turbinefashion

[thebeigelunatics]

i listened to a podcast that recapped and reviewed s4 and one of their chief complaints when it was said and done was that they felt lamb was a bit too soft now in comparison to prior seasons but more so in comparison to his book version. which i've no problem with—art is subjective and all opinions are valid. and i agree with them to an extent. i do think lamb was a bit softer, a bit gentler in s4. but i don't personally see it as a problem?

i think in a series of books, particularly in sort of spycraft/thriller/pulp crime novels that it makes sense for the lead to maintain a certain shape to the readers? for instance, as a kid i was really into raymond chandler's works and his crafted idol philip marlowe was virtually the same from start to finish. no matter what he came up against, it never fundamentally changed him or how he approached a case.

i understand how characters like that can be satisfying for book readers. whereas, imo, i don't think a character developed for television can every series be exactly the same and it be as equally satisfying. if that makes sense? i think lamb needs to have an arc. i also don't think that means that by the end of the show, he should be jolly father christmas. that will never happen. but i do think it's ok for him to have layers and feel drawn to other characters and have feelings about them. i think its ok if he expresses them.

idk i felt gary oldman did a lot of nuanced work in s4 and lamb imo did feel a bit different but i think it was earned? i think his relationship with standish and river in particular warrants him being slightly altered. and i hope that continues. i love his rough edges and his fear of letting people get close to him. but that only works for me and continues to be interesting if there are cracks where we get to see him trying to connect and work through that.

[supermaks]

Someone needs to write the jhonny herbert x max verstappen enemies to lovers fic... I'm sorry

Literally closest I can get to ur ask I swear but ummm heres a deep dive into herb/max and stewarding in general ig dont u be sorry Im the 1 whos gotta beg ur forgiveness for this because nobody cares u definitely wanted none of this and yet. Heres some chronological quotes some opinions and a lil bit of history and idk love u

Bolded segments just mean that I personally find his wording kinda telling or relevant

"What surprised me was when Max had to let Lewis by he moved over on to the sand, off the racing line. (...) He should have forced Lewis to go on the dirt to pass. That’s what I would have done." - JH on a column for Motorsport Magazine in June, 2021

“I think there is an element that Lewis with experience, that he knows when to pull out, but I love Max, I love what he does on the racetrack, I love what he does behind the wheel. These situations are going to happen. Lewis has done it in the past as well. So it is really going to be down to when you pick your moments to say it is not worth the risk. Maybe it was an over-ambitious move but it had to be made. Max was fully committed, perhaps he should have braked or backed out of the throttle but I doubt there was time, and he wanted the pass." - JH post the Monza 2021 crash.

"I think it just shows what Max is willing to do to try and win this World Championship. (...) Although I love Max because of what he does on the race track, I agree with Lewis, he does really push the limits and sometimes he pushes it too much." - JH to Sky in 2021 after Jeddah 2021.

“You’ve got to be selfish, I think, in any sport in many respects to get the best out of yourself, give yourself those race-winning chances and, of course, championships. That’s why he’s a two-time World Champion. Selfishness is something we’ve seen with Fernando Alonso and Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, the list goes on. So seeing that sort of situation was a bit of a bad taste in your mouth, but you sort of understand it as a sportsman and a Formula 1 driver.” - JH post Brazil 2022 when Max did not let Checo thru despite team orders.

"He’s got the aggressive style that comes with it and there was always a thing, I remember going back to Senna, many people used to gasp when they saw Senna’s helmet in their mirrors and Max has generated a similar thing that when it’s Max behind you, there is sort of a little bit of attention has to be paid for the overtake that you know is going to be coming your way. But that’s part and parcel of what racing is all about. It’s the mind games that come into play at the same time, that’s something he is very, very strong on. (...) I thoroughly enjoy what I see. I was a little bit critical when he kept having his coming togethers with Lewis, for example, and that’s one part of it where I’m like, 'Just do it pure. You’re so, so good at what you do, just do it in a pure, clean way and just show us why you are the best’. He does that, but he has that slightly aggressive style but it actually makes it entertaining as well and he won’t stop doing it, which is great and he shouldn’t stop doing it because I think we all love what he does. - JH to SI in 2023

"I think he's already there as one of the best we've seen. (...) I think with Max to me there is a wow factor. Whatever you think of Max with his elbows out type of racing, that's part of racing to be honest. It's not my style but that really doesn't matter. Because what he actually does with a racing car sometimes is pretty unbelievable. (...) Max will become better than Lewis Hamilton, Lewis was better than Michael Schumacher and Schumacher was better than Senna. It just evolves. - JH in 2023

"It is deliberate which is why I use the word intimidation where he goes to the very limits without getting himself in trouble. But he has always had this in his history. (...) He is a hard racer. He is very, very hard to beat. He intimidates everybody. That intimidation is something that Lewis, Schumacher, and Senna, have always done. I like competition because I think it is a very important part of racing. But I sometimes don’t like it when he gets to the point that you are actually forcing a car off the circuit. That is not what it is all about. It is about placing the car. He does place the car very well, but he just has that tendency to put everyone else in a position which goes beyond the drivers’ unwritten code. That is what we saw in Austria. (...) Will it change his mindset? Probably not. No driver before, like Michael Schumacher, never changed their approach. And I don’t want him to. I find it really exciting. It is just when he gets to that point, he can only blame him. It was very clear to everyone, he would not change his stripes. - JH on Austria 2024 10 sec pen vs Lando

"That showed Max’s rebellious streak. I love that side of him, it is what makes Max, Max, his honest and outspoken character." - JH after giving Max community service for swearing and Max held his own press conference post Singapore 2024

"He’s very worldly. He’s very open to chat about anything and you have a really nice conversation with him. So he was very understanding. He did his outside press conference himself and everything else but that’s good, because that’s part of the character, and the character is something we don’t want to lose. That’s Max. If he was here today, you’d have a bloody good chat with him." - JH post the 20 second penalty in Mexico 2024

Heres an opinion piece from 2021 titled 'Written rules for racing shouldn't exist' — Johnny Herbert. His whole chest honey. Just a taste but pls read the whole thing

Written rules for racing shouldn’t exist, because aggression is part of it and always has been. (...) There’s another word: intimidation. You get drivers who have a persona for being extreme in this regard – but what’s wrong with it? (...) But rules for racing is simply not what it should be about. I know Formula 1 has a driver steward, in this case Derek Warwick who has normally been good at allowing racing to happen, [AN: LMFAOOOO iykyk] and I’ve been the driver steward in the past too. (...) Consistency from corner to corner is also difficult. Remember Turn 3 with Charles and Max in 2019, when Max dived down the inside, took the line and that forced Charles to run wide? That was deemed okay and Max won the race. Very clever from Max. Did he delay steering right a little? Probably. Did he lean on him on the exit? Yes. Good racing. But at Turn 4, it’s a penalty. (...) I feel a reset is required and the drivers have to be involved. I’d get rid of rules for racing and ask drivers if it is acceptable or not. Let them race and sort it out between them. If they go off the track taking the outside line, that was the risk they took. 

Ok I've gone on unhinged rants about herb before I'll try to like take him more seriously here and try to really understand tf his deal is. Lets inspect the initial quotes for a sec.

Theres common elements over the years. Relentless comparisons to other aggressive drivers 'of a different time' ((two in particular)) the word 'intimidation', the acknowledgement of skill, the idealization of 'old school' racing as what Max is able to produce and like a lil bit of an idealization of Max himself. Like . Like me. Like a verstappie. Like 'Max is Max' type of shit we do yk, but whereas somebody like T Krav wud be a lil venomous in tone Herbert is like kicking his feet and giggling but also while holding a sniper rifle aimed directly at Maxs head.

So the whole Max Vershmacher thing. Lets kick that door right open ok. Johnny Herbert was Schumachers teammate and he didnt have a good time. Hes talked about it a lot, how tough it was to always be outpaced, outranked, to feel like he didnt have the team like Michael had the team, like he never got a real shot, even tho he recognizes realistically he wud have lost anyway. ((I'm not saying I believe everything he says, but Im not gonna invalidate how he felt)) So when he compares Max wid Schumacher, hes not just like comparing Max to somebody he raced against, but to a teammate he lost to. Badly. He knows how Michael operates, how Michael drives, those 'mind games', that 'intimidation', those were things he cud not replicate. Where Michael thrived, and continued to thrive wid the people he then took to Ferrari, Herbert failed. Michael created an environment where his 'over-aggression', his 'tactics', his 'selfishness', built him up as 1 of the best of all time, and Max is doing the same, in a completely different formula 1, under a different rule book, in different cars, against a different grid. So while Herbert recognizes Max's craft is ruthless, but intelligent, and precious, hes fed up wid that shit lmfao. No bitch hes HAD it wid some guy wid an weird accent and a temper and a team under his thumb being a cunt on track because he knows how the game is played and he knows how to throw his dice first.

Now Herbert is in a room where he actually has power over him. He can ask Max to battle in a 'pure' way, like he did in that Sports Illustrated interview, as if an actual battle for a world title between 2 machines wid significant pace difference between them can or shud be anything remotely close to 'pure'. Because when people saw Sennas helmet in their mirrors and raced him different that was iconic, the mark of a true racer, real racing, like Herbert said, but wid Max, now, when he defends not just his position, but his title, his name, its profane, its not allowed, and he needs to repent for it. He needs to be punished. Worst part of this to me is that Herbert kinda knows he can do shit like he did in Mexico because Max wont be affected by it. Max wont change. Michael never changed.

A lil bit of history because this is my house. Former drivers only began acting as stewards in 2010. Jean Todt did it as an experiment in response to criticism about 'inconsistency'. 😐😐😐😐 Girl I know just let me remind u they didnt have the halo until 2018. Ok

Until 2010 sometimes u had a whole panel of stewards without any driving experience, and theres plenty u can google about controversial stewarding calls during that time. Herbert was one of the first f1 drivers to act as a steward. So was Prost, and Mansell. Cool. Now lets do a simple exercise. Damon Hill was appointed a steward while Schumi was still driving. Do u think there was anything inconsistent or even perhaps .. controversial about any of those races. Just an example. Ur nodding. We're all nodding

Obvi having actual drivers weight in on decisions regarding motor racing is step forward, wanna make that clear. But these men's contribution to the panel is affected by whatvr the fuck happened during their time as racing drivers, is influenced by their own perception of the racers in question, or the track, or their literal subjective interpretation of the Driving Standard Guidelines. Lets not even get into these Guidelines bro I've called Max an old testament god but literally bar for BAR the bitch is in there

Theres no magical solution for somebody like Herbert and how he behaves when it comes to Max, except maybe holding his hand when hes about to put 20 seconds on dudes head for a 2nd penalty that shud be 5 and being like hey. U just gave him community service for saying a bad word. Have u eaten today, some water, lets go outside. People will point to other stewards and be like but they're biased too, and its like, yuh, thats part of the game. Thats part of F1. All of this shit is bananas AND F1.

Herberts lastest compliment to Max which came attached to a bunch of other damage control was 'worldly'. He has called Max clever, smart, rebellious, exciting, dangerous, intimidating, selfish, and Max. Just Max. 'Max is Max', somebody else said, and that was enough because he understood. That person was Max's teammate once. Maybe Herbert also understands, because of his former teammate. His teammate's name is enough too.

The whole community service thing, this latest penalty, the frankly shocking things he said about how he saw Austria. Maybe this was some form of retaliation for COTA, maybe it was just normal Herbert escalation. He wants Max tamed. He wants Max gentled, mostly because he knows, again, he has said this, multiple times, that its futile to try. U want a herbert/max f1c I'll give u that. A 60 year old mans constant and relentless attempts to stifle a 20 something year old he cant control because it means he gets to c him remain defiant. Herb gets to c him walk into the one room that he controls, and remain uncontrollable. Maybe he will refuse to answer questions and hold his own presser outside, but thats part of his character and the character is something we dont want to lose. Not again.

[gayferrari]

hi🥰 I'm new to F1 , started watching for Franco, and I've heard about the rumours that he might go to RedBull, and the reactions here have been so negative? like I dont get it, isn't it better for him to have a seat at a relatively good team, instead of Sauber? because the alternative is no seat at all, and that would suck. I feel like this is related to the way Daniel was treated but I don't know the full context to have an informed opinion on this, and I would love to know your opinion since you clearly know more about this than me ❤

Hii! welcome to f1blr 🥰 I've seen the rumours (that I personally think are unfounded) but not the reactions so idk how much help I can be. I'd assume that people might be upset bc the main reason Liam was swapped for Daniel mid season was so he could get immediate experience in the VCARB and potentially moving up to RBR in 2025, and if Red Bull were to get somebody else, and a rookie at that, they'd have done the swap for no reason. Another reason could he that Red Bull have their own juniors, who have been overlooked in the last few seasons with the VCARB seats locked in, and bringing in a Williams junior would go against the point of having a development program (I'd expect this argument especially from fans of Isack Hadjar, the Red Bull junior who could end up winning F2).

I agree that Red Bull would be huge for Franco but I highkey doubt it's been seriously considered at any point. iirc Horner said “we'd be remiss if we didn't look at all options" when asked about Franco, didn't bring him up spontaneously, and he's a known shit stirrer. Liam will get Red Bull and there might be an open VCARB seat (if Hadjar doesn't take it) but releasing Franco from Williams might be costly / complicated for RBR especially when they have their own junior waiting in the wings. OTOH, Franco is a proven point scorer and is hugely marketable. The one thing that might really be in his favour is the amount of support he's been receiving, not just from Argentinian fans but Latin America as a whole, and especially if they're letting Checo go, RBR might seriously consider him. But VCARB looks way more likely than the main team

pls if anyone knows more than I do feel free to chime in!!

[abnormalpsychology]

Sometimes this site gives me a much brighter flame of hope for the future and sometimes it makes me a whole lot worse. I think that’s worth being transparent about actually

[hero-of-the-wolf]

listen hear me out—

what if eow takes place after the original loz?

[ganondoodle]

okay, bc i have seen this argument alot now (and it also seems to be the view point of aonuma himself..) is that "zelda cant do everything link does bc whats the point then"

and i take personal offense on that bc its a stupid argument (in. my. very. personal. opinion.- not judging people for liking it. its a ME thing)

whats the point? its that its her. its still a different character, different in story, background, personality, but i WANT to play zelda and she can do everything link does, why does she have to be so restricted and be bend over backwards to find some new way to make her 'useful' when link gets to do basically everything no questions asked (the only thing thats hers is like .. sealing power and sacrificial maiden, which i find a little underwhelming to say the least), if theres no point to it why are there always modders that model swap link with someone else, and in that case it has even less impact bc its an artificial model swap with no changes to the story (which can and should still be different when its the vanilla game with a different protagonist... its still a different character), clearly theres joy in just the model being a different one- and that isnt even to mention the story possibilities, since, again, its stil a different character

if we ever (never ... i know who we are talking about here) get to play as ganondorf i want to him to be just as versatile and active as link is, if we got a point and click adventure game for him instead bc 'whats the point' id be disappointed too- you can find any sort of excuse/explanation for zelda to be singled out but the fact remains it tracks with how female characters are often treated, and that hits a very sore spot for me

i guess i am unfortunately one of those annoying people that want to see female characters be treated exactly the same as male characters, possibly bc i am myself afab but identify as agender and have a deeply personal dislike for anything 'traditional' feminine bc i cannot and never will be able to truly live as myself in real life, it influences all of my work, my work is as just as much as my opinion on this, very personal

and in line with my point about modding, i see theres joy in just beign able to play as her even if its like this, i get that, i also get it for the creative aspect (though that mechanic worries me even more for the future bc it really seems to be the path now that -freedom = good, linear anything = bad-) it is a different idea and its not like i cant see that value- im not trying be "right" either, just bc i have that opinion doesnt mean i need everyone to agree, its a very personal thing, if you like it good for you! not for me though, and i think both of that is equally valid

i just personally wish she was allowed to be just like link, fight just like him but be different bc its still her and not him in the end- to be physically/playstyle like jsut like him, but you know ... as her, i dont think shed stop being zelda if she could wield a sword just like him

i dont really know how to get my point/feelings across, i dont want to step too much into personal stuff nor spam people with something that ultimately doesnt interest me alot, im just saddened by it really

(EDIT: bc i forgot to add this on here again; this isnt as much of a problem as it might sound like here, just the main topic i wanted to talk about; why im so uninterested in it is MAINLY bc i dont trust them to write anything interesting/care about lore anymore after totk, im always on the more pessimistic side that thinks its most likely worse than id hope and i know even the past games arent perfect or super interestingly written, but now its much more just a general distrust, together with everything like the price ... im just much less hopeful and cant get excited until i see more of it, like im waiting for the game to get out and reveal that its just as much of a mess and money i regret spending- kind of fear)

[moeblob]

son boy raccoon trash can man suffering in a dnd au as a cleric bc his warlock will not stop committing murders and he has to keep coming up with reasons murder is valid to convince the gm its fine and under control

[tangerinemoon]

my most controversial opinion still stands that mha should’ve ended with deku sacrificing himself to end the war and tenko/tomura inheriting OFA

it’s still the story about how he became the number one hero, but it’s through his sacrifice to save the world and his legacy living on in tenko, the new symbol of peace

[oceanwithouthermoon]

ive been unhealthily fixated on kubosai for the past few weeks, i just have no idea how to put it into words. kuboyasu aren and saiki kusuo are in love btw

[femmesandhoney]

some of yall come into radical feminist spaces where many are just rad-aligned or feminists in general and then weirdly assume every woman you speak to must all subscribe to every radical ideology ever made just because they agree with radical feminism as if people on radblr aren't all at various stages of agreement and disagreement with radical feminism and label themselves many things besides radfem. if you come for women on here for not being "radical" enough for you despite knowing this i think you're just looking to stir up problems for no reason tbh

[godsfavoritescientist]

well hold on, if we define a character flaw as any limitation a character deals with, regardless of whether it's something Morally Wrong With Them or not, then Ford's paranoia counts as a character flaw since it does in fact negatively impact him and the people around him. Let me use better wording here: I will die on the hill that Ford's paranoia is not a moral failing.

[storywestistrash]

i am actually so tired of the way westerners treat eastern europeans

[inahallucination]

whats a dps headcanon/characterization that u cant get behind

no judgement zone

well other than mine

and anyone else who sees ur response ig

but all in good fun or ill bite

[rolandkaros]

reason #3299874 why i hate tennis twitter: i hate how idealistic it feels to say “omg we’re ALL sort of right.” like there should be a substantial middle ground here somewhere and instead it always feels like im being weirdly diplomatic. people are spreading misinformation about how drugs and drug tests work. people are ignoring the very real and EXPERT opinions that were used in the process of ruling. people are pretending to be oblivious to why players might find the whole scenario upsetting anyway. people are projecting their paranoia about doping onto a case where it isn’t applicable. people are using completely impermissible evidence to prove why he obviously did or didn’t dope. nick kyrgios is an idiot. and we’re going in circles and have gotten no where and at the end of the day whatever YOU say will not change the fact that he did in fact get two positive doping tests AND the experts supported a conclusion of no fault no negligence. so where does that leave us.

[bearenjoyers]

sorry im just thinking about bcs but like. why not add a few smaller scenes of gus interacting with his own men? why does it seem like, in comparison, mike is almost immediately elevated to a higher status than those two in bcs purely because we actually get to see him having normal conversations with gus? like i understand they might not keep the plot moving as well because of the fact obviously if victor is currently doing something it’s because gus told him to etc. but for the most part all of the smaller interactions gus does have with those two ends up being in a somewhat high stress situation where it feels very tense between everyone. and it’s just like damn! is it always like that?? why do those two even care that much about their jobs if their boss is a bit of a dick? etc. i think even an additional scene or two with those guys (either alone or the both of them) talking with gus in a more normal situation could’ve both added a bit more depth into how gus treats his employees (we got a lot with how he treats lyle and co., but not a whole lot with the illegal side of things), how comfortable vic and tyrus feel around him in a calmer setting, and exactly why they both feel the need to be as loyal as they are to the guy.

and also on the other side of this i don't think it'd hurt to maybe elaborate on their pay just a bit..? i'm not saying to randomly put a number out into the atmosphere but i just mean some smaller things like. do they buy nicer things for themselves? what's their housing situation? what's their car situation? are the escalade / yukon their own vehicles or does gus just use those two for business situations? do they use them when they're doing their own stuff off the clock or do they have their own cars? etc. that can also help with understanding their motivations a bit. don't get me wrong i don't think they should be visibly rich or something because that's not what gus would want but just smaller things! cause it's easy to write their loyalty off as Well they probably get paid super well, which i'm sure is true, but if they don't show a single hint of that then what's the point. even something as simple as giving tyrus a nice watch, or maybe victor having a nicer looking gun, etc. something small like that. because as it stands right now the average 41 year old viewer who watched the show once only knows and will only ever know victor and tyrus as those two guys in the background who do random stuff for gus with no clear motivation. just the personification of "On it boss (salute emoji)". and to be honest this is true for a whole lot of fans who do watch the show multiple times and enjoy thinking about it more in depth, because on screen we barely have anything about the two.

and to be clear i'm not trying to say we should have an episode just for them or something like no i understand they're side characters. i understand we don't need all that. and i understand this is also primarily Jimmy's show. but it's not like these two are on the same level as like, arlo or paige and kevin etc. these guys have been around since brba. victor was literally introduced in the same episode gus was. and they are a huge part of gus's story, especially in brba. s4 wouldn't have been what it was without victor and tyrus. and in bcs, ignacio's situation wouldn't have been the same if it weren't for victor and tyrus as well. and i just personally believe that if their goal with gus in bcs was to go back and elaborate on how everything came to be and show what he was like a few years younger, they could've dragged victor and tyrus into that. and i think his character would've benefited from taking that extra step with those two.

[ruvviks]

what is the event/main cause that made roksana cut her mom off?

now this is interesting to talk about because it would be a very gradual process spanning over many many years but it would all come to explode during the events of the broker, despite that fic focusing on vitali; the events of that fic affect his whole family even though it doesn't elaborate much on the effects on his siblings. i initially had several chapters dedicated to roksana but had to cut it short and put it all in one chapter only but when i go for the rewrite i'm putting all of the initial ideas back because it's IMPORTANT. she and vitali are so similar in so many ways but also not at the same time. anyway ok yes here we go

so for roksana specifically she's kind of been a background character in the family ever since she was young. you'd think that after two other kids her parents would know how to parent her correctly but instead they just kind of let her do her thing and she got away with everything, which was nice in a way because it gave her freedom within the house itself but outside of that there was just nothing there for her. with the whole world to her disposal but nobody there with her to help her or keep her company through it all life just got suffocating to her in a way :(

she felt trapped in her family and her brothers always got the spotlight (mostly negative attention, since mainly their mother nadya was always just angry at vitali and after vitali left home daniil just kind of became her new therapist; but roksana did not really pay attention to this, all she saw was her brothers getting attention and not her), so roksana ended up fitting herself into all the boxes her parents wanted her to be in just to get some attention from them and get the love that she deserved. she was the family's poster child, but at the same time this whole role was an act of her, acting the way people expected her to act to get some respect and it was actively chipping away at her psyche, it stopped her from actually growing up and becoming her own person if that makes sense?? her personality was just fabricated specifically for her parents. but that's not who she was or wanted to be. but she knew nothing else

roksana and her father matvey have always had a very professional relationship. he was always busy with work and didn't do a lot of parenting so roksana came to see him more as a guy who lived under the same roof as her rather than her father; in the broker this escalates with matvey seeking revenge against vitali and roksana getting dragged into it and becoming a messenger girl in it all, but by then she's entirely neutral towards her father so there's not even bad blood between them when she stops talking to him; he's just a stranger to her. this is what much later allows her to hesitantly come back after vitali and matvey have made amends to try and build up that relationship again

roksana and her mother nadya however are a different story. the main difference is that roksana always hoped that nadya would understand; that she would understand the position roksana was in and understand her anger and her misery and her sorrows and regrets and that she would try to make it easier for her, give her some relief from the burdens she had to carry. but nadya refused to listen to roksana and refused to take her seriously (much like how she had always treated vitali; important to note that vitali is a trans man and to nadya he was still "her daughter"), not allowing her to show any sort of weakness because she herself had by then long killed her own weaknesses within herself and she expected roksana to do the same

and nadya got what she wanted. roksana grew up a cold and bitter woman, she let her anger win (contrasting vitali who after all this time STILL chooses kindness; if the roles for him and roksana had been reversed, though, he would have turned out the same as her, but the contrast and parallels between vitali and roksana is a story for another time) and she knows it's nadya's fault and she HATES her mother for it. she hates what nadya turned her into and she hates that she never got a normal childhood and she wants nothing more than to get out of there. this is why she vanishes from night city after her appearance in the broker fic, and why initially it is entirely unclear if she'll ever come back

so basically to summarize, nadya robbed roksana of her childhood and her softness and her ability to become her own person by forcing her to be the poster child of the family, and in classic dobrynin family fashion roksana tends to take grudges to her grave, so i don't really see her forgiving her mother for it any time soon. add to that the fact she sees nadya as the cause the entire family started crumbling apart in the first place (whether or not this is true is at this point very hard to tell because like, how far can you trace something like this back and who can be held responsible for what etc etc, but especially taking into consideration she never respected vitali's identity which is what drove him away from home, then did not allow him to reconnect which is what got him into arasaka, and THEN pushed matvey to get revenge after vitali indirectly got them fired at said corporation, and all of THAT is what drove daniil away from home and what caused roksana to change so drastically i'd say it's safe to say she is one of the bigger players in it all LMAO) AND doesn't feel comfortable around her anymore after her affair with ravager (nadya did that while still being married to matvey; they're divorced now), and there you go. mother privileges have been revoked

that being said, roksana does wish things were different. she stuck around for much longer than her brothers did almost in an attempt to fix things?? which again parallels vitali with how he also ends up trying to fix things in the broker fic but basically both of them fail and that's why roksana ends up leaving, she doesn't see the point in staying anymore because there's nothing there for her anymore :(

she does eventually come back to reconnect with vitali (most of their past beef was caused by twisted perspectives of the other's life at home as a child + daniil's rancid behavior bringing out the worst in both of them) and matvey (what i said earlier about them being strangers; no bad blood so an attempt can be made), but nadya has been cut off entirely and so has daniil for roksana because of how similar he is in his behavior to their mother, i talked a bit more about that here

this got very long i am so sorry i am positively insane about this family and all the dynamics. basically the tl;dr is that nadya gets worst mother of the year award forever and always