outside of it.

As for actual assholes, we have Norman Takamori in A Starstruck Odyssey, a bitter man who is the living embodiment of both the Superior Orders excuse as well as scapegoating.  On a side note, the amount of absolute vitriol and double standards which people threw at Norman during ASO for being an unapologetic asshole -and he had less than two full episodes of screen time- kind of underscores the calls for Zac to play a “real” asshole.  Zac can and will play whatever type of character he wants, but is fandom really ready for him to play an asshole if that asshole doesn’t have a secret heart of gold?

From the same season, we have Valdrinor/Skip, who starts as the “prince running from his destiny” archetype with a dash of brain slug possession, has a humorous yet oddly profound exploration of what humanity is and what it means to be human, and springboards from there into “wait, who am I really and actually, why are we doing things (brain slug possession) this way when there are other ways to engage with the universe.” 

Most recently in Neverafter, we have Pib, who apart from the fascinating meta element of being a literal character archetype, constantly straddles the line between self-absorbed self-interest and putting himself on the line to help others; his repeated demonstration of both at various points throughout the season is a subtle yet intriguing manifestation of free will and choice-making in a story all about lacking free will and agency.

So, I mean, lack of complexity where?  Does a character need to be an asshole in order to be deep or compelling?  And because I’ve heard this specific rebuttal quite a few times now, does a character need to vocalize their innermost thoughts loudly and frequently in order to prove their complexity?  If a character is “less vocal” compared to other characters, does that mean they lack interiority? 

Also, other people have brought this up before, but I am once again asking that people remember the difference between fictional characters and real life people.  Zac playing one (1) himbo on the show does not make him a himbo in real life, nor does it make him incapable of creating or playing complex characters (especially as said himbo is himself an extremely complex character), nor does it make him a lesser player than other cast members.  You don’t have to find all or any of his characters interesting or complex, but can we stop conflating character with player?

[veinsfullofstars]

🕸️Kirbtober 2024 Day 2: Revenge 🕸️

(ID: Kirby series fanart of Dark Meta Knight and Taranza, the latter looming behind the former with violent intent in his four front-facing eyes, his six hands clenched into shaking fists and curled into claws and raised over his head to conjure a pair of glowing spiderwebs. Meanwhile, the knight stands in blissful ignorance in the foreground, a mug of steaming coffee in one hand, a rolled-up newspaper in the other, glancing off in confusion as a thought bubble over his head reads, “Why do I hear boss music?” END ID.)

Based on the implication from KTD’s Dededetour! that DMK might be responsible for Sectonia’s corruption, indirectly or otherwise.

Previous Day | Next Day | Prompt List (made by @/paintpanic)

Started on 08/30/24, finished on 08/31/24. | Kirbtober 2023 Comp

[inthecarpets]

Thinking once again about how beautifully and nuanced Ryoko Kui crafted Toshiro and Laios' relationship. And how in a way the many interpretations and types of reactions say a lot about the viewers' lives and perspectives.

How sometimes two people might want to be polite, might want to be kind, but due to their differences, misscommunication and their own personal flaws they will only end up hurting each other. And the longer their misscommunication lasts, the more it hurts. How sometimes if people spoke sooner it wouldn't get to be so bad.

And how reactions say how quite much everyone been in some kind of situation like that. We assume the best and the worst intentions in each other.

We have to deal with a person who can't stop bothering us. Deal with a person who seems a little shy but they are nice but actually no, they secretly hate us. Situation where someone pretends to be a friend or for some forsaken reason forces themselves to hang out with us. When it's hard to confront someone. When we are too much. When we are in the wrong without realising it. When it's hard to be confronted. Being in a situation you wish you were confronted at the start. How sometimes confrontation is near impossible. Taking a risk of confrontation in general. Not being able to find the right words. Not being able to utter them.

Sometimes we'd all rather to point fingers and call each other names instead of realise the flaws of the world that we live in. How sometimes there Sure are bad people and bad intentions but sometimes it's also just all a bad accident with good intentions on both sides, and lack of education.

Ryoko Kui crafted such a very nuanced and beautiful story. A story with details such show the readers and viewers' feelings and perspectives and shortcomings when interacting with other people. And yeah, i think that's beautiful. Bless.

[trashcanwithsprinkles]

debate

(topic: how many and what configuration of kids do they give off vibes of having (either at present or in the future)(partner is irrelevant in most cases, some could be single parents for all i care))

[willowswoodedgrove]

Things you could manifest part 1

Clothes ! Specifically I’m thinking that you could manifest whole outfits, or you could just manifest key pieces that could make up multiple outfits

Old tech !!! If you’re into older stuff like I am, you could manifest cassettes, a walkman, or an MP3 player. Personally I plan to get an MP3 player to download all of my favorite subs I make onto, so in the case my channel gets taken down, I’ll always have my stuff.

Merch for your favorite fandom or characters

Gift cards for your favorite café

Stickers ! Everyone loves stickers :D

New blankets or bedding

Snacks !!! Everyone could use a snack every now and then :)

Being able to completely redecorate your room, like painting the walls a new color, or getting a new bed frame

Supplies for a hobby you have, like ingredients if you like to cook, or stationary if you like drawing and writing

New friends or just more cool people in your life !

Plushies !!! Can’t have too many plushies

The health and happiness of a family member, a friend, or even a pet

Cool art prints !

That’s all I have for right now !! Hope to have more ideas soon ! <3

[puppyeared]

AND I MET THE CHANGE GOD TOO. OKAY. COOL OKAY

[3liza]

literature YouTuber started their essay on Capote's swans by pronouncing Proust as prowst and eschew as askew within, literally, two minutes, and I had to assume the rest of the essay was at an equivalent level of insight into the topic so I just gave up and watched something else