#like obviously I COULD but... the contrast.......

[arwensarboretum]

I think another thing to consider with regards to grief, especially in the case of Alan and Gordon is the loss of their mother. Obviously Jeff's death took a big toll on everyone and it results in some really unhealthy coping as the boys persist in eternal optimism that maybe they'll find him one day, which is contrasted with the harsh and completely certain death of their mother. There is no "maybe" there. No matter what iteration of Thunderbirds we're viewing, Lucille Tracy is gone. Alan and Gordon would have complicated relationships with that as they were undoubtably young when it happened - Alan noted he was even starting to forget Jeff so there is definitely memory gaps in regards to Lucille there, but it means that the boys have two very different takes on death - one where it is final and over and nothing can be done, and the other where there's still some hope. And I think that contrast propels them into the infinite optimism, not only BECAUSE Jeff started IR as a result of Lucille's death and literally taught the boys how to have radical hope in the face of death and that they should never stop fighting for life until it's too late because they know concretely what too late looks like, but also because it's a way of keeping Jeff alive, and honouring his beliefs, carrying forward his legacy. I think Jeff, in many ways, seeded the radical hope in them - that there's always something they can keep trying to do until it's too late, and unless they see a body, it's hard to accept that it is too late. I think the persistent blind hope isn't a coping mechanism formed out of just grief, I think it's also there because Jeff taught them that response.

This kinda got off track, so circling back to Lucille: the boys also know how to grieve someone who's gone permanently. Scott, John and Virgil are all (at least headcanoned as being) old enough to remember Lucille and have her be an important impact in their lives and losing her did teach them more about proper and healthy grief in regards to how they coped with her death. No one was trying to bring her back and nothing would have. And I think that reality stays with the boys and sits with them too and to some degree there is healthy grieving that happens and the younger boys aren't only learning unhealthy coping mechanisms from their older siblings.

Of course, this is mostly head canon as the show really doesn't delve in Lucille basically at all (TOS literally doesn't mention her and in the movie we have a conversation and a picture), but the implication of her presence and loss is always there and I think if the shows had decided to delve into Lucille more we could have gotten a more balanced or healthier view of grief and coping with the loss of a loved one. Admittedly, the creators never focused on it, but I think it's there.

P.S. Grandma and Kyrano (mentioned but never shown) also display more healthy expressions of grief. Grandma is clearly sad whenever she talks about Jeff but she's also so proud of him. She loves telling stories about him and telling the boys how much like their dad they are and how he'd be proud of them. She remembers him well and uses him as a way to support the boys, but she never desperately clings to his memory or tries to bring him back. She doesn't discourage the search for Jeff but she doesn't go out of her way to push it forward either, except when they have reasonable proof that he at least could be alive. Lee Taylor has a similar take. They miss Jeff and they love Jeff but they can accept his absence.

Grandma even enjoys telling stories about the boys' mother in Home on the Range. She has a level head about grief and is modelling healthy coping to the boys.

Kyrano isn't seen at all and we know he's absent from the Island and has been since Jeff's disappearance, so we can't know how well he's doing or not, but we know that he left. Sometimes, in the face of grief, change is helpful. While we don't know the nature of the change, it's at least demonstrating to the boys that sometimes when things go wrong, you need to do something different to help you grow in new ways to gain perspective, and while I can't make this claim with certainty because of the lack of information, I think the lessons at least COULD be there. And I think that's worthwhile too.

Now that I think about it...

In TAG the fact all of the Tracy family still believed that Jeff could be alive is really unhealthy. Like if we are being realistic, they watched their dad get blown up. They searched for ages, and they did everything they could for years. But getting to the 8 year mark and still not having closure, must have wrecked them. I know it sounds bad, but it would have been far more rational if they just grieved his death like it was a real death and gave up looking for what only could have been a body. I know it's not necessarily a choice to just let someone go, but the fact the Tracy Brothers (specifically Scott and Virgil) were saying they were going to find him, is just wow. Obviously, it's great they didn't give up because well, you know. But still...I think about that a lot.

[blujayonthewing]

the one downside of giving melliwyk white hair is that I can't do her hair with things like these

or these

[fredoesque]

see the THING about goodsir and stanley is that goodsir may be way less inclined to act cruelly but he has a far greater capacity for it.

[florshedworf]

why is every fucking host RECTANGULAR this is getting ridiculous

[dykejugheadjones]

there is a special place in hell for season eight of supernatural

[bayetea]

I am once again stating that people who complain about fanartists drawing black annabeth in any context (in general/with book percy/etc) are the lamest people on the planet

[ennard-is-near]

I’m sort of scared that the second FNaF movie won’t feature the bite of ‘87, or at least won’t properly do it, because they don’t want to confirm anything.

There are a few ways that it could be done. Either you have Vanessa talk about it Phone Guy style (+ visual flashback optional), have it happen to a character in the movie in the current year, or do a little reference to it without having it done properly (like the first movie’s “bite of ‘83” that wasn’t really proper, but a reference nonetheless.)

But keep in mind that in the FNaF canon, it is literally never confirmed who the bite victim was or which animatronic did it. Of course, fans are almost positive that it was Jeremy Fitzgerald and Mangle, but it’s never been confirmed. Even The Week Before seemed like it was purposely avoiding saying the victim’s name, instead just opting to call him “the victim.” And they also never say which animatronic it was, instead opting to dodge it completely (ie. “what he did to provoke the attack” using language that skirts around an animatronic entirely and makes it sound like 100% “The Victim’s” fault, which isn’t relevant but it is very funny). And bc it seems like the movie is hesitant to do any canon confirmation of any sort, hence the completely alternate timeline.

I don’t actually think they’ll avoid it entirely, it’s simply too iconic (arguably one of the most iconic parts of the games) but I’m afraid it will be lame. I think that the iconic Bite of ‘87, which happens during the second game, needs to be a large or at least memorable part of the second movie. I think it’s genuinely necessary. And you will be hearing a long, bitchy rant from me if it isn’t included up to my very high standards (swirls my expensive wine in my expensive wine glass.)

[lemurballing]

tangle is so fun because she is a juxtaposition of something collected and contained with something loose and free and in motion

she’s a rough brawler but she has a stance and a style. she’s impulsive and thrillseeking, but she wraps her arms in sports tape to protect them, a precaution. she longs for adventure and action but she will always need to come to rest at home with friends. she’s bouncy and restless, but she’s an intent listener and considerate. she’s got months of off-and-on experience fighting badniks, but is still so new to real Adventure.

and while there’s plenty of traits sonic and tangle share, you can’t reduce her to ‘girl sonic’ without neglecting something of her own characterization. she fundamentally wants something different out of life than sonic does, because she doesn’t need to be anchorless; she isn’t a backpacker, sleeping somewhere new every night. she’s more like a goose, or a frigate bird; flying free for ages and ages, knowing she wants to go somewhere, until time comes to call her back to her origin.

[one-little-nerd-stayed-home]

On an above the table level I have to say what a joy it has been to watch this specific cast play a ttrpg because they all have such a distinctive style of gameplay that mesh and contrast with the rest of the table so interestingly.

Like there's Freddy vs Alex obviously but even watching Siobhan vs Freddy is neat because they're both playing loud and dramatic characters but handle it so differently or Hank vs Danielle who both play So So Smart (not that the others didn't but the strategy from those two was just neat) and Trapp and Alex's commitment to their characters respective bits.

And like obviously people never shut up about Brennan's GMing but the man truly does understand how to run a game and manage a table of players.

And it was just such fun to watch them all bounce off of eachother.

[heartual]

had such a good experience with surgery today i can’t even fully explain

[skrunksthatwunk]

ok i know everyone says "love like you is soooo xyz shipcore" but i need you to know it's kuwameshicore to me. song's got yusuke written all over it arright. in case you don't have the lyrics memorized like i do here they are

[my-current-obsession]

So I've only played Baxter's step 4 (and 3) once so far so maybe I missed the options to lead me down the path I wanted, but for the first time in this game I felt pretty railroaded.

So for context, I did get romantically involved with him in step 3. Was okay breaking things off when he left because I understood a long-distance relationship wasn't feasible but I had hoped to stay in contact as friends and didn't appreciate him shutting that down. But I did respect his wishes and not even bother reaching out to him when it was clear he wanted to cut ties entirely. I chose the "for better or worse you don't really care anymore" option about how I felt when step 4 kicked in, because I'd like to believe I would be over any pain/anger from a brief fling from five years ago.

Of course, then you unexpectedly reunite and he proceeds to continue trying to freeze you out WHILE highkey reminiscing and wanting to relive all the good moments you shared, which is confusing and frustrating.

I was wanting to play things in a sort of "once bitten, twice shy" way. I was open to giving him another chance and wanted him in "my" life again, but only if HE was also willing to put in the effort. Beyond getting answers for his behavior and why things are the way they are, I actually DIDN'T want to be pushing to be part of his life. Not while he was still pushing me away. Why should I be making an effort and getting hurt repeatedly when ANY kind of relationship (not just a romantic one) takes work and dedication from BOTH sides?

But this is where the game absolutely failed to provide me the stance I wanted, which in turn make the entire resolution to the conflict not sit well with me. Once Baxter started opening up about WHY he cut ties and was continuing to be avoidant, I felt very "but thou must" about the choices. Again and again, 4-6 choices with slightly different tones/connotations that ultimately serve to reinforce how we want to help and be close to Baxter as opposed to any other more complicated or negative feelings towards him.

I understand that we're meant to like Baxter and I'm definitely not UNsympathetic to his severe self-worth issues and how that affected how he sees all relationships, but for the first time I feel like the story prioritized painting HIM in such a good light that it forgot to account for a protagonist that was anything other than 100% willing to continue loving and throwing themselves at someone that had ALREADY pushed them away and hurt them before and was CONTINUING to do so.

Why should "I" have to keep chasing relentlessly after someone who repeatedly rejects me? Why do I essentially have to keep bashing my head against this brick wall even when it's obviously bad for me?

What I desperately wanted but felt denied by was a confrontation that led to compromise. I wanted to be able to clearly express "my" hurt/anger and make it clear that while I cared about him, I WOULD NOT keep endlessly trying if he wasn't going to meet me halfway. I cannot single-handedly save the bridge that he is burning, he actually has to STOP burning it for us to get anywhere.

But no, it is only after you prove that you WILL keep trying and caring about him NO MATTER WHAT, no matter how much he continues to hurt and reject you, that he is able to overcome his issues and reciprocate. And really, what's doubly unsatisfying is... aren't we just validating his insecurities this way? It's literally by proving ourselves so stubborn and kind (to our own detriment) that he truly believes we'd never give up on him that he can trust and reach out in turn. Whereas if I had the option to make it clear HE has to work for this if he wants it, then he genuinely needs to face his problems and decides he cares about us more, that we are WORTH the risk.

A relationship takes two... but in this case I felt FORCED to do about 95% of the work in pursuing him AND playing therapist for him. It would have been much more satisfying if, after he rejects you one too many times, you CAN say "screw it" and give up on it just for him to finally turn around and be the one trying to chase YOU instead. I was frankly already pretty fed up with things, but by the ending when he avoided us AGAIN at the wedding (AFTER he'd opened up, more than once, and just generally made it clear that he DID care about you; truly this man is a master of the mixed message) I wanted DESPERATELY to just be able to say "fine, if you won't make an effort then I won't either" and leave it at that. If I was just allowed to express that dissatisfaction and hurt, then him coming around and trying to forge a true, long-lasting connection with us despite his uncertainty would have been so much better.

[st4rstudent]

Giant cornplate post here but I'll get my thoughts out anyways. I really like how even visually Mac and Winn are contrasting yet similar. Winn's main color is yellow and Mac's is purple, which are contrasting colors. Yet, they both wear green. And then both of them having glasses but they're different shapes (circle vs square). and ouuughhoguhgh. theyre good friends. i like them.

[sskk-manifesto]

♡

[icewindandboringhorror]

Recent game related things .. hrmm...

[avesomnia-inhoramortis]

How well-known are you in the Lands Between? Are you an obscure figure, or would you say you have a decent sized following?

I have... a bit of a fringe following, so to speak? Those who tend to find me, or who seek me out, are the ones in most dire need of rest. Someone is in pain, and then they find me. Perhaps they are part of a group in pain, and spread word of me. Slaves, prisoners, the chronically ill, those persecuted and dispossessed- all have good reason to find me, but it is hardly a... centralized thing. I have no official chapels nor holy days. I believe I have been mentioned in the books of Golden Order monks in the same breath as paganism, which is very funny to me.

I would say... I am obscure to those who live in comfort and means, but well known to certain groups. Which occasionally results in my people being treated as superstitious. A gladiator making use of my lilies might be laughed at, but of what consequence is that if it works?

People call me a saint, but I was never sainted by any official means, and I suppose that summarizes it best. I am a fairytale, in most of the ways that matter, and that suits me very well.